Vermont Foundry Co.

VERMONT FOUNDRY CO Vermont Foundry Co, a Division of Mahoney Foundries, Inc and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America (UAW) and its Local 844 Cases 33-CA-8027 and 33-CA-8065 February 10, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On March 31, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Arline Pacht issued the attached decision The Re- spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,' and the General Counsel filed limited exceptions and a brief in support of the administrative law judge's decision 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,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified 3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law ' 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 2 We correct several inadvertent errors made by the judge In the sec torn of the decision titled The Trainee Program the second sentence in the first paragraph should read Claiming that the region suffered from a shortage of experienced personnel Additionally in the section of the decision titled The Alleged Discriminatory Refusals to Hire with respect to Chris Hagie all references to machinist(s) and mechanics should be changed to maintenance man/men We find contrary to the judge that the Respondent did not violate Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act through a statement made by Supervisor Harold Collins to employee Phyllis Elgin because at the time that statement was made Collins was not employed by and under the circumstances here not an agent of the Respondent Because similar statements were made by Plant Superintendent Curths and Foreman Bob Hams after the Respond ent s purchase of the business however we find no need for any change in the Order We also find that even without considering Collins state ment there is sufficient evidence of unlawful motivation in the Respond ent s refusal to hire the six union officers In agreeing with the judge s finding that the Respondent is a successor and that its bargaining obligation arose on April 6 1987 we rely also on the fact that the trainees were not integrated into the Respondents work force In this regard the Respondent guaranteed the trainees only 4 to 5 hours of work per week accompanied by assurances that the training would aid them in seeking employment elsewhere Further those trainees who remained at the foundry and acquired 40 hours of work per week by September 27 1987 were still classified and paid as trainees rather than as regular full time employees 3 We find merit in the General Counsels exception that the judges remedy and Order should not have limited the discnminatees reinstate ment rights to the discharge where necessary of persons who were hired as trainees but rather should have included any and all persons hired to fill positions for which the discnminatees would have been hired on or after April 6 1987 but for the Respondents unlawful dis cnmtnatton 1003 judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Vermont Foundry Co, a Division of Mahoney Foundries, Inc, Vermont, Illinois, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified 1 Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a) "(a) Offer immediate and full employment to Chris Hagie, Phyllis Elgin, Scott Parry, Troy Hunter, Steve Kinne, and Ted Richey, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, in those positions for which they would have been hired on and after April 6, 1987, but for the Respondent's unlawful discrimination or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, dismissing if necessary, any and all persons hired to fill such positions In addi tion, make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against them in the manner described in the remedy section of the judge's decision " 2 Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain in good faith with the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple ment Workers of America and its Local 844, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representatives of our employees in the following unit All production and maintenance employees at Employer's plant at Vermont, Illinois, includ- ing plant clericals and truck drivers excluding all office clerical employees, confidential em- ployees, professional employees, guards, work- ing foremen and all supervisors as defined in the Act WE WILL NOT refuse to hire or otherwise dis- criminate against employees in their hire or tenure of employment because they are officers of and ac- tivists in the Union or any other labor organization WE WILL NOT make statements through our su- pervisors that indicate we will not recognize or bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the Vermont Foundry nor will we state that the Union causes 292 NLRB No 108 1004 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD problems or that union officers or activists will not be hired WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees or appli- cants for employment because they engage in Union or protected concerted activity WE WILL meet and bargain in good faith with the Union over wages, hours of work, and all other terms and conditions of employment for the em- ployees in the unit described above and, if agree ment is reached, WE WILL embody it in a signed contract WE WILL offer immediate and full employment to Chris Hagie, Phyllis Elgin, Scott Parry, Troy Hunter, Steve Kinne, and Ted Richey without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, in positions for which they would have been hired on and after April 6, 1987, but for our unlawful discrimination or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, dismissing if necessary, any persons hired to fill those positions In addition, we will make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf fered by reason of our failure to hire them about April 6, 1987, with interest VERMONT FOUNDRY CO, A DIVISION OF MAHONEY FOUNDRIES, INC Will Vance Esq for the General Counsel James B McCabe Esq, of Rolling Meadows Illinois for the Respondent DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARLINE PACHT Administrative Law Judge On charges filed by International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and its Local 844 (the Union) on April 29 and June 19 as amended on August 4 1987, a con solidated complaint issued on August 13, 1987 alleging that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of its em ployees Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to hire employees who were union officers, and Section 8(a)(1) by making statements to applicants for employ ment, which tended to interfere with restrain, and coerce them in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Sec tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) The Respondent filed a timely answer on August 26 19871 On the entire record including my observation of the witnesses' demeanor and consideration of the parties' postheanng briefs I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, an Indiana corporation with an office and place of business in Vermont, Illinois manufactures brass and aluminum castings During the past 12 months, a period representative of all times material, Respondent sold and shipped from its Vermont Foundry finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Illinois During the same 12 month period Respondent purchased and received at its found ry goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 that were transported directly from States other than Illinois On these facts, the complaint alleges, the Respondent concedes and I find that the Respondent engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act The Union is now, and has been at all times material, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background Prior to Respondents acquisition of the Vermont Foundry the facility was owned and operated by MCC Clayton Mark Foundry which produced brass and alu minum castings For many years, the labor force at the foundry was represented by the UAW and its Local 844 To be precise the International Union was certified as the collective bargaining representative on April 6, 1984, for a unit including All production and maintenance employees at the Employers plant at Vermont, Illinois, including plant clericals and truck drivers excluding all office clerical employees confidential employees profes sional employees guards working foremen and all supervisors as defined in the Act 2 Shortly thereafter Local 844 was chartered pursuant to the International Union s constitution International representatives continued to work with Local officials particularly assisting them during collective bargaining negotiations Successive collective bargaining agreements were executed with the most recent contract covering the years 1985 to April 30 1988 By the terms of this agreement the predecessor, MCC Clayton Mark Found ry (Clayton Mark or the predecessor), specifically recog nized both the International and its Local 844 as the em ployees authorized bargaining representatives When the sale of the foundry to Respondent became imminent Assistant Director Paul Korman for Region 4 of the International together with officers of the Local, negotiated a contract with the predecessor terminating the collective bargaining agreement and providing bene fits for the employees At this point in time the number of unit employees totaled 72 However, because the 2 The Respondent admitted that the unit description was appropriate i Hereinafter all dates will refer to 1987 unless otherwise noted with the caveat that it employs no one as a working foreman VERMONT FOUNDRY CO foundry's operations were seasonal with the low point for the labor force traditionally occurring during the winter months only 48 employees were on active duty while 24 employees were still on layoff with a reasonable expectation of recall B The Respondents Takeover In late March, just before the sale was consummated on April 2, the employees met as a group with the new owner, John Mahoney During this meeting, an employ ee and vice president of the Union, Phyllis Elgin, asked Mahoney whether he intended to hire new personnel Mahoney assured the audience that he would leave things just as they were Respondent also made a coin mitment to hire local residents in return for the village council's agreement to extend the term of economic bonds covering the foundry's operations 3 The hiring process, which began as soon as the sale was concluded was directed solely by Robert Ditton, who at the time served as a paid consultant to the Re spondent 4 Ditton testified that even prior to Respond ent s purchase of the foundry he and Mahoney formulat ed a two part employment plan The first step in the plan entailed hiring experienced personnel to fill a preestab lished number of positions in each of the foundry's de partments so that operations could resume immediately Accordingly, Respondent advertised in local newspapers that it would accept applications for vacancies on April 2 and 3 In those few days, over 1000 persons, including all the former foundry employees, submitted application forms to Respondents agents Over the next several days Ditton made his hiring decisions after reviewing the applications and consulting with Plant Superintend ent Lionel Curths Curths who lived in Vermont and had served as superintendent at the foundry for 30 years, was well equipped to answer Ditton's questions about the work history of the former employees Ditton did not seek Curths' recommendations Rather, he asked Curths for his assessment of an applicant's experience competence, and industry In addition to these specific inquiries he also asked Curths to provide him with a list of the Local 844 officers Over the next several days Respondent offered posi tions to 42 experienced employees 39 of whom had worked for the predecessor and belonged to the Union Thirty of the thirty nine were on actual duty just prior to the sale while the remaining nine were on layoff status 5 The newly hired employees received an intro ductory form letter that set forth their wage rates and stated Respondent would give favorable consideration to any applicant that does have foundry expert ence On April 6, 4 days after the sale this core group of seasoned employees started work on the midnight shift, the only shift that the predecessor and the Respondent maintained For the most part, they returned to the same 3 Vermont has a total population of 850 * At the time of the hearing Ditton was operations manager for Re spondent s Indiana plant 5 A 43d employee Anna Barger worked for the Respondent for only I week Consequently I do not count on her as one of the permanent full time employees 1005 jobs they had held under their previous employer The predecessors job classification system, departmental structure and supervisory hierarchy remained intact In fact except for a change in corporate ownership, the foundry functioned just as it had in the past Re spondent continued to produce metal castings using in ventory and equipment purchased from its predecessor It assumed the predecessor's customer list as part of its purchase agreement Ditton asserted that Respondent was so successful in obtaining new orders that within several months after operations began new accounts con stituted 60 percent of Respondents business His estimate of the ratio between new and old clients was vastly in flated, as General Counsels Exhibit 19 shows that at the time of trial only 14 or 15 percent of Repsondent s 88 customers were new C The Trainee Program Ditton further testified that the second part of his em ployment strategy was to initiate a training program in order to develop a pool of part time employees who would be available for employment or layoff according to seasonal fluctuations in the foundry's operations Claiming that the region suffered from a shortage of in experienced personnel (apparently forgetting that a number of the predecessors employees had not been of fered employment) Ditton stated that he sought wholly inexperienced employees for the training program who would work a minimum of 4 hours a week at $5 50 an hour with no fringe benefits, and who would be permit ted to adjust the number of total hours worked to ac commodate regular full time employment schedules else where They would be assigned to various jobs through out the foundry (with the exception of the highly skilled maintenance and pattern making work) under the tute lage of the seasoned full time employees Ditton selected 42 trainees from the applications sub mitted in early April Giving Plant Superintendent Curths no more than a day or two notice that the train ing program would commence Ditton added the 42 trainees to Respondents payroll as of April 22 He told the trainees that the training period would be for an in definite length of time and that they could not expect regular full time employment Instead they would be equipped with job skills they might use elsewhere De spite these caveats Ditton said that some four or five trainees eventually were added to the Respondents per manent roster In fact Respondent's timecards indicate that after several months of part time training eight trainees were gradually added to Respondent's payroll on a permanent full time basis 6 Ditton further stated that Respondent subsequently offered full time positions to another four or five of the former Clayton Mark em ployees Here, too Ditton was wrong, for Respondent subsequently added to its permanent staff only two of the predecessors employees, Geraldine Hanson and Pat Haney 6 The following trainees assumed full time positions on the dates listed below Continued 1006 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At the hearing, Ditton expressed satisfaction with the training program, indicating that it had achieved its goal of developing a cadre of part time foundry workers He claimed that only 10 of the original 42 trainees had dropped out of the program and that they had been re placed, thereby implying that the number of trainees continuing in the program remained relatively constant Ditton was mistaken The record shows that only 8 of the initial 42 trainees who began work on April 22 re mained in the trainee program by the end of the summer Even more important is the fact that the training pro gram included 42 employees for only the first week of its existence Thereafter the total number of participants in the program steadily dwindled, although this was osten sibly the foundry s peak season Thus, for the pay period ending April 27, the number of trainees dropped to 39, a week later there were only 37 In June, the number of trainees hovered at 31 Over the summer months, the number declined even more radically, dropping to a low of 17 By the end of September, the number of trainees reached a plateau of 23 or 24, half of whom had been hired within the past month 7 D The Union Requests Recognition By letter dated April 6, the day the foundry opened under new management UAW International Representa tive Korman wrote to Mahoney requesting recognition In response, Dick Hanson, president of the Vermont Foundry, telephoned another UAW official advising him to contact Respondents attorney Accordingly, by letter dated April 10, the Union wrote to counsel James Date of Trainees Job Title Permanent Hire Daniel Lotz Metal Processor June 21 David Gossage Squeeze Molder July 19 George Cleavinger Shakeout July 19 William McKinley Coremaker July 19 Brian Dean Grinder July 26 (terminated Sept) William Moulton Shakeout Metal Processor July 26 Donald Parsano Metal Processor August 19 Richard Luder Cleanup September 27 7 The following data is derived from Respondents timecards received into evidence as R Exh 2 Number of Trainees Payroll Period 39 April 27 37 May 10 37 May 17 31 June 7 31 June 21 31 July 5 20 July 19 17 July 26 23 August 9 23 September 13 24 September 27 McCabe and again urged Respondent, as a successor to recognize the International Union and Local 844 as the certified collective bargaining representatives of the `vast majority of employees " In reply McCabe expressed confusion about the basis for the Union's claim, but agreed to investigate its con tention that Respondent was a successor The Union sent still a third letter to McCabe on April 16 rearticulating its demand for recognition based on Respondents status as a successor employer On April 22, the very day that Respondent added 42 part time trainees to its payroll, McCabe advised the UAW that the Company was rejecting its demand for recognition and bargaining on two grounds first, because the Local and not the International Union represented its employees and second, it was not a successor since union members did not constitute a majority of its current work force E Allegations of Independent 8(a)(1) Violations As noted previously, Respondent retained all the pred ecessor s supervisory staff In the weeks just before the takeover and in subsequent months, some of the supervi sors made uncontroverted comments to several former employees who had not obtained jobs after the takeover which suggested that the Respondent was strongly op posed to union organization and especially resistant to hiring union officers Phyllis Elgin, the union vice president, testified as to the earliest of such conversations that occurred sometime in late March just before the sale became final Follow ing a coffeebreak taken with other foremen, Harold Col lins, an admitted supervisor, returned to the shop floor and told her during one of their frequent conversations, "Well, Phyllis, I don t think you are going to have a job, you're a Union officer and no Union officer will be hired " In early May, Scott Parry, a steward and recording secretary for the Local stopped by the home of his neighbor, Plant Superintendent Curths While helping Curths with yardwork because he had a heart condition, Parry asked if he thought the Union might succeed in getting back into the foundry Curths who testified in the instant proceeding but did not deny the remarks at tributed to him, answered No, Mr Mahoney really don t want the Union in' (sic) Curths continued that Mahoney felt the Union was time consuming, trouble some costs too much money that Mahoney had a non union plant in Indiana, and that he wanted the Vermont Foundry to be nonunion also Troy Hunter, another union steward testified about several revealing conversations he had with another fore man, Bob Harris, his neighbor and friend of 15 years Hunter recalled that on one occasion while visiting Harris at his home, Hunter suggested that Respondent had not hired him because of his union position and be cause he had filed a workmen s compensation claim Harris confirmed Hunter s suspicions and then volun teered that Respondent had rejected Phyllis Elgin be cause she stood up for her rights and the rights of other members of the Local Harris added that Respondent VERMONT FOUNDRY CO had failed to employ the current president of the Local, Chns Hagie, for the same reason Hunter s second conversation with Harris on June 26 was much like the first On this occasion, with his son and daughter in law present, Hams said that Respondent failed to employ Ted Richey and Steve Kmne because of their union affiliations Kinne had been the immediate past president of Local 844 while Richey had served two 3 year terms as the Union's vice president Harris re marked sympathetically that Mahoney had done the former employees wrong and that the Company was probably losing money on the nonproductive trainees F The Alleged Discriminatory Refusals to Hire The complaint alleges that the Respondent unlawfully refused to hire four current union officers, namely, Chris Hagie, Local 844 s president, Phyllis Elgin, vice presi dent, Scott Parry, recording secretary and steward, and Troy Hunter, another steward In addition, two others, Steve Kinne and Ted Richey, who served as the immedi ate past president and vice president of the Local, were not hired The circumstances attending Respondent's de cision to bypass these six individuals are set forth below 1 Chris Hagie Under the predecessor, Chns Hagie was one of four skilled maintenance men responsible for repairing the various machines and equipment used throughout the foundry Hagie, who had 7 years' seniority, 4 of those years in maintenance, was the most junior of the machin ists and the only one not offered employment by the Re spondent To avoid a seasonal layoff in December 1986, Hagie exercised a contractual right to transfer to a metal processors position, which he continued to hold until the takeover Prior to his assignment as a machinists, Hagie was classified as a general foundry worker Hagie expressed a particular interest in maintenance work on his employment applicaton, but indicated he also would accept a position as a metal processor, machine operator, or any other available position The three mechanics whom Respondent retained each previously held union office Specifically, machinists Phil Haney Jr, was a committeeman with responsibility for processing grievances at the second step, his father and fellow machinist, Phil Haney Sr, was a Local 844 vice president many years ago, and a third machinist Gerald Hanson, had served for just several months as a commit teeman some 7 years ago Ditton explained that only three machinist positions were available and they were filled by persons with greater seniority 8 However, he maintained that he did not consider applicants solely for the position they held just prior to the takeover, but also determined if other positions were available for them Although Hagie had experience as a metal processor Ditton maintained that he did not hire him for that position because he filled those jobs with three other men who had greater seniori ty in such work In fact General Counsel's Exhibit 14 8 One of the three Gerald Hanson had less plantwide seniority than Hagie but was the only maclunst to specialize in electrical work 1007 shows that two of the three employees whom Ditton hired as metal processors, Monte Easly and David Hezlip, had less seniority than Hagie and neither of them was classified as a metal processor prior to Respondent s acquisition of the foundry Moreover, Ditton failed to explain why a trainee, Daniel Lotz, became a full time metal processor on June 21 after only 2 months' expert ence, in the preference to Hagie who worked as a metal processor for 4 months just before the sale and had a working knowledge of all the machinery in the foundry by virtue of his position in maintenance 2 Phyllis Elgin Phyllis Elgin, Local 844s current vice president, pre viously held several other union positions Elgin was more than an officer of the Local she was an outspoken union advocate For example, after Mahoney issued a letter to all the foundry employees suggesting that they could not rely on the Union for their well being, Elgin responded with a letter defending the Union s contribu tions to the employees rights and to the survival of the foundry Elgin had served as an inspector for 10 of her 15 years with the foundry At the time of the sale, she was the most senior inspector, having trained the other two full time inspectors and one part time inspector Elgin ex pressed a preference for an inspector's position on her employment application, but indicated that she would accept any other position, listing those she had worked in the past, including grinder and cutoff operator Ditton claimed he did not hire Elgin because he learned from Curths that she had suffered back problems that prevented her from lifting In rebutting Ditton's tes timony, Elgin stated without dispute that she had no physical limitations at the present time, had suffered no serious back injuries in the past 5 years, and had not re ceived workmen s compensation for any injury incurred at work She acknowledged experiencing back pain on prior occasions and that her son Scott Parry had lifted heavy objects for her However, he helped other inspec tors in the same way Curths testified that he told Ditton that Elgin had periods in the past when she found it dif ficult to perform her job, but that she was a good and dependable worker Ditton s concern about Elgin s past ailment did not deter him from hiring trainees who had presently exist ing physical impairments For example, the record shows that James Stambaugh was hired as a trainee on April 22, although the medical report attached to his application stated that he had a hernia occasional chest pains, and dizzy spells that precluded him from heavy lifting An other trainee, Karen Bobston, who also suffered from a hernia, was hired as a trainee, as was Roger Young who has a bullet hole in his lung and was limited in what he could lift Still another trainee, Mark Lund had a history of headaches and nose bleeds as well as a sensitivity to dust Moreover Respondent retained Superintendent Curths even though he had a heart condition It is true that Respondent hired only three of the four former inspectors, converting one part time position to full time However by July 26, the timecards show that 1008 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD new trainee Worthington was spending almost 40 hours a week as an inspector 3 Troy Hunter Troy Hunter was employed by the predecessor for 6 years first as a shakeout operator then in grinding, pro duction molding, and more recently in metal processing He opted for a contractual layoff in December 1986 but was assured that he would be recalled Hunter served as union steward from early 1985 to his layoff in 1986, taking an active role in resolving grievances Ditton ex plained that Hunter was not hired because applicants with greater metal processing experience filled the avail able positions However, Ditton did not explain why trainee George Cleavinger became a full time shakeout operator on July 19 or why trainee Donald Parsano became a metal processor on August 19, rather than of fering these positions to Hunter who had more experi ence in such work than either of them 4 Scott Parry Scott Parry, the Local s recording secretary and a shop steward, worked as a material handler from 1983 until a seasonal layoff in December 1986 Before his last position he had worked as a metal processor, coremaker wheelabrator operator, and grinder He, too indicated on his employment application that he would accept any position offered Respondent did not fill a full time mate nal handlers slot Instead Doug Keeple who was hired principally as an inspector took on Parry s material han dling duties Ditton testified that he questioned Parry s integrity because he was led to believe that he may have filed a false workmen s compensation claim for an injury that actually occurred at home rather than on the job When the General Counsel questioned Curths about the information he supplied to Ditton the superintendent said that he merely informed Ditton that Parry had been injured at home and on returning to work had received another injury for which he claimed workmen's compen cation Curths did not suggest that the claim was fraudu lent 5 Ted Richey Ted Richey, the immediate past vice president of Local 844 and a vice president from 1976 to 1979, par ticipated in negotiations for the latest collective bargain ing agreement and was actively involved in processing grievances Prior to the sale of the foundry Richey had 12 years seniority working in the past 3 years as a cutoff operator His employment application showed, however that he had a wide range of experience throughout the foundry as a coremaker shakeout opera tor aluminum moulder and metal processor Although he preferred a cutoff position, he also expressed a will ingness to serve as a ballmill operator a squeeze molder and even as a janitor In its brief, Respondent stated that it hired only one cutoff operator who had far more se niority than did Richey and did not fill a ballmill opera tor s position However when permanent positions became available for a squeeze molder a metal proces sor and a cleanup man, those jobs went to trainees 6 Steve Kinne Steve Kinne, immediate past president of Local 844, like Richey, was performing cutoff work at the time of the takeover During his 7 years with the predecessor he also had obtained broad experience in moulding, shake out, and metal processing, and indicated his willingness to accept any available position Kinne too was actively involved at the final step of the grievance procedure and participated in negotiations leading to the last collective bargaining agreement with the predecessor Discussion and Concluding Findings The issues The issues to be resolved in this case, as framed by the complaint and the answer are 1 Whether Respondent unlawfully refused to recog nize and bargain with the Union on or about April 6 and/or 10, 1987 2 Whether Respondent improperly refused to hire six applicants for employment because they held union office 3 Whether certain statements made by Respondent s supervisors are unlawful For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the Respondent is a successor within the meaning of the Act and, as such, is required to recognize and bargain with the Union I further find that the Respondent is liable for the statements made by its supervisors and that it unlaw fully refused to employ the six union officers named in the complaint 1 The Respondent is a successor Under well settled principles, a new employer is a suc cessor to the old and obligated to recognize and bargain with a union that represented its predecessors employees when there is substantial continuity between the two en terprises and when the predecessors former employees constitute a majority of the new employers work force See Fall River Dyeing Corp v NLRB, 482 U S 27, 43 (1987) In making this determination the Board considers various factors including [W]hether the business of both employers is essen tially the same whether the employees of the new company are doing the same jobs in the same work ing conditions under the same supervisors and whether the new entity has the same production process produces the same products and basically has the same body of customers The core question underlying this analysis is whether those employees who have been retained will under standably view their job situations as essentially unal tered Golden State Bottling Co v NLRB 414 U S 168 184 (1973) As described in the fact statement above the Respond ent purchased an ongoing business and continued the foundry s operations without change or interruption Thus Respondent acquired all the predecessors assets- the foundry structure, together with its equipment in VERMONT FOUNDRY CO ventory, and customer list A few machines were added, but they supplemented rather than substituted for exist mg stock Respondent was in a position to quickly begin operating the foundry just a few days after the sale was concluded, using the same processes to produce the same metal castings as were fabricated in the past Relying on Ditton s testimony Respondent claimed that within a short period of time the majority of its customers were new However, its own customer list proved that this claim was unfounded Respondent admittedly took over the foundry intend mg to continue production with as little disruption as possible As a practical matter Respondent could not have achieved its goal without relying on experienced personnel from the very outset Thus, it began with a core crew of 42 persons, 39 of whom had worked for the predecessor For the most part, these holdovers found themselves within the same department, using the same skills to perform the same jobs for the same supervisors as they had in the past Thus, all the indicia necessary to demonstrate continuity of operations and employment conditions between the predecessor and the Respondent are present here Having concluded that the Respondent continued the operations of its predecessor essentially unchanged, the remaining determinant of its obligation to bargain with the incumbent Union turns on whether the predecessor s employees formed a majority of its work force See Spruce Up Corp, 209 NLRB 194 196 (1974), enfd 529 F 2d 516 (4th Cir 1975) As a general rule, the relevant measuring day to determine if the Company employed a majority of union members is the initial date it began op erating See, e g NLRB v Burns Security Services, 406 U S 272 (1972), NLRB v Houston Distribution Services, 573 F 2d 260 266 (5th Cir 1978) Thus, the Supreme Court found in the Burns case that a successors obliga tion to bargain with the union arose on the day that it began to provide guard services at a plant with a work force of 42 employees, 27 of whom performed the same task for the previous employer 406 US at 278-279 However, in some cases when an employer starts with a few employees and requires a startup period gradually assemble a work force and reconstruct an operation, the Supreme Court has indorsed the Board s substantial and representative complement rule for fixing the moment when the determination as to the composition of the suc cessor's work force is to be made' Fall River Dyeing Corp supra at 47 In deciding when a substantial and representative complement exists in a particular employ ee transition period, the key question is whether the job classifications designated for the operation were filled or substantially filled and whether the operation was in normal or substantially normal production ' Id at 49 In the present case the General Counsel submits that the Respondents bargaining obligation arose on April 6, or at the latest on April 10 1987, when it perfected its demand for recognition and the foundry was in full oper ation The Respondent claims however, that it began op erating on April 6 with only a startup crew that did not reflect its full staffing needs Therefore it asserts that the appropriate time to examine its regular operation was on April 22 when it commenced a training program with 42 1009 part time employees I find merit in the General Coun sel s position The record leaves no doubt that when Respondent opened the foundry on April 6 its was prepared to con duct business as usual Forty two permanent, experienced employees were in place during its first week of oper ations just six less than the number on hand prior to the sale With only a few exceptions every job classification in every department that existed before the foundry was sold was filled by the week of April 6 Thus from the outset Respondent was in normal or substantially normal production Fall River Dyeing Corp supra at 49 Here, unlike the situation in the Fall River case Re spondent did not acquire a defunct business nor start pro duction after a 9 month hiatus with a handful of employ ees and a preestablished plan to steadily expand its oper ations by adding permanent employees to its full time roster The Respondent contends that its bargaining obliga tion should not be determined nor its representative com plement measured until April 22, when it hired 42 part time, inexperienced trainees who it claims, must be in cluded within an appropriate unit Because they were not previously employed by the predecessor and thus were not represented by the Union, Respondent asserts that their numbers defeat the Union s claim to represent a ma jority of employees in the unit Respondents argument fails for the following reasons First Respondents claim that it planned from the outset to enlarge its work force by adding 42 trainees to its regular work complement finds no support in the record To the contrary, all of Respondents preliminary employment efforts were focused on seeking experienced employees Mahoney s remarks to Mark Clayton employ ees in late March gave them every reason to believe that they would be employed by the new owner Similarly, Respondents pledge to Vermont officials indicated that the predecessor's work force would be rehired If Re spondent had planned to expand its work force with a large number of trainees even before the foundry opened then surely the plant superintendent would have been among the first to know Yet Curths stated without controversion that he had no advance knowledge that there would be an influx of 42 new part time employees who had never before worked in a foundry The intro duct on of these many inexperienced employees into the foundry without any involvement of the plant superin tendent had to be counterproductive and reveals how hastily conceived and hastily implemented the training program was It certainly raises grave doubt whether the training program was implemented on April 22 as a func tion of sound business judgment By Respondents admission and design, the trainees were not intended to be a part of the nucleus of the foundry's work force Instead, they were hired on a part time basis and advised that they could have no expecta tion of permanent employment The Respondent specifi cally sought out inexperienced people and hired them for abbreviated work periods so that they could be em ployed or laid off at will as business needs dictated Thus there was nothing normal or even substantially 1010 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD normal about this group of novices who served Respond ent s accordian like needs By no stretch of the imagina tion could such trainees be considered integral members of a stable, representative complement Even if I were to assume that the training program was initiated as part of Respondent's preconceived em ployment strategy it would be inappropriate to assess the dimensions of the bargaining unit as of April 22 The record clearly shows that the number of trainees rose to a high of 42 for only 1 week Thereafter their number fell quickly, fluctuating generally between 20 and 31 over the next few months, at a time when the work of the foundry traditionally was at its peak It is clear that at no time did Respondent need 42 new part time trainees and could not use such an excessive number in its operations The truth is that Respondent relied on permanent, experienced employees to run the foundry without interruption and supplemented this stable core with part time inexperienced employees on as need basis How many of this latter group would be needed from week to week or how many of them might become permanent was never certain While the training program was undergoing a shakeout period, the size of Respondents permanent work force remained constant with 39 of 42 emloyees belonging to the Union Thus at all relevant times, the Union continued to represent a majority of employees in the appropriate unit In these circumstances, the bargaining rights of a substantial ma jority of Respondents employees should not depend on the vagaries of its training experiment The permanent full time employees formed a representative complement from the outset Accordingly, the Respondent should have recognized and bargained with the Union as re quested on April 6 or 10 at the latest The Respondent claimed that the UAW s demand for recognition was invalid because it was not made on behalf of the Local, the entity to which the unit employ ees belonged Respondents argument is disingenuous The evidence in this case clearly shows that the Inter national Union was certified by the Board as the collec tive bargaining representative for the foundry s produc tion and maintenance workers in 1964 Shortly thereaf ter, in accordance with the UAW constitution, Local 844 was chartered That charter has never been revoked Thus the legal entitlement of both entities the Interna tional and the Local to represent the Vermont Foundry bargaining unit is beyond question Respondent further argues that the International Union s constitution requires that the Local authorize the UAW to act on its behalf and that such authorization was not granted in this case Even if I were to assume that Respondent had standing to question the Union s in ternal affairs, its reading of the UAW constitution is in correct The relevant passage of that document, article 19 section 3 merely provides that the UAW may not negotiate the terms of a collective bargaining agreement without first obtaining the approval of the affected local This language has no bearing on the Union s legitimate demand for recognition Moreover, when Respondent purchased the foundry it knew or should have known that the predecessors em ployees were represented by the International and Local 844 During the months that Respondent negotiated for the sale its agents surely knew of the predecessors col lective bargaining agreement that stated on its cover and in the recognition clause that the contract applied to both the International Union and its Local 844 (See Jt Exh 2) Further, this contract was signed by representa tives of the International and the Local as well as by Dick Hanson, who before becoming president of the Vermont Foundry, served as the predecessors vice president In light of the relationship between these offi ciais, Respondent cannot honestly disclaim knowledge of the relationship between the International and Local 8449 The Respondent Violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by Failing to Hire Union Officers An employer who purchases the assets of a business is free to hire or not hire some or all the employees of the predecessor However, an employer who declines to hire the predecessors employees because they are members of a union commits an 8(a)(3) unfair labor practice Howard Johnson Co v Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, 417 U S 249 (1974), NLRB v Burns Security Serv ices, supra In the present case, the General Counsel submits that the Respondent refused to hire four of the current and two of the former Local 844 officials out of antipathy for their union activity and in order to erode support for the Union among other employees In defense, the Respond ent contends that it had specific, legitimate reasons for failing to employ each of the union officials named as discriminatees in the complaint and that it took a number of other actions that demonstrate it harbored no bias against union members Where, as here, both permissible and impermissible reasons are offered to explain an employers actions a search for the true reason requires analysis in accordance with Wright Line 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd 662 F 2d 899 (1st Cir 1981) cert denied 455 U S 989 (1982) ap proved in NLRB v Transportation Management Corp 462 US 393 (1983) 10 Under Wright Line the General Counsel bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the affected employee (or in this case, applicant) was engaged in protected activity that the employer was aware of the activity and that antiun ion animus was the motivating cause of the employer s adverse action (or inaction) Faced with evidence suffi cient to establish a prima facie case, the employer then must prove that it would have engaged in the same con duct even in the absence of union activity Under these standards, I conclude that the General Counsel has suc cessfully established a prima facie case that six individ uals named in the complaint were victims of discnmma 9 Respondents citation of Pacific Southwest Container 283 NLRB 79 (1987) is equally inappropriate for that case involving a unions fai lure to disclose to employees prior to a representation election that it had merged with another union thereby altering its size and geographic base is wholly inapposite to the facts of the present case is The Wright Line burden shifting analysis was applied to alleged dis crimmatory refusals to hire in Sewell Allen Big Star No 52 280 NLRB 1244 1254 (1986) VERMONT FOUNDRY CO tory hiring practices and that Respondent did not over come that showing with credible evidence The record shows that each of the six alleged discri minatees had considerable foundry experience, having served the predecessor for as long as 14 years in the case of Phyllis Elgin and no less than 3 years in Troy Hun ter s case Each of them had applied for employment in dicating that they were willing to accept any of a variety of jobs, none of them had blemishes on his or her work record They differed from their former fellow workers who were hired by Respondent in one major way each of them either was serving or had in the recent past served a term as a union officer Moreover, each of them had held positions that made them highly visible not only among their peers, but also to management Thus, both Hagie, as union president, and Phyllis Elgin, as vice president were involved in negotiating the termination agreement between the predecessor and the Local Elgin also had served as an officer in a previous administration and had a well earned reputation as an activist Scott Parry, Elgin s son, and Troy Hunter served as union stewards and were particularly active in processing grievances Kinne and Richey also held prominent union posts just prior to the current term, had been actively in volved in processing an especially large number of gnev ances at the third step, and had participated in negotia tions for the last collective bargaining agreement with the predecessor Ditton, the person solely responsible for Respondent s hiring decisions, certainly knew the identity of the union officers It is important to note that he did not obtain this information inadvertently or casually as he attempted to imply Rather, he purposely extracted it from Curths who at Ditton s request furnished him with a list of the union officials Ditton s pursuit of such information is evidence of a discriminatory intent See Sousa & Sons Inc 210 NLRB 982 (1974) Uncontroverted admissions made by a few of Re spondent s supervisors provide additional proof of Re spondent s antiunion bias Thus, Superintendent Curths made no effort to conceal the new owner s hostility to the Union or his desire to keep the Union out of the fa cility It is significant that although Curths was called as a witness by Respondent he was not asked to refute or explain the damaging remarks attributed to him by the General Counsels witness Therefore I can draw only one conclusion that Curths indeed made the damaging statements regarding Respondents expressed antiunion disposition The inference also follows that Curths a highly placed official in Respondents hierarchy would not blithely attribute statements to his employer that had no foundation Supervisors Collins and Harris made other damaging admissions indicating that Hagie, Elgin, Hunter, Richey, and Kinne were not hired precisely because they held union office Rather than denying that such statements were made, the Respondent argued in its brief that the statements had limited value because they came either before or long after the Respondent had purchased the foundry and were made by persons who had no responsi bility for the hiring process These arguments are unper suasive The foundry is a small facility with only a hand 1011 ful of supervisors They were not remote from those with ultimate responsibility for employment decisions In any event whether these particular supervisors were im mediately involved in hiring decisions is far less impor tant than the fact that they conveyed information on behalf of the Respondent Certainly, the applicants rea sonably could believe that Curths, Harris, and Collins spoke authoritatively for the Respondent See American Press, 280 NLRB 937, 951 (1986) Thus, the Respondent is liable for violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by imply ing, through comments of its supervisors, that the named applicants for employment were not hired because of their union affiliations See J D Landscaping Corp, 281 NLRB 9 10 (1986) Mason City Dressed Beef, 231 NLRB 735, 749 (1977) enfd in part 590 F 2d 688 (8th Cir 1978) The Respondent correctly observed that an employer may hire or not hire for good or bad cause, or no cause at all, as long as its hiring decisions are not driven by an antiunion purpose As proof that its motives were benign, Respondent pointed out that it hired 39 of its predecessors employees, all of whom were members of the Union However, this fact alone is not enough to overcome unrefuted statements made by Respondent s supervisors that specific applicants were denied employ ment because they held union office See J D Landscap ing, supra at 10 Having taken over an ongoing business it is apparent that Respondent needed experienced per sonnel to operate without interruption as it intended Be cause the predecessors employees provided the only source of such trained labor, the Respondent had no choice other than to hire enough Clayton Mark employ ees to run the foundry after hiring 39 union members for its permanent work force, Respondent added just enough part time trainees for the first week of the training pro gram to defeat the Union's majority I have little doubt that Respondent was aware of the effect that adding 42 new trainees would have, for its April 22 letter, rejecting the Union's bargaining demand was based on an alleged lack of support by a majority of employees Obviously Respondent carefully counted who did and did not belong to the Union In these circumstances the fact that Respondent hired 39 union members does not demon strate a nondiscriminatory intent Respondent also argued that if it had intended to dis criminate against applicants for employment because of their union positions it would not have hired some cur rent and past union officers It is true that Respondent hired two current officers Ed Wys and Joe Haney Jr financial secretary and committeeman respectively However Wys, a patternmaker, and Haney, a machinist, held highly skilled jobs for which there were no replace ments Thus, Respondent had no alternative but to hire them Apart from Hagie, Elgin Parry, and Hunter, the only other current officers whom Respondent failed to hire suffered from legitimate health problems and held rather obscure positions such as sergeant at arms, guide, and committeeman i i II Pat Haney a committee person was to poor health at the time of the takeover but was employed by the Respondent after recovery 1012 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The other union officers whom Respondent hired held positions that were neither recent nor prominent 12 Moreover, there is nothing in the record to suggest that when Ditton made his hiring decisions he knew or was told by Curths which employees had held posts with the Union at remote periods of time The reasons presented to justify Ditton s failure to offer employment to the six union officers named in the complaint were unconvincing and often contradicted by probative evidence Union President Hagie was a case in point Ditton maintained that he would consider experienced applicants for jobs other than the one they regularly worked under the predecessor Yet, he apparently did not consider Hagie for a metal processors job even though he had been doing such work for 4 months prior to the sale Instead, Ditton hired two men who, contrary to his assertion, had less seniority and less experience as metal processors than Hagie Ditton again overlooked Hagie s experience when a position for a full time metal processor became available during the early summer, giving the job instead to a trainee with only 2 months experience Such a choice defies sound business judg ment and suggests that Respondents real reason for by passing Hagie was because of his union position See NLRB v Houston Distribution Services, supra 573 F 2d 266 267 (5th Cir 1978) Ditton s proffered reasons for failing to hire Elgin were equally spurious He claimed that he believed she might injure herself because of her bad back However he had no such fears when he hired a number of trainees with current medical impairments In contrast to trainees whose disabilities were plainly revealed on their employ ment applications, Elgin s back problems had occurred in the past Ditton obviously was grasping at straws when he attempted to justify his failure to hire Elgin, an expe nenced inspector who had 10 years on the job and 14 years in the foundry on the mere possibility of future injury Respondent also indicated that it hired only three inspectors and had no need for Elgin who would have been the fourth However by the summers end a rela tively new trainee Worthington was working as an in Spector for almost 40 hours a week controverting Re spondent s contention Ditton rationalized his decision to bypass Hunter Parry, Kinne and Richey with the excuse that other ap plicants with greater experience were hired for the post tions they sought But he gave no explanation for his failure to give preference to these trained employees when other positions arose for which they had registered interest, turning instead to inexperienced trainees Thus Respondents timecards reveal that in several months fol lowing its takeover eight full time permanent positions opened up in the foundry all of which could have been filled by the far more qualified union officers than by trainees Thus trainees were given jobs as a squeeze molder and cleanup person while Richey, who had 12 12 For example Sharon Dodd served as the Locals secretary for 1 year terms in 1979 and 1985 Joe Haney Sr a maintenance employee was a vice president a number of years ago Gerald Hanson an electrical maintenance employee resigned after serving as a committeeman 7 years ago years seniority and had indicated his availability for both positions was ignored Respondent also filled several metal processing jobs with trainees rather than turning to Hunter, who was experienced in such work Respondent claims that its sole motivation for initiating the training program was to prepare a group of employees who would be experienced to work in a foundry If this was true, then as a matter of sound business practice Elgin, with 15 years experience, Richey with 12 years Hagie and Kinne with 7 years, and Parry and Hunter, with 3 years each, should have been prime candidates for em ployment if not in early April then certainly when other positions became available later on Yet, Respond ent offered no explanation for is subsequent failure to offer positions to these qualified applicants rather than to individuals with only several months part time training Consequently I conclude that Respondent has failed to overcome the General Counsel's case in chief, and failed to establish that it would not have hired the six union of ficers even in the absence of their union activity Re spondent not only discriminated against the six individ uals involved, its conduct also signaled the balance of the work force that union activism was unacceptable and dangerous to their economic well being Accordingly, I find that by refusing to offer employment to Hagie, Elgin Hunter, Parry Kinne and Richey, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The Respondent, Vermont Foundry Co, a Division of Mahoney Foundries Inc is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and its Local 844 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit apppropriate for the purposes of collective bargain mg within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act All production and maintenance employees at Em ployer s plant at Vermont Illinois, including plant clericals and truck drivers excluding all office cleri cal employees confidential employees professional employees guards working foremen and all super visors as defined in the Act 4 At all times material, the Union has been the exclu sive collective bargaining representative of the employ ees in the unit described above 5 Respondent is a legal successor for labor relations purposes to the MCC Clayton Mark Foundry in the op eration of its foundry business in Vermont Illinois 6 Since on or about April 6, 1987, and at all times thereafter Respondent has failed and refused to recog nize and bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the above described unit, and therefore has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting com merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act VERMONT FOUNDRY CO 1013 7 Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to employ Chris Hagie, Phyllis Elgin, Scott Parry, Troy Hunter Steve Kinne and Ted Richey because they held union office and worked ac tively on behalf of the Union 8 Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act through statements made by Plant Superintendent Curths and Supervisors Collins and Harris that the Respondent would not permit the Union to represent employees at its facility and that certain applicants were not employed because they held union office 9 The aforementioned unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respond ent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma tive actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Accordingly, I recommend that the Respondent be required to offer applicants for employment, Chris Hagie, Phyllis Elgin, Troy Hunter, Scott Parry, Steve Kinne, and Ted Richey, employment to the jobs that they held prior to Respondent's acquisition of the found ry or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiv alent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed discharg ing, if necessary any persons who were hired as trainees to make room for them, and make them whole for any loss of earnings that they may have suffered due to the discrimination against them from April 6, 1987, until a proper offer of reinstatement is made, less interim earn rags as prescribed in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 13 Further, I shall recommend that the Respondent be re quired to recognize and bargain with the International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and its Local 844 and if agreement is reached to reduce the agree ment to a written contract On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record I issue the following recommend ed14 ORDER The Respondent Vermont Foundry Co, a Division of Mahoney Foundries, Inc Vermont Illinois its officers, agents successors and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and its Local 844 as the exclusive collective bar gaining representatives of all employees in the following unit All production and maintenance employees at Em ployer s plant at Vermont Illinois including plant clericals and truck drivers excluding all office clen cal employees confidential employees, professional employees guards working foremen and all super visors as defined in the Act (b) Refusing to hire or otherwise discriminate against employees in their hire or tenure of employment because they are officers of and activists in the Union or any other labor organization (c) Making statements that advise applicants for em ployment or employees that the Union will not be recog nized as their exclusive collective bargaining representa tive or that they will be denied employment with the Re spondent because they hold union office or actively sup port a union (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar anteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer immediate and full employment to Chris Hagie, Phyllis Elgin Scott Parry, Troy Hunter, Stever Kinne, and Ted Richey, without prejudice to their se nionty and other rights and privileges discharging if necessary employees hired originally as part time trainees in order to make room for them In addition make whole the six aforementioned individuals for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimina tion practiced against them in the manner described in the remedy section of this decision (b) Recognize and on request bargain collectively with the International Union, United Automobile Aero space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America UAW and its Local 844 as the exclusive collective bar gaining representatives of employees described in para graph 1(a) above and if an agreement is reached embody the agreement in an executed written contract (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, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order 15 13 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 26USC §6621 14 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 11 The General Counsel has requested that a visitatonal clause be in cluded in the Order However in Cherokee Marine Terminal 287 NLRB 1080 (1988) the Board held that request for visitatonal rights should be granted only where the specific facts of the case so warrant I find no special circumstances in this case that suggest extraordinary relief is re quired Accordingly the General Counsels request for a visitatonal clause is denied 1014 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) Post at its Vermont, Illinois facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."16 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 33, after being signed by the Respondent's au- 16 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." thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con- secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent 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 the Re- spondent has taken to comply.