Gamewell Manufacturing, Inc

702 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gaiewell Manufacturing, Inc and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union 159, AFL-CIO Case 11-CA-12458-2 November 15 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS On August 24 1988 Administrative Law Judge Philip P McLeod issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief The National Labor Relations Board has delegat ed its authority in this proceeding to a three member panel The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge s rulings I findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent Gamewell Manufacturing Inc Salisbury, North Carolina its officers agents successors and assigns shall take the action set forth in the Order 1 Pursuant to the General Counsels motion made at the hearing the judge severed and remanded to the Regional Director Cases 11-CA- 12417 11-CA- 12458-1 11-CA-12477 and 11-CA-12499 2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find rags The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products 91 NLRB 544 (1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings Patricia L Timmins Esq for the General Counsel Earnest W Machen Jr Esq (Blakeney Alexander and Machen) of Charlotte North Carolina for the Re spondent DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PHILIP P McLEOD Administrative Law Judge I heard this case on April 11 and 12 1988 in Salisbury North Carolina The charge that gave rise to the case was filed by Sheet Metal Workers International Associa tion Local Union 159 AFL-CIO (the Union) on August 4 1987 On September 23 1987 an order con solidatmg cases complaint and notice of hearing issued in Cases 11-CA-12417 11-CA-12458-1 and 11-CA- 12458-2 On October 29 1987 a second order consoli dating cases amended consolidated complaint and notice of hearing issued consolidating these case with Cases 11- CA-12477 and 11-CA-12499 At the beginning of this trial pursuant to an informal settlement the General Counsel moved to sever and remand to the Regional Di rector Cases 11-CA-12417 11-CA-12458-1 11-CA- 12477 and 11-CA-12499 As a result of my granting that motion the only case remaining before me is case 11- CA-12458-2 which alleges inter alga that Gamewell Manufacturing Inc (Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by discharging employee Jerry Leonard because Leonard and other employees engaged in protected con certed activities and/or union activities In its answer to the complaint as amended Respond ent admitted certain allegations including the filing and serving of the charge its status as an employer within the meaning of the Act the status of Sheet Metal Work ers International Association Local Union 159 AFL- CIO as a labor organization within the meaning of the Act the history of collective bargaining between Re spondent and the Union and the status of certain indi viduals as supervisors and agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act Respondent denied having engaged in any conduct that would consti tute an unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Act At the trial all parties were represented and afforded full opportunity to be heard to examine and cross exam me witnesses and to introduce evidence Following the close of the trial counsel for General Counsel and Re spondent both filed timely briefs with me which have been duly considered On the entire record in this case and from my observa tion of the witnesses I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Gamewell Manufacturing Inc is a Michigan corpora tion with a plant located in Salisbury North Carolina where it is engaged in the manufacturing of air handling and environmental equipment In the course of its busi ness operations Respondent annually receives at its Salis bury facility materials and supplies valued in excess of $50 000 directly from points outside the State of North Carolina In addition Respondent annually ships from its Salisbury facility products valued in excess of $50 000 di rectly to points outside the State of North Carolina Respondent is and has been at all times material an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act II LABOR ORGANIZATION Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union 159 AFL-CIO is and has been at all times mate nal a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background On November 1 1985 the Board certified the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of 291 NLRB No 110 GAMEWELL MFG 703 Respondents production and maintenance employees shipping and receiving clerks and leadmen at its Salis bury North Carolina facility Thereafter the parties en tered into negotiations but no collective bargaining agreement was ever consummated On June 12 1987 certain employees commenced a strike which lasted only about a week before employees made an unconditional offer to return to work Jerry Leonard worked for Respondent as a welder and pipefitter from 1980 until his discharge on July 23 1987 During his employment with Respondent Leonard en gaged in extensive and highly visible union activities Leonard was on the negotiating committee that met with Respondent for more than a year following the Union s certification Leonard was also strike captain during the week long strike in June 1987 B Events Following Return of Strikers to Work After the strike was terminated and an offer to return to work was made on behalf of the striking employees Leonard and some of the other strikers were recalled to work on June 25 On the morning they returned to work Plant Manager Lynn Carter held a brief meeting with returning strikers Carter told Leonard and other returning strikers that they had been brought back to work unconditionally Carter stated that there was to be no harassment or name calling by the strikers toward employees who did not join the strike Carter said that any employee striker or nonstnker who engaged in such conduct would be discharged Leonard and Thomas Shipwash both testified credibly that as soon as they returned to work nonstrikers began harassing them and calling them names in Carters pres ence Carter said nothing to the nonstriking employees but instead commented to the returning strikers that they had engaged in harassment while on the picket line and they were just getting back some of their own medicine Leonard immediately pointed out to Carter that Carter had just stated no harassment would be tolerated from either side Carter told Leonard he would talk to the hecklers and stop it but in fact Carter did nothing Leonard testified credibly that the harassment from the nonstrikers continued through the day of his dis charge Employees David Lloyd Ray Parker and other nonstrikers continued to harass Leonard with name call ing and derisive comments on a daily basis Leonard tes tified credibly that during much of this harassment Re spondent s supervisors including Bobby Lloyd and Roy Powell were present Supervisor Bobby Lloyd is the father of employee David Lloyd who Leonard identified as the ring leader of this repeated harassment Roy Powell was Leonard s immediate supervisor Leonard testified credibly that neither Bobby Lloyd nor Powell said anything to employees heckling him and the harass ment continued Leonard also complained about this harassment from nonstrikers to Personnel Manager Frank Merrill About 3 days after returning to work Leonard asked Supervi sor Powell to go and get Merrill and bring him to the work area When Merrill arrived Leonard spoke to him about the representation made by Carter that harassment would not be tolerated either from striking or nonstrik ing employees Leonard complained ' about the harass ment he was receiving and asked Merrill to put a stop to it Merrill told Leonard he would see what he could do but nothing changed In fact harassment by David Lloyd and Ray Parker actually precipitated Leonard s discharge as seen below C Incidents Precipitating Confrontation Between Employee Ray Parker and Leonard On July 22 employee Billy Cranfield who had been one of the strikers received a warning for being out of his work area On July 23 the day of Leonard s dis charge Leonard was approached at his work station by employee David Lloyd Lloyd was out of his work area when he approached Leonard Lloyd began talking to Leonard about the Union stating that the Union was not going to do anything for employees Leonard who was aware of Cranfield s reprimand the previous day saw Supervisor Roy Powell standing nearby Leonard called Powell over to where he and Lloyd were standing Leonard told Powell that Lloyd was at Leonard s work station talking to him about the Union that Powell had given a reprimand to Cranfield the day before for being out of his work area and that Powell should give Lloyd a reprimand too Leonard told Powell that if he did not give Lloyd a reprimand 111 bring you up on charges Powell took Lloyd and left Lloyd was given a repri mand as a result of the incident After the incident Leonard asked Powell why he was receiving all this harassment and why management was against me the way they are Leonard testified credi bly and Roy [Powell] told me that if I would give up my union activities they wouldn t be against me like that And I told him to cram it At lunchtime later that same day Leonard was sitting with employees Shipwash and Cranfield David Lloyd was also eating in the lunchroom at the same time As Lloyd got up to leave he looked over at Leonard and the others and told them that the Company had given him a reprimand as a result of talking to Leonard Leon and testified credibly that Lloyd then stated that if he lost his job he was going to take some of you union son of a bitches with me D Confrontation Between Ray`Parker and Leonard Leonard s Discharge ' After they finished lunch on July 23 Leonard and Cranfield returned to work A short time later Leonard and Cranfield finished the base they were working on and Leonard went to the tool cage at the far end of the plant to get a stand that holds the base i Ray Parker happened to be at the tool cage at the same time As Leonard left the tool cage after securing the part he needed Parker made a loud whoop or hollering sound Leonard testified he could not make out what the sound The welding area where Leonard and Cranfield were working is a large open room which includes two welding shops and a caged supply area located at one end of the room This tool cage which is approxi mately 100 feet away from where Leonard and Cranfield were working is used to hold various tools and supplies 704 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was and when he turned Parker and Robert Susong who worked in the tool cage were standing there grin ning Leonard walked back to the tool cage and asked Parker why Parker was hollering at him According to Leonard Parker responded that he had not been holler ing at Leonard so Leonard apologized and headed back to his work area According to Parker Leonard came up to him and threatened to kick his ass I do not credit Parker that Leonard threatened him Nor do I believe that the exchange between Leonard and Parker at the tool cage was quite as innocuous as Leonard suggests I suspect that Parker s whoop was indeed directed at Leonard in some subtle way and I suspect that Leonard was somewhat antagonistic when he walked back and asked Parker what he had said In any event it is clear that when Parker said the whoop was not directed at Leonard Leonard went back to his work area What happened next was described in as many differ ent ways as there were witnesses One fact that is not in dispute however is that when Leonard went back to this work area Parker pursued Leonard Leonard testi feed that before he reached his work area Parker went running by him like a hurricane to Supervisor Powell According to Leonard Parker told Powell that he had better tell that son of a bitch [Leonard] to leave [him] alone or [he was] gonna kill him Parker then ran toward Leonard yelling you union people are sorry as hell and I hope that everyone of you get fired Parker then ran back and forth between Leonard and Powell cursing and shaking his fist and finger in Leonard s face yelling and threatening to beat up Leonard Leonard backed away several times and asked Powell to take Parker out of the work area According to Leonard Powell just stood there watching At some point during the confrontation Parker began yelling that Leonard had a knife Powell then approached Parker and escorted him to Plant Manager Carter s office Parker does not deny that he pursued Leonard back to Leonard s work area Parker also effectively admits that after doing so he initiated further confrontation with Leonard Parker claims however that Leonard did draw a knife from his pocket during the confrontation Leonard denied drawing a knife on Parker and testified that in fact he never carried a knife at work precisely be cause he knew himself to be too hot tempered Supervi sor Powell who was standing in the immediate area of the confrontation admits that he did not see Leonard with a knife Robert Susong who works in the tool cage described above testified that he saw a knife in Leon and s hand Susong however was almost 100 feet from the site of the confrontation Employee Timothy McManus testified that he was approximately 40 to 50 feet from the confrontation and that he too saw Leon and draw a black handle knife McManus testified that he could not remember whether Parker had anything in his hand because the incident had occurred many months before the trial McManus who had been in prison sev eral months before the time of the trial for possession of a stolen automobile impressed me as being somewhat biased as did most of the witnesses in this case based on their allegiance either to the Union and Leonard or to Parker and Respondent Four other employee witnesses Jay Beacham Rick Gilliam David Osborne and Thomas Shipwash all of whom observed the confrontation and were called by counsel for General Counsel testified that it was Parker not Leonard who drew a knife At least two of them Beacham and Osborne testified they saw Parker swing the knife at Leonard Beacham Osborne and Shipwash were about the same distance from the confrontation as was McManus Gilliam who was only 15 to 20 feet from the confrontation testified that Parker swung at Leonard two or three times that while Parker s hands were moving Gilliam could not see anything but that when Parker s hand became still Gilliam was able to see that he was holding a knife Billy Cranfield who was work ing as Leonard s partner was also about 20 feet from the confrontation Cranfield acknowledged that from his po sition he could not tell if Parker was holding anything because Parker had his fist wadded up Cranfield testi feed very credibly however that during the confronts tion he observed Parker draw back his fist three times as if he was going to hit Leonard Cranfield also testified credibly that during the confrontation he told Supervi sor Powell that he had better go over and break it up but that Powell just stood there and wouldn t do noth ing Finally when Parker yelled out that Leonard had a knife Powell reacted Powell took Parker to Plant Manager Carter s office What Powell may have told Carter about Parker s action is not altogether clear Carter testified simply that Powell told him they had a problem According to Carter Parker was visibly upset and shaking so badly that Parker was given a few minutes to calm down before being asked to describe the problem Parker then told Carter that Leonard had initiated a confrontation with him in which Leonard had threatened to kick his ass and drew a knife on Parker Carter asked Powell if he had seen Leonard draw a knife It is undisputed that Powell told Carter he had not seen Leonard with a knife Carter asked Parker and Powell if anyone else had seen a knife Parker volunteered that Robert Susong might have seen it Carter called Susong to his office Susong related the occurrence as described by Parker Both Parker and Susong indicated a willingness to give a written statement Carter took the statements from Parker and Susong to Production Manager Robert Palmer Without talking to any other witnesses to the confrontation Carter and Palmer jointly decided to dis charge Leonard Carter sent Powell to get Leonard During the walk to Carter s office Leonard asked Powell what was going on Powell responded that Leonard was being accused of pulling a knife on Parker Leonard asked Powell if he had seen him with a knife and at the same time denied having one It is uncontradicted that Powell agreed he did not see Leonard with a knife and that in fact he had told Carter so when asked about the incident When Leonard arrived at Carter s office Carter told Leonard that he had two signed statements that Leonard had pulled a knife on Parker Leonard denied having a knife and emptied his pockets to demonstrate the fact Leon and told Carter that he should ask Powell who was GAMEWELL MFG 705 standing there during the incident and knew that Leon and did not have a knife According to Leonard whom I credit he then told Carter to go out into the shop and talk to some of the other people that were around Carter responded that it was not necessary that he had the two signed statements and that Leonard was fired Analysis and Conclusions Leonard was quite clearly one of the most visible union adherents among employees As well as being on the Union s negotiating committee which bargained with Respondent for more than a year Leonard was also strike captain during the week long strike only a month before his discharge Respondent does not deny being aware of Leonard s union activities Moreover Respond ent admits that after returning to work on the termina tion of the strike Leonard complained to both supervi sors and upperlevel management on several occasions re garding harassment that was being leveled against him by nonstriking employees because of his union activity The record reflects that heckling frequently occurred in the presence of supervisors who stood by and did noth mg In fact I credit Leonard that on at least one occa sion Plant Manager Carter himself stood by and did nothing even to the point of telling Leonard that he was simply getting a dose of his own medicine It will never be known with absolute certainty wheth er either Parker or Leonard had a knife during the con frontation that led to Leonard s discharge What is clear from every witnesses version however is that after their brief encounter at the tool cage Parker pursued Leonard back Leonard s work station and initiated a pro longed near violent confrontation with Leonard During this confrontation Parker acted in an intimidating and threatening manner toward Leonard acting as if he was going to swing at Leonard even if he did not actually do so The one fact that is quite clear is that Parker was the aggressor in this confrontation I also conclude that Supervisor Powell was fully aware of the fact that Parker was to blame for pursuing Leonard and initiating this confrontation Despite his denial Powell could not have missed the fact that Parker acted in a threatening manner toward Leonard as if he was going to hit Leonard Not only was Powell standing in the immediate vicinity but both Leonard and Cran field asked Powell to intervene Powell stood by howev er doing nothing It was only when Parker yelled that Leonard had a knife that Powell moved to break up the incident This conclusion that Powell knew Parker to be the aggressor is also supported by the fact that when he did intervene Powell took Parker not Leonard to the office When Plant Manager Carter was informed of the confrontation between Parker and Leonard Carter chose to rely on the word of Parker the aggressor and em ployee Susong who was almost 100 feet away from the incident Carter made no attempt to investigate the inci dent by talking to other employee witnesses At the very least such an investigation would have revealed that Parker was the aggressor in the confrontation Not only did Plant Manager Carter not attempt on his own initia tive to investigate the incident but he went even further and declined to do so even though specifically asked by Leonard It had to have been clear to Parker from what ever description of the incident Supervisor Powell gave him that Parker was the aggressor or at the very least was as equally responsible as Leonard Respondent opted to discharge Leonard while absolutely no discipline was meted out to Parker All these facts lead me to the con clusion that Respondent purposely used this opportunity to rid itself of Leonard because of his active and highly visible support for the Union This conclusion is strengthened not weakened by Carter s outrageous claim that on three separate occasions Leonard told Carter if Carter did not get David Lloyd to stop harass ing him somebody was going to get cut There is not the slightest bit of doubt in my mind that this and other parts of Carter s testimony as well are a complete fabn cation It is totally incomprehensible that a plant manag er or indeed any supervisor would allow an employee under his supervision to threaten to cut other employees on three separate occasions and yet do nothing Carter s explanation for doing nothing that Leonard did not ac tually direct his threats at a specific employee and that Leonard was simply exercising a right of free speech is absurd It is quite clear from the context of Carter s testi mony that Leonard s alleged threats were directed pre cisely toward Lloyd I find Carters claim that he thought Leonard was simply exercising a right of free speech to be preposterous Carter produced two separate statements describing the events precipitating Leonard s discharge I find it revealing that the first of these two statements does not include any reference to these three alleged threats by Leonard It is also interesting that Carter did not even make any notes to Leonard s person nel file at the time of these alleged threats Much of Carters testimony especially that portion related to these alleged threats by Leonard is quite clearly manu factured out of whole cloth Carters lack of candor tends to undermine Respondents entire position in this case and itself suggests that Respondent was acting with an unlawful motive when it discharged Leonard I conclude that Leonard s union activities were not simply a motivating factor in Respondents decision to discharge him but rather were the motivating factor Respondent seized the opportunity to rid itself of Leon and while at the same time no discipline was meted out to Parker In these circumstances it is quite impossible for Respondent to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the pro tected conduct Counsel the for General Counsel has more than adequately established a puma facie case of discrimination Respondent has failed to overcome the General Counsels puma facie case by demonstrating that it would have taken the same action against Leonard in the absence of the protected conduct Wright Line 251 NLRB 1083 (1980) Accordingly I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Leonard CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent Gamewell Manufacturing Inc is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 706 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 159 AFL-CIO is and has been at all times mate real a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 Respondent discharged employee Jerry Leonard be cause of his activities on behalf of or support for the Union and Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act 4 The unfair labor practices that Respondent has been found to have engaged in as described above have a close intimate and substantial relation to trade traffic and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act I ORDER THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Respondent contends that even if it violated the Act by discharging Leonard for unlawful reasons it should not be required to reinstate Leonard because of the se verity of his conduct in drawing a knife during the con frontation initiated by employee Parker I have carefully considered this issue and in particular the issue whether Leonard in fact drew a knife on Parker As I have indi cated above this is a factual issue that will never be known with total certainty After reviewing all the evi deuce in this case however I am reasonably certain that Leonard did not draw a knife and that in fact neither Leonard nor Parker drew a knife during the confronta tion Parker and two witnesses claimed that Leonard drew a knife Four witnesses claimed that Parker drew a knife and that Leonard did not Leonard himself did not claim that Parker drew a knife Almost every witness in this case impressed me as being emotionally aligned either with the Union and Leonard, or with Respondent and Parker After reviewing all the evidence it is my conclusion that the assertions of the various witnesses that either Leonard or Parker had a knife is partly the result of what they think might have been rather than what they know they saw and partly the result of an at tempt to make the person they are accusing of having had a knife look bad compared with the other person in volved in the confrontation I see no reason to deny Leonard reinstatement particularly in view of the fact that Parker has remained in Respondents employ ever since the day of this incident On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record I issue the following recommend ed2 2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur poses The Respondent Gamewell Manufacturing Inc Salts burg North Carolina its officers agents successors and assigns shall I Cease and desist from (a) Discharging employees because of their activities on behalf of or support for Sheet Metal Workers Inter national Association Local Union 159 AFL-CIO or any other labor organization (b) In any like or related manner interfering with re straining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer Jerry Leonard immediate and full reinstate ment to his former position or if that position no longer exists to a substantially equivalent position without pre,) udice to his seniority and other rights and privileges (b) Make whole Jerry Leonard for any loss of earnings or benefits he may have suffered by reason of the dis crimination against him by paying him a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned from the date of said discrimination to the date of Re spondent s offer of reinstatement less net interim earn ings with backpay to be computed in the manner pro scribed in F W Woolworth Co 90 NLRB 289 (1950) with interest to be computed in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 3 (c) Remove from its files any reference to the dis charge of Jerry Leonard and notify him in writing that this has been done and that evidence of the unlawful dis charge will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against him (d) Preserve and on request make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all pay roll records social security payment records timecards personnel records and reports and all other records nec essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order (e) Post at its Salisbury North Carolina facility copies of the attached notice marked Appendix 4 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11 after being signed by the Respondent s authorized representative shall be posted by the Re spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond ent to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced or covered by any other material , 9 Under New Horizons interest is computed at the short term Federal rate for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621 Interest accrued before 1 January 1987 (the effective date of the amendment) shall be computed as in Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977) 4If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation al Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board GAMEWELL MFG 707 (f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 WE WILL NOT discharge employees because` of their days from the date of this Order what steps the Re activities on behalf of or support for Sheet Metal Work spondent has taken to comply ers International Association Local Union 159 AFL- r APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED' BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or dered us to post and abide by this notice Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act gives employees these rights To organize To form join or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect ed concerted activities CIO or any other labor organization WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL offer Jerry Leonard immediate and full rein statement to his former position or if that position no longer exists to a substantially equivalent position with out prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privi leges WE WILL make whole Jerry Leonard for any loss of earnings or benefits he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by paying him a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned from the date of said discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement less net interim earnings with appropriate interest WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the discharge of Jerry Leonard and notify him in writing that this has been done and that evidence of the unlawful discharge will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against him GAMEWELL MANUFACTURING INC r I 1 J 5 y e Y 1 7