General Electric Co (Hotpoint)

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO General Electric Co (Hotpoint) and Local No 601, United Association of Journeymen and Appren- tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada Case 30-CA- 9450 January 31, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS On July 29, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Wallace H Nations issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief The General Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering briefs 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, i and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order, and to adopt the recommend- ed Order The issue presented is whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by dis- charging Frank Akre after he failed to cross a picket line established by the Union at the Re- spondent's facility on December 29, 1986 In agree- ing with the judge that the Respondent violated the Act by discharging Akre, we rely exclusively on his finding that the Respondent condoned Akre's conduct On December 29, the Union engaged in nonem- ployee picketing of the Respondent's facility after learning that a nonunion subcontractor was per- forming steamfitter work at the plant When proba- tionary steamfitter Frank Akre arrived for work that morning, he discovered that all entrances were picketed Akre was not a union member Union Business Agent Richard Pipke explained the situa tion to Akre Pipke told Akre that it was not in his best interest to report to work, but that Pipke could not tell Akre what to do Before the start of his shift, Akre called his su- pervisor, Lee Herriges Akre told Hernges that he was outside the plant and was advised by the i 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 Or 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings The Respondent has requested oral argument The request is denied as the record exceptions and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties 843 Union not to cross the picket line Akre asked Her- nges what to do Herriges told Akre that he could not tell him what to do, that Akre was in a very difficult position, that Herriges would speak with his supervisor, Murley Henson, 2 and that Akre should call back When Akre called back at 7 45 am, Herriges was in a meeting with Henson Akre spoke with another maintenance supervisor, Pat Zielinski Zie- linski told Akre that Hernges was unavailable, that Zielinski could not tell Akre what to do, that Akre was scheduled to work, and that Akre could3 call Herriges back Akre called back at 8 20 am and received a similar response, although Akre may have volun- teered that he would call back Akre called the plant a fourth time around 8 30 a m and again spoke with Zielinski Zielinski informed Akre that Henson and Unit Manager Thomas Holak were going to the main gate to speak with Pipke Akre indicated that he would meet them at the gate 4 When Akre arrived at the picket line, Henson and Holak had already departed Akre spoke with Pipke, who indicated that there had been some sort of resolution5 and that Akre could report for work Akre went into the plant at 9 a in He was the first steamfitter to do so He located Hernges, threw up his hands, and said "I'm here " Herriges took Akre to see Henson While on route, Herriges explained that he understood Akre's position be- cause he had been a probationary employee in a similar situation during a work stoppage at United Airlines, and he did not know what to do then, nor could he advise Akre what to do now Akre and Herriges met with Henson Henson told Akre that there was work available and that if he failed to report to work there was a possibility of disciplinary action Akre stated that he did not want to jeopardize his job and that he would clock in immediately Akre also explained that he had un successfully tried to obtain some guidance from the Respondent because he did not want to jeopardize his job After clocking in, but prior to actually com- mencing work, Akre encountered Zielinski and Holak at the coffee machine Akre explained the events of the morning, his concern about possible 2 Henson was manager of employee and community relations 8 The judge misquoted Zielinski s notes to read should rather than could call back This distinction does not affect our result 4 Although Zielinski s notes do not expressly indicate that he told Akre to meet Henson and Holak at the gate the notes do not controvert Akre s express testimony that Zielinski related Hernges direction to meet there 5 After being advised of the proper gate to be reserved for the non union subcontractor Pipke moved the pickets to that gate Picketing con tinued at the reserved gate for the rest of the week and did not interrupt passage of the Respondent s employees to or from work 292 NLRB No 90 844 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD blackballing by the Union, and his desire to remain in the Respondent's employ. Holak told Akre that he handled the situation as best he could and that there was no other way to handle it. Akre then began working. The other steamfitters reported to work an hour later. Later that day, all the steamfitters were ques- tioned by Herriges concerning their absence and whether they would work the remainder of the week. Akre indicated that union violence, threats, or hints of retaliation related to crossing a picket line would keep him from reporting for work. Akre worked the remainder of the week and the following week. Nothing was said to Akre about possible discipline during this period. On January 5, 1987, the Respondent' s manage- ment representatives met to discuss the events of December 29 and decided that Akre should be questioned again about why he had refused to cross the picket line. Questions were prepared by Holak. On January 6, Herriges directed Akre and his shop steward to meet in Holak's office. Her- riges and Holak questioned Akre. Thereafter, the Respondent's officials reconvened and determined that discipline was necessary because Akre's re- sponses indicated he had consciously followed Pipke's instructions and thereby participated in a work stoppage on December 29. The Respondent terminated Akre on January 7, 1987, for violating rule 27 of its code of conduct prohibiting an employee from participating in any illegal interference with work. The next day the Respondent gave 5-day suspensions to the other steamfitters who refused to cross the Union's picket line. It is undisputed that the Respondent's discipli- nary policies required termination of any employee disciplined during the probationary period. The judge found that the work stoppage was protected because it had no proscribed objectives and did not violate the contractual no-strike provi- sions. He concluded, therefore, that Akre's dis- charge for failure to cross the picket line was un- lawful discrimination against protected activity in sympathy with the Union. The judge found that even if the December 29 work stoppage was un- protected, the Respondent condoned both the pick- eting and Akre's failure to cross the picket line and therefore Akre's subsequent discharge violated the Act. Relying on Board precedent in Super Value Xenia, 228 NLRB 1254 (1977), the judge concluded that the actions taken by Akre in response to man- agement's directives, together with management's statements to Akre, established that the Respondent condoned Akre's failure to cross the picket line. The judge further reasoned that Akre was actu- ally not discharged because of his failure to cross a picket line on December 29, but because of his as- serted willingness to honor future picket lines and union instructions. Finally, the judge concluded that Akre's discharge, notwithstanding his quest for advice, evidenced disparate treatment designed to discourage union activity generally, because other steamfitters who clearly refused to cross the picket line received only 5-day suspensions. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the judge's finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by discharging Akre for his refusal to cross the picket line after it had condoned that refusal. We find it unnecessary to pass on the judge's antecedent findings that the work stoppage was lawful under the Act and was permissible de- spite the contract's no-strike provisions. Further, we expressly disavow reliance on the judge's pre- text and disparate treatment analyses. Even assuming that Akre's conduct was unpro- tected, we find that the Respondent condoned Akre's refusal to cross the picket line. The doctrine of condonation applies where there is clear and convincing evidence that the employer has agreed to forgive the misconduct, to "wipe the slate clean," and to resume or continue the employment relationship as though no misconduct occurred.6 "The doctrine prohibits an employer from mislead- ingly agreeing to return its employees to work and then taking disciplinary action for something appar- ently forgiven."7 The essential elements of condonation are present here. As found by the judge, Akre sought but received no clear guidance from the Respond- ent. Although outside the picket line, he was never clearly told to report to work or that he was jeop- ardizing his job by failing to report. He complied with the specific directions that he was given by management. When he initially entered the plant, management (Herriges) expressed sympathy for his plight. The credited testimony established that during the critical meeting in Henson's office Akre was first told that if he did not then report for work there was a possibility of disciplinary action. When Henson informed Akre that he was jeopard- izing his job by not reporting for work, Akre im- mediately clocked in and was permitted to work for more than a week without any further mention of disciplinary action. On the contrary, shortly after Akre clocked in, he was informed by manage- 6 Kohler Co., 128 NLRB 1062, 1105 (1960), enfd . in part and remanded sub nom . Auto Workers Local 833 v. NLRB, 300 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1962), cert. denied 370 U.S. 911 (1962); NLRB v. Colonial Press, 509 F.2d 850 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 423 U.S. 833 (1975); NLRB v. Communi- ty Motor Bus Co., 439 F.2d 965 (4th Cir. 1971); Bakery Workers Local 805 Y. NLRB, 312 F.2d 108 (2d Cit. 1963); and Plasti-Line, Inc. Y. NLRB, 278 F.2d 482 (6th Cit. 1960). See also Emarco, Inc., 284 NLRB 832 (1987). 7 Packers Hide Assn. v. NLRB, 360 F.2d 59, 62 (8th Cir. 1966). GENERAL ELECTRIC CO ment (Holak) that he had handled the situation in the best way possible In these circumstances, we conclude that the Re- spondent clearly evidenced an intention and com- mitment to overlook Akre's refusal to cross the picket line, and it permitted the continuation of the employment relationship as though no misconduct had occurred Having once condoned Akre's brief failure to work in response to the picket line, the Respondent was not privileged to change its posi- tion By thereafter discharging Akre, it violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, General Electric Company (Hotpomt), Milwaukee, Wiscon- sin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order Benjamin Mandelman Esq, for the General Counsel Robert H Duffy and George K Whyte Esq.., of Milwau kee, Wisconsin, for the Respondent Scott R Merrill Esq, of Louisville, Kentucky, for the Respondent Marianne Goldstein Robbins Esq , of Milwaukee, Wiscon sin, for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WALLACE H NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge On January 12, 1987, Local 601 United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe fitting Industry of the United States and Canada (the Union) filed a charge against General Electric Co (Hot point) (Respondent) Complaint and notice of hearing issued on February 20, 1987, from Region 30 The com plaint alleges violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the discharge of its employee Frank Akre by Re spondent A hearing was held before me on May 7 and 8 1987, and briefs were submitted by the parties Based on all the evidence of record including the de meanor of the witnesses giving testimony, I make the fol lowing FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a New York corporation with an office and place of business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has been and is engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale and distribution of dishwashers and related products Re spondent admits the jurisdictional allegations of the com plaint, and I find that Respondent is now, and at all times material, has been an employer engaged in com merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION 845 All parties admit that the Union is now , and at all times matenal has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The question presented in this proceeding is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging employee Frank Akre As will be dis cussed in detail below, Akre was discharged because he did not cross a picket line at Respondents facility on December 29 The General Counsel asserts Akre's con duct was protected and his subsequent discharge there fore unlawful The General Counsel also asserts that Re spondent condoned Akre s refusal to cross the picket line and that its subsequent decision to discharge him reflects unlawful motivation and an intent to discourage protect ed union activity The Respondent acknowledges that it did discharge Akre because of his refusal to cross the picket line, citing Akre s refusal as a violation of the Company s employee code of conduct It further contends that Akre s refusal to cross the picket line was not protected activity be cause of the no strike provisions contained in the collec tive bargaining agreement between it and the Union A Background Information with Respect to Respondents Business and Union Relationship Respondent manufactures dishwashers and related products at a facility located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin The Milwaukee plant is in the Respondent's major apple ance business group Frank Kos, acting plant manager, is in overall charge of Respondents Milwaukee operations Specifically involved in this proceeding are various su pervisors in the maintenance and industrial engineering unit The unit manager was Thomas Holak Reporting to Holak were Maintenance Supervisors Lee Hernges and Pat Zielinski Murley Henson was manager of employee and community relations at all times material to this de cision Respondent employs approximately 488 individuals in Milwaukee Of that total, 430 are represented by 5 differ ent unions The Union involved in this proceeding repre sents seven employees who perform maintenance on plant equipment The Union s chief representative is Richard Pipke financial secretary treasurer and business agent Pipke handles the Union s business at about 50 area employers He negotiated the most recent collec tive bargaining agreement between the Union and the Respondent Apart from Pipke the Union has a shop steward, Garron Roberts at the Respondents facility Roberts is a full time employee of the Respondent The alleged discnmmatee Frank Akre, began working for Respondent on October 27 1986 When discharged Akre was a probationary employee and was not yet a member of the Union Before his employment with Re spondent Akre was a machinist mate in the United States Submarine Force In the Navy, he received sub stantial technical maintenance training and Respondent 846 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stipulated that Akre's work was very satisfactory and Respondent had no complaints with him as an employee. The collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and Respondent is effective from July 1, 1985, until June 26, 1988. The agreement was negotiated on a local basis with Pipke and Henson being the principals involved . The agreement contains a grievance procedure and provides for arbitration in only limited circum- stances. The contract has several clauses relevant to the dispute at hand, which are set forth below: ARTICLE XI-STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS 1. This Agreement shall not prohibit a strike aris- ing out of a grievance after the grievance proce- dures have been fully complied with, and provided that the grievance does not involve a matter subject to arbitration or a matter on which the Company has indicated in writing its willingness to arbitrate in accordance with Article X, Arbitration. Except for the foregoing , the Union agrees that there will be no strike , stoppage of work, sitdown, slowdown, picketing, employee demonstrations or other sus- pension or cessation of work of any kind during the terms of this Agreement for any reason whatsoever, and such actions will not be sanctioned by the Union or its representatives . The Company agrees that there will be no lockout of employees during the term of this Agreement for any reason whatso- ever resulting from any matter in dispute while the matter is under discussion at any of the steps of the grievance procedure, or if the matter is submitted to arbitration as provided for in Article X, Arbitration. The Union shall give the Company ten day's [sic] notice in writing prior to any strike permitted under this Article and shall therein identify the grievance over which such actions to be taken. 2. In the event any violation of the Section above occurs which is not authorized by the Union, the Company agrees that there shall be no liability on the part of the Union , providing that in the event of such unauthorized action, the Union first meets the following conditions: (a) The Union shall declare publicly that such action is unauthorized. (b) The Union shall promptly order its mem- bers to work, notwithstanding the existence of any picket line. (c) The Union shall not question the unquali- fied right of the Company to discipline or dis- charge any employee or employees engaged in participating, or encouraging such unauthorized action . It is understood that such action on the part of the Company shall be final and binding upon the Union and its members, and shall in no case be construed as a violation by the Company of any provision of this Agreement. However, an issue of fact as to whether or not any particular employee has engaged in, partcipated in, or en- couraged any such violation may be subject to the grievance procedure herein provided for. 3. In the event picket lines are established by em- ployees of the Company represented by collective bargaining organizations other than the Union, the members of the Union will each make a bona fide attempt to report for work when scheduled to work, but if they are unable to so report due to vio- lence or threats of violence, such failure shall not, for the purpose of this Agreement, be regarded as a strike, stoppage or slowdown of work, nor shall it subject such employees to discharge or other disci- plinary action. The above clauses, or substantially similar clauses, have existed in the parties' collective-bargaining agree- ment since at least 1963. No discussion between the par- ties occurred concerning the above clauses or their appli- cability to picketing at Respondent's facility directed at third parties (subcontractors). B. Picketing and Related Events Each year between the Christmas and New Year's holidays the Company shuts down its manufacturing op- erations for a 2-week period . During this time major ren- ovation, reconditioning, and installation projects are un- dertaken. Although the production employees are, for the most part, off work during this period , the mainte- nance employees, including the steamfitters are working full time. Also during this period a significant number of projects are subcontracted . On December 8, 1986, notice was sent to all shop operation personnel , including union stewards, advising them of the major projects planned for the winter shutdown. On Friday, December 26, Garron Roberts, union steward for Local 601 at the Mil- waukee plant, learned that a subcontractor, Associated Erector was doing steamfitters' work at the plant. He no- tified Richard Pipke, business agent for Local 601 , of this fact. Roberts spoke with Murley Henson shortly thereaf- ter, telling Henson that one of the ways that the dispute could be resolved was if the Company allowed the steamfitters to perform the subcontracted work . During this conversation Henson told Roberts that General Electric would enjoin any picketing . The conversation concluded with Roberts telling him that the problem was between Henson and the business agent of Local 601 as the unit members did not want to have any part of strike or picket action. On December 28, Pipke and Henson had a telephone conversation. Pipke told Henson that he understood a nonunion contractor would be working at Respondent's facility and testified that he told Henson that if they re- mained the Union would be advertising by picketing that they were paying substandard wages. Henson testified that he advised Pipke that the employment of the sub- contractor was not in violation of the collective-bargain- ing agreement. On brief, Respondent urges that Pipke then threatened to picket the gates of the plant with area standards pickets, unless the nonunion subcontractor was removed from the plant . Having carefully considered the testimony of both Pipke and Henson, I do not find that Pipke so threatened Henson. Henson during this conver- sation informed Pipke that a reserved gate for the sub- GENERAL ELECTRIC CO contractor would be posted Pipke testified that he told Henson that the Union would picket at the right place Henson did not mention to Pipke that such picketing would be in violation of the parties no strike clause Henson sent out a mailgram on December 28, advising the Union that Respondent was establishing a reserve gate for Associated Erector This mailgram, which specs feed the gate to be utilized , was not received until late in the morning of December 29, after picketing had already begun The mailgram does not mention that picketing by the Union would breach the parties' no strike clause On December 29, the Union picketed Respondents fa cility Picketing was not conducted by Respondents em ployees, but by other members of Local 601 At the start of picketing, there were no signs directing the Union to the gate that had been reserved for the subcontractor The Union's picket signs read, Our Only Dispute Is Substandard Wages & Fringes Paid By Associated Erec tors Steamfitters Local 601 As a consequence of the picketing, Respondents steamfitters, including Akre, who were scheduled to start work at 6 30 a in did not report to work until later on Monday morning Pipke was present at the picket line on December 29, and about 9 or 9 30 am he spoke with Henson and Holak Henson told Pipke there would be three gates one for Respondents employees , a second for Associated Erector, and a third for other contractors Henson also asked Pipke if he had received a mailgram , and Pipke re plied that he had not There was no assertion made to Pipke that his picketing breached the no strike clause that it was a secondary boycott, or that the Union s mes sage concerning Associated Erector was inaccurate Pipke after being advised that gates were going to be established moved the pickets to the 43d Street/ Associated Erectors gate Picketing continued at that gate for the remainder of the week Following the ex change between Pipke and Henson the Respondent's steamfitters reported to work They worked without interruption thereafter even though the Union continued to picket C Was the Union 's Picketing Protected Activity? 1 Did the picket line violate Section 8 (b) of the Act as a secondary boycott? Respondent contends, inter alia that the picketing by Local 601 constituted an unlawful secondary boycott It bases its position on its assertion that (1) the Union did not sufficiently investigate the wages being paid by Asso ciated Erectors before determining that they were sub standard and (2) because of alleged threats made by the Local that would lead Respondent to believe that the picketing was aimed at forcing it to cease doing business with Associated Erectors Regarding the first premise it is clear from the record that Pipke based his understanding of the substandard nature of Associated Erectors wages wholly on the rep resentations of another business agent in another State He conducted no independent investigation to determine whether Associated Erectors was in fact paying sub standard wages For his part, Pipke urged that if Henson or presumably any one else with Respondent indicated to him that he had proof that the wages being paid by As 847 sociated Erectors were area standards wages he would not have picketed Although I believe that the Local did have an obligation to determine whether the wages actu ally paid by the subcontractor were below area stand ards, I find it significant that General Electric did noth ing to determine the level of wages in order to avoid the picketing or to stop the picketing once it had begun It seems clear to me that the Respondent assumed, as did the Union, that Associated Erectors was paying below area standards wages or it would have inquired as to the level of wages in order to avoid the picketing at its outset or to stop it once it had begun I credit Pipke's representation that his information with respect to the wage level being paid by Associated Erectors was de rived from a conversation with another business agent for the Union No serious question is raised in this record regarding this representation Because General Electric was in a direct contractual relationship with the involved subcontractor it appears to have been a fairly easy task to make the determination as to the level of wages being paid by the subcontractor On the other hand such infor mation would not be readily available to the Local I also disagree with Respondents position that state ments attributed to Pipke and Roberts constitute threats and/or proof that the primary objective of the picketing was to cause Respondent to stop utilizing the subcontrac tor I credit Roberts' testimony that he told Henson that one of the ways to resolve the situation was to allow the General Electric steamfitters to perform the work being done by the subcontractor Pipke testified that he told Henson of his understanding that there was a nonunion contractor at the General Electric facility and that if the contractor remained working there , the Local would be picketing and advertising that it paid substandard wages I do not believe that the statements by Roberts and Pipke constituted threats or that the resulting picketing had as its objective forcing General Electric to cease doing business with Associated Erectors Respondent points out that there is available to the Union a grievance procedure for objecting to the use by General Electric of subcontractors and that the Union had availed itself of this procedure in the past over this issue Use of the grievance procedure indicates that the Union knew of its rights and its responsibilities and had acted properly in the past Moreover the signs utilized by the Union in the picketing were, in my opinion, clear ly informational and directed totally toward Associated Erectors not General Electric It is also the fact that the Union when informed of the proper gate to be utilized for picketing immediately moved its pickets to that gate and did not at any time interfere with the passage of the Company's employees into or out of the involved plant All these actions support Pipke s and Roberts versions of their conversations with Henson and belie the asser tions of threats I credit Roberts' and Pipke 's versions of their conversations with Henson I also find it significant that at the time the picketing took place, the Respondent did not advise the Union that it objected to the activity as an unlawful secondary boy cott nor did it seek to enjoin the picketing activity on that ground For that matter it did not advise the Union 848 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that such picketing was in violation of the collective-bar- gaining agreement. Based on the evidence introduced at the hearing, it would appear that General Electric con- sidered the picketing to be lawful at all times material to the events in dispute in this proceding and only alleged the unlawful nature of picketing for purposes of its posi- tion at the hearing. I For the reasons set forth above, I believe that the pri- mary objective of the picketing was to further the objec- tion, based on the Union's good-faith belief, that the in- volved subcontractor was paying substandard wages and had no other, unlawful, purpose. Being lawful, the con- duct of the unit members of Local 601 in not crossing the picket line until it was removed to the posted gate was protected activity. 2. Did the parties' collective-bargaining agreement waive the unit members' right not to cross the otherwise lawful picket line? Respondent also argues that the Union waived its members' right to maintain or honor any picket line at Respondent's facility. Respondent argues the right to cross an otherwise lawful picket line may be waived by a collective-bargaining agreement, if the waiver is "clear and unmistakable." NLRB v. Southern California Edison Co., 646 F.2d 1352, 1364 (9th Cir. 1981), and other cases. Respondent urges that the picketing activity here in- volved was expressly proscribed by the no-strike clause contained in the collective-bargaining agreement. Refer- ence is here made to an earlier portion of this decision where the entire contractual no-strike provision is set out. However, for purposes of clarity, the portion of the contract language on which Respondent relies is repeat- ed: Except for the foregoing, the Union agrees that there will be no strike, stoppage of work, sit down, slow down, picketing, employee demonstration, or other suspension or cessations of work of any kind during the term of this agreement for any reason whatsoever. . . . The Union shall give the Compa- ny 10 days notice in writing prior to any strike per- mitted under this Article and shall therein identify the grievance over which such action is to be taken. (Art. XI, strikes, lockouts.) The intent of the parties relating to the scope of the no-strike clause is further de- fined in article X l, section 3: In the event picket lines are established by employ- ees of the Company represented by collective bar- gaining organizations other than the Union, the members of the Union will each make a bona fide attempt to report for work when scheduled to work, but if they are unable to so report due to vio- lence or threats of violence, such failure shall not, for the purposes of this agreement be regarded as a strike, stoppage or slowdown of work, nor subject such employees to discharge or other disciplinary act. Respondent argues that the no-strike clause is a clear and unmistakable waiver of the steamfitter employee's right under Section 7 to honor its own Union's picket line. The clause provides that "except for the foregoing" all strikes, picketing, or work cessations of any kind are prohibited under article XI, section 1. The "foregoing" referred to in that section is limited to strikes "arising out of a grievance after the grievance procedures have been fully complied with." I do not agree with the position of Respondent. The contract language in article XI, section 1 does not contain any language concerning sympathy strikes. The no-strike/no-lockout promise relates to matters cogniza- ble under the grievance procedure. The Union's dispute, that is, substandard wages paid by Associated Erectors, is not resolvable under the grievance procedure. In section 3, the parties clearly limited the right of members of the Union to honor the picket lines of Re- spondent's other union employees. The contract pro- vides, as noted above, "the members of the Union will each make a bona fide attempt to report for work when scheduled to work...." Such language could have been extended to any picketing by anyone at Respondent's fa- cility. I agree with the General Counsel that the omis- sion does not appear to be accidental and the Respond- ent is aware of the possibility of informational picketing occurring against subcontractors performing services at one of its facilities. The parties' bargaining history provides no informa- tion about the parties' stance on this issue. However, Re- spondent's principal bargainer, Murley Henson, admitted to Holak that the no-strike clause was inapplicable to the instant case. Holak testified: "I was assuming that we could not be picketed by 601 when they do not have a direct dispute with us . . . and Murley said no, that was not the case. That they had the right to do that; and so that is why he was identifying the contractor's gates." The following questioning by the General Counsel fur- ther clarified Respondent's understanding as to the scope of the no-strike clause. A. (Holak) It was my opinion that we could not be picketed against when the dispute was not direct- ly with us. That was my opinion. Q. Okay. A. And Murley informed me at that point in time that no, that picket lines could be established by the local. Q. At your facility. Do I have that right? At the plant. A. Yes. Q. And that wasn't going to be a breach of that no-strike clause; is that correct? A. Yes. I Respondent also argues that Pipke told Frank Akre that (1) it was not in Akre's best interest to report to work, and (2) "how can we get management's attention if people reported to work." For the reasons set forth above and additional reasons that will be set forth in a later portion of this decision, the second part attributed to Pipke is not credited as fact. It was Pipke's position that the Union picketing over substandard wages is not covered by the collective-bar- gaining agreement. Further , the Respondent first learned of possible picketing on December 26. At no time before GENERAL ELECTRIC CO Akre was discharged did anyone from the Respondent assert the picketing or sympathetic action by the employ ees constituted a breach of the no strike clause The General Counsel notes that the Respondent's officials in cluding Henson had numerous contacts with the Union and its members and not once did Respondent assert that the Union s picketing breached the no strike clause He urges that this silence, like Holak s testimony, is an ad mission that the Respondent believed that the no strike clause had no application to the Union's and employees (including Akre's) actions In conclusion, I do not find that the contract precludes picketing of the type in volved in this proceeding nor under the circumstances presented in the case prohibit the 3 hour symphathy strike By carefully eliminating the right of the unit members to honor the picket lines of other unions, the contract implies that the parties contemplated that the unit members could honor their own picket line if that picket line were allowed by the contract involved The contract itself would, in my opinion, allow picketing to be established against the subcontractor as here, and that the picket line could be honored as the Union's dispute with the subcontractor is not arbitrable under the con tract There remains the question, however, of whether the Union was required to give 10 days written notice of its intention to strike as called for by the parties contract I do not believe that this contract provision should come into play in this proceeding There is no showing that the Union ever intended to engage in a strike As I have heretofore found, the purpose of the picketing was purely informational and was directed against Associated Erectors Only because of a failure of communication be tween Respondent and the Union, that is, failure to corn municate during telephone conversations and a failure of a mailgram to arrive in a timely fashion, were proper gates for the picketing not established prior to the time picketing began Had the gates been marked early on the morning of the picketing or had the mailgram been de livered timely there appears to be no question but that the Union would have confined its picketing to the des ignated gate In that circumstance, there would have been no strike Having knowledge that picketing was to begin in the morning of December 29 and having failed to place signs at the gates directing the pickets to the gates reserved for Associated Erectors, I find that Re spondent has at least contributed significantly to the situ ation that gave rise to the sympathy strike By doing so, I find that it has waived its right to complain at a later date that the picketing and the strike were prohibited Again I find it significant that it was not until on or after Akre was actually discharged, that the 3 hour refusal to cross the picket line by the unit members was described as either unlawful as being a secondary boycott or un lawful as being in violation of the parties no strike clause in their contract Under all the circumstances presented in this case I find that the picketing was lawfully established and was not in violation of the parties' no strike agreement I fur ther find that by its actions in not having established at the outset of the lawful picketing a reserve gate and by not thereafter until the discharge of Akre assert that re 849 fusing to cross the picket line was in violation of the Company s no strike clause the Company has indicated its true belief that it was not an unlawful action and, in any event, has waived or condoned this action I there fore find that the refusal to cross the picket line under the circumstances given was activity protected under Section 7 of the Act Although I have concluded that the work stoppage was not unlawful under the Act and was not precluded by the parties collective bargaining agreement, in the event that it is subsequently held otherwise, the Board has also held an employer can by its action condone an employees participation in an unprotected work stop page Accordingly a discharge for the earlier misconduct violates the Act The Board recently explained Such condonation rendered the strike, in effect, protected ac tivity regardless of whether it was initially protected or unprotected Emarco Inc, 284 NLRB 832 833 (1987) D Akre and the Events Surrounding his Discharge Akre arrived at Respondent's facility about 6 a in on December 29, and drove to all three gates in an attempt to avoid the picketing According to Akre he wanted to avoid a conflict with anyone After discovering all the entrances were picketed, Akre spoke with Pipke at one of the gates Akre asked Pipke what was going on Pipke explained that the Union was engaged in informational picketing advertising Associated Erectors substandard wages Akre asked Pipke what to do Pipke explained that he could not tell Akre what to do 2 Akre then decided to call his supervisor for instruc Lions According to Akre's testimony, he first called about 6 15 a m At that time there was no responsible official present Akre called again before the start of his shift He spoke with his supervisor, Lee Herriges Akre testified he told Hernges he was at the plant that there were pickets and that he did not know what to do Hernges said that he did not know what to tell Akre, and he was waiting for Henson who was expected about 7 45 am Herriges told Akre he understood Akre s position and that Akre was between a rock and a hard place The conversation concluded with Herriges telling Akre he should call back at 7 45 a in Hernges notes of this conversation made near the time the events occurred indicate that Akre advised him 2 Tom Holak the Company s manager of industrial engineering and maintenance testified that in a January 6 1987 meeting with Akre Akre stated that Pipke told him ( 1) it was not in his best interest to report to work and (2) how can we get management s attention if people report to work? Holak s memory of the statement is based on a short note he took of Akre s responses at the meeting Akre did not admit making these statements Pipke did not testify as to having made these statements Su pervisor Lee Herriges notes of the meeting do not make mention of the alleged statements about getting managements attention Under these cir cumstances I do find that Akre told Holak and Herriges the first alleged Pipke statement but not the second one In any event as will be dis cussed further Akre s meeting with Pipke added to his personal confu sion and fear about what to do In this decision except where the testi mony of Holak or Hernges is supported by notes to the extent it con flicts with the testimony of Akre I credit Akre s version I found Akre to be straightforward and credible whereas Hernges and Holak were often evasive 850 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the first telephone call at 6:30 a.m. that he was outside the plant gates and had been advised by Pipke not to cross the picket line because it would not be in his best interest. The notes indicate that Akre asked Herriges, "What do I do?" Herriges' notes indicate he said that he told him "he can't tell him what to do, you are in a very precarious awkward position." Akre again asked, "What should I do?" Herriges' notes indicate that he had re- plied, "I will have to talk to Murley Henson when he comes in. . . . call about 7:30 to 7:45 a.m." Akre an- swered, "OK." Other testimony given by Akre shows that he was genuinely worried about what might happen to him from the standpoint of union reprisal if he crossed the picket line ahead of the other employees. Given his attitude at the time regarding the Union, I find it conceivable that he may well have told Herriges what he perceived to be Pipke's attitude, i.e., it would not be in Akre's best inter- est to cross the picket line. Whether Pipke actually stated those words is not certain as Pipke denies the as- sertion. However, even giving credit to the fact that Akre told Herriges this, I find. it significant that the Company did not give Akre any more instructions other than to acknowlege that he was in a precarious and awk- ward position. Following Herriges' directions, Akre called again at 7:45 a.m. and asked to speak to Herriges. Herriges was not available at that point and he spoke with Pat Zie- linski, another supervisor. Zielinski told him that Her- riges was in a meeting and Akre should call back. Akre called back at 8:20 a.m. and again spoke with Zielinski and asked him what to do. Zielinski told Akre that he was scheduled to work, and that he was not able to get Herriges and Akre should call back. Zielinski's notes of his remembrance of these conversations were made after the event, but far in advance of his testimony in this pro- ceeding. They recite: "Frank Akre did not report to work at his scheduled time of 6:30 a.m. He called at ap- proximately 7:30 a.m. and asked for Lee Herriges. I told him that he was in the office. He then asked if I heard anything from Lee as to what could happen to him. I told him no. He asked what he should do in this situa- tion. I told him, 'I don't know what to tell you. You're scheduled to work.' I then told him that he should call back in half an hour and try to get a hold of Lee. He did call back a half hour later and I again spoke to him. I told him that Lee was talking to Murley Henson. I told him I did not know how the Company would treat this situtation because I had only been here a year. He said that he would call back in half an hour. Around 8:30 a.m., Frank called back and I told him Murley Henson and Tom Holak were going to the gate to talk with the business agent. Frank said that he would talk to them at the gate." In response to Zielinski's direction, Akre went to the picket line but missed Henson and Holak who had al- ready left. Akre spoke with Pipke who told Akre it was alright to go into work. Akre went into the plant about 9 a.m. He was the first steamfitter to do so. Akre located Herriges and told him that "I'm here." Herriges said that they should go see Henson. On the way to Henson's office, Herriges told Akre "that he had been in a similar position with United Airlines where he was a probation- ary employee and they had gone on strike or something to that effect and he was caught between the Union and the Company and he understood and he didn't know what to do then and he doesn't know what for me to do now. And that was it." Herriges did not deny this con- versation took place. Akre and Herriges met with Henson. Henson told Akre there was work available and there was a possibili- ty of disciplinary action if Akre did not report to work. Akre explained that he did not want to jeopardize his job and that he would punch in immediately. He also ex- plained that he had unsuccessfully tried to get some guidance early in the morning. Akre, at about 9:25 a.m., punched in and went to work. Prior to actually starting work Akre encountered Zie- linski and Holak at the coffee machine and explained to them about the events of the morning. Akre explained that he had called in four times trying to get answers as to what to do, and that he had been concerned about possible retaliation by the Union, including blackballing. Akre continued that he did not want the Respondent to fire him. Akre testified Holak said, "that I handled it as best I could and there was no other way to handle it. What else was I going to do?" At that point Akre went to work. The other steamfatters scheduled to work that day re- ported in about 10:30 a.m., 1 hour after Akre reported to work. After Akre and the other steamfitters reported to work they were questioned by Herriges concerning their ab- sence from work and whether they would work the re- mainder of the week. Akre advised the Respondent of his unwillingness to cross the picket line. Akre worked the remainder of the week and the following week until his discharge. During this time nothing was said to Akre about possible discipline or that he had done anything improper. Although notes prepared by Holak indicate that at a management meeting before Akre reported to work it was decided that Akre was subject to discipline for not crossing the picket line, Herriges testified that on De- cember 29, he did not recall that he knew that Akre was either subject to discipline or would be disciplined. Fur- thermore, even though Holak's notes would indicate that Respondent had concluded that Akre was subject to dis- cipline, he was permitted to work and not advised that discipline was being contemplated. On January 5, Respondent's officials, including Henson, Zielinski, Herriges, and Holak met to discuss the events of December 29. The participants questioned Akre's actions and decided he should be interviewed so his actions of December 29 could be scrutinized. Ac- cording to Holak, Respondent was concerned about con- ditions on the picket line and what prompted Akre not to cross the picket line, but later changed his position. Holak further explained: We wanted to make sure he [Akre] understood, number one, what his position was and at what time he understood what his position was and what was GENERAL ELECTRIC CO 851 his involvement, so that we could define whether he was participating in that activity or not A series of questions was prepared by Holak and Akre was called in on January 6 to answer these questions Hernges and Holak questioned Akre Akre stated that he told Holak and Hernges in this meeting that he was not physically threatened by anyone on that day and the reason he finally did report to work on December 29 was because Pipke told Akre that it was all right for him to cross the picket line Akre also stated that he was aware on December 29 that he was a proba tionary employee, that he was scheduled for work and that he could be disciplined for not reporting to work Following Akre s interview Respondent s officials met again According to Holak I informed them that I felt and understood and feel strongly that Frank knew the position that he was in and was following the instructions of Mr Pipke at that time and thereby participating in the interfer ence of work, and that some form of discipline would be necessary, and any form of discipline under the probationary period would result in his termination Respondent's bupervisors concluded Akre should be terminated the following day Holak prepared a state ment to be read to Akre on January 7 On brief, Respondent states that at a subsequent meet ing at 1 p in on January 6, it was determined that Akre had violated rule 27 of the code of conduct Rule 27 pro hibits an employee from instigating, encouraging or par ticipating in any illegal interference with work On January 7, Akre was called into Marianne Bondar s office Bondar was in Henson s department Present were Bondar, Herriges, Roberts, and Akre Bondar began the meeting and said that Hernges was going to read from the discharge statement Akre questioned Bondar s coin ment and Hernges apparently read the statement that emphasized Akre was discharged because he violated plant rule 27 Akre protested the rationale offered by Hernges and he tried to explain what he had done on December 29 According to Akre Bondar interjected and said that Akre had also been tardy (Respondent's answer in this proceeding , G C Exh 1(e) at par 5 as serts, "another reason it disciplined Akre was because of his unexcused absence from work ) Roberts explained that Akre had an excuse and he had been talking to his supervisor This alleged reason for discharge was aban doned by Respondent During the meeting Akre ques tioned whether his work was a problem and Hernges an- sweied Akre's work had been excellent Hernges reiter ated the discharge was because of Akre's rule violation Akre unsuccessfully argued for a reduced penalty Akre admitted that he was upset and he commented that Respondent had ruined his future Akre testified he recognized the futility of further discussion and the meet ing ended Hernges escorted Akre as he collected his tools Her nges repeated that Akre had been a good steamfitter and that if he had any say he would keep Akre After col lecting his tools and changing clothes Akre left Following Akre s discharge he requested a written dis charge letter from Bondar She said that she would have to speak with Henson before she could provide such a letter After several calls Respondent provided a letter dated January 9 that letter provides no details as to the basis for Respondents action On January 8 Respondent gave 5 day suspensions to the other steamfitter employees who refused to cross the Union s picket line on December 29 Respondent in those suspensions stated that the employees violated plant rule 27 and article XI of the collective bargaining agreement I have heretofore concluded in this decision that the picket line set up by the Union was lawful, protected ac tivity and, hence, Akre s failure to cross the picket line was protected and that a discharge for such failure to cross the picket line would be unlawful I also find that if it is ultimately determined that the picket line was not lawful and thus, failure to cross the picket line was not protected activity , that Respondent by its actions has condoned not only the picketing, but Akre s refusal to cross the picket line Thus, Respond ent s subsequent termination of Akre for activity that it had condoned is unlawful In my opinion, Respondent condoned Akre's participa tion in the strike Akre called Respondent before work on December 29 He was specifically told by Herriges that he should call back at 7 45 am Akre subsequently called Respondent and spoke with Zielinski and each time he was told to call back Akre was never clearly told to report to work or that he was jeopardizing his job by failing to report When Henson told Akre his job was at risk, he immediately agreed to work Akre testi feed that Holak said that 'I had handled it as best I could and there was no other way to handle it ' As noted ear her, Akre was permitted to return to work without any mention of possible discipline The Board has concluded in similar circumstances condonation occurred See Super Yalu Stores, 228 NLRB 1254 (1977) In Super Yalu employee Green participated in an unprotected strike Following his participation in the strike Green was told to come into work within 30 minutes and he did so Green was also told he had pro tected his job by reporting, nonetheless he was subse quently discharged for his participation in an illegal strike The administrative law judge concluded that I find and conclude that Respondent Employer by giving employee Green 30 minutes to report for work on Monday, March I and by telling Green when he attempted to report in that he had pro tected his job by reporting within the half hour," condoned and forgave Green 's participation in the unprotected work stoppage and manifested an un equivocal intention to permit him to resume his em ployment relation As the Second Circuit stated in Confectionery & Tobacco Drivers and Warehousemen s Union Local 805 IBT M Eskin & Son v N L R B, 312 F 2d 108, 113 (C A 2, 1963), "condonation re quires a demonstrated willingness to forgive the im proper aspects of concerted activity to wipe the slate clean " [228 NLRB 1259-1260 ] 852 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the instant case, like Super Yalu, supra, Akre was given specific directions by management, with which he complied He was told to call in and go meet manage ment officials He did those things He was finally told that if he did not go to work his job was in jeopardy He went to work Finally, management through Holak, ac knowledged that Akre had done the best he could do in protecting his job I conclude that based on the Board precedent cited and the actions taken by Akre in re sponse to management s directives and management's later statements, Respondent has condoned Akre's refusal to cross the picket line My findings regarding condonation by the Respondent are also supported by the reasons given by Respondent for the discipline of Akre Respondent ultimately states that it was disciplining Akre for violation of rule 27 nec essanly asserting that Akre instigated, encouraged, or participated in an illegal interference with work It is obvious from the evidence set out above that Akre did not encourage or instigate an interference with work I also have found that the work stoppage was not unlaw ful Be that as it may, did Akre participate in the work stoppage, illegal or not? I do not find it to be rational to hold that he did participate in the illegal interference with work True, Akre did not cross the picket line On the other hand he repeatedly called Respondent seeking advice and direction on what to do when faced with the picket line Clearly he was not part of the picket line and equally clearly he was never given any definite direction to report to work As far as I can determine from the record, Akre s seeking direction from Respondent Inds cates that he would have followed such direction had it been given The fact that he did cross the picket line over an hour ahead of the other steamfitters to see Henson, in response to the first clear direction he had been given by any supervisors indicates that he was not participating in the picketing activity Further on being told to report to work by Henson, he immediately re ported to work Finally, there was no indication given to him that he would be disciplined by the Respondent except if he did not report to work after being told to do so by Henson Under these circumstances, even if it is ultimately found as I have not that Akre s failure to cross the picket line was unprotected, I think it is clear that the reason for Akre s discharge does not lie with the failure to cross the picket line I agree with the General Counsel and the Charging Party that the real reason for his disci pline and discharge was his answers given to questions asked of him on December 29 in an interview with his supervisors and again in an interview on January 6, all relating to his willingness in the future to cross a picket line In each of these interviews, Akre generally indicat ed his unwillingness to cross picket lines Indeed, on De cember 29, immediately after the event Akre was not even asked why he did cross the picket line that morn ing The questions only related to future picket lines Also in the testimony of Respondents witnesses and particularly Holak there appears to be a great deal of concern that Akre paid attention to Union Business Agent Pipke On brief Respondent makes the point that Akre was advised that it was not in his best interest to cross the picket line by the Union It appears to me and I agree with the General Counsel and the Charging Party that the true reason for the discipline of Akre was not his failure to cross the picket line on December 29 as de tailed above, but rather his asserted willingness to honor future picket lines and follow the Union's instructions in the future Discipline for such reasons has been found to be unlawful See G & H Products, 261 NLRB 298 (1982) I conclude that the discharge of Akre was effec tuated to discourage union activity generally, not for his failure to cross the picket line on December 29, and as such it violates Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act This judge also agrees with the General Counsels po sition that Akre was accorded disparate treatment to em phasize the Respondents unhappiness with the Union s activity and to discourage future union adherents The other steamfitter employees received 5 day suspensions for their refusal to cross the picket line Clearly the other steamfitters did refuse to cross the picket line Akre sought advice as to what to do regarding the picket line and received virtually no direction whatsoever from the Respondent Under the circumstances it is difficult to un derstand why Akre was disciplined at all This is espe cially true considering that fact that he was not told that he would be disciplined when Henson directed him to return to work and he did so In all, I conclude that the discharge of Akre was to present an object lesson to the unit members and other union employees of the facility and to other probationary and future employees of the Company as to the Company s willingness to strike harshly against union activity of which it does not ap prove Ultimate Conclusions Based on all the evidence of record and for the rea sons set forth above I find that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act I find and conclude that the picketing engaged in on December 29 by Local 601 was lawful, was not a secondary boycott and was not precluded by the collective bargaining agreement be tween the Union and Respondent I find and conclude that employee Frank Akre was engaged in protected ac tivity and that his discharge because of his conduct was unlawful I further find that the evidence in the case does not establish any waiver of employee rights to engage in a sympathy strike such as occurred in this pro ceeding I further conclude that even assuming the un derlying strike was not protected, Respondent condoned Akre s actions and his later discharge violated the Act Ultimately, I conclude that Respondent's discriminatory conduct was designed to discourage both Akre and other s union activity and thus violated the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent is now and at all times material to this decision has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act 2 The Union is a labor organization within the mean ing of Section 2(5) of the Act GENERAL ELECTRIC CO 3 By unlawfully discharging Frank Akre on January 7, 1987, Respondent is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action neces sary to effectuate the policies of the Act Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged Frank Akre on January 7, 1987, and has since failed and refused to rein state him in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I recommend that Respondent remedy such unlaw ful conduct In accordance with Board policy, I recom mend that Respondent be ordered to offer Frank Akre immediate reinstatement to his former position, discharg ing, if necessary, any employee hired to replace him, or, if that job no longer exists to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of discnmina tion against him to be computed in the manner described in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with in terest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 1 further recommend that Respond ent be required to remove from its files any reference to the discharge of Frank Akre, notify him in writing that this had been done, and evidence of his unlawful dis charge shall not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against him On the basis of these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended3 ORDER The Respondent, General Electric Company (Hot point), Milwaukee, Wisconsin, its officers agents, succes sors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Discouraging union or protected concerted activi ties of its employees or their membership in Local No 601 United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, or any other labor organization, by unlawfully discriminatorily discharging its employees or discriminating against them in any matter with respect to their hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condi tion of employment in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act (b) In any like or related matter interfering with re straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their 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 Frank Akre immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if such position no longer 3If 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 put poses 853 exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prej udice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previ ously enjoyed, discharging, if necessary, any employee hired to replace him, and to make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respond ent s unlawful discharge of him in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the remedy section of this decision (b) Remove from personnel files any reference to the discharge of Frank Akre and notify him in writing that this has been done and that evidence of this unlawful dis charge will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against him (c) Preserve and, on request make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay roll records, social security payment records, time cards, personnel records, and reports, and all other records nec essary to analyze the amount of back pay due under this Order 4 (d) Post at Milwaukee, Wisconsin place of business copies of the attached notice marked Appendix '5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being signed by the Re spondent s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent 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 (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply * The General Counsel has requested a visitatonal clause be inserted in the Order Under the circumstances of this case I do not consider it nec essary b If 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 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 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 854 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To choose not to engage in any of these protect- ed concerted activities. WE WILL NOT discourage union or protected activities by our employees or their membership in Local No. 601, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada or any other labor organization by un- lawfully discriminatorily discharging our employees or discriminating against them in any manner regarding their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or con- dition of employment in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. 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 Frank Akre who we unlawfully dis- charged on January 7, 1987, immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former position, or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position , discharging, if necessary, any employee hired to replace him; WE WILL restore his seniority and other rights or privileges previously enjoyed; and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of back pay to which he may be entitled, to- gether with interest. WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the unlawful discharge of Frank Akre and notify him in writing that this has been done, and evidence of this un- lawful action will not be used as a basis for future disci- pline against him. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. (HOTPOINT)