Fort Wayne Foundry Corp.

FORT WAYNE FOUNDRY CORP. Fort Wayne Foundry Corporation Machining Divi- sion and International Union of Allied Industri- al Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 25- CA-19451 August 18, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY On March 31, 1989, Administrative Law Judge Michael O. Miller issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed limited exceptions and a sup- porting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.2 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Fort Wayne Foundry Corporation Ma- chining Division, Fort Wayne, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a). "(a) Reprimanding, discharging, or otherwise discriminating against any employee for joining or supporting International Union of Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO or any other union." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b). "(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful reprimand and the unlawful discharge and notify Mark Walker in writing that this has been done and that the reprimand and the discharge will not be used against him in any way." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. ' In sec III , par. 9, the judge inadvertently stated that Supervisor Krause's reprimand of employee Walker occurred on April 1 The record shows that the reprimand occurred on August 1 2 In his limited exceptions, the General Counsel contends that the judge should have provided that the Respondent remove from its files any reference to the reprimand issued to Walker on August I, 1988, and that the Respondent notify Walker in writing that this has been done and that the reprimand will not be used against him in any way. We agree and have modified the recommended Order accordingly APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 127 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. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of promotional opportunities or other reprisals if they join or support a union. WE WILL NOT reprimand, discharge, or other- wise discriminate against any of you for supporting International Union of Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO or any other union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer Mark Walker immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his discharge , less any net interim earnings, plus interest. WE WILL notify him that we have removed from our files any reference to his reprimand and dis- charge and that the reprimand and the discharge will not be used against him in any way. FORT WAYNE FOUNDRY CORPORA- TION MACHINING DIVISION John Petrison, Esq., for the General Counsel. John C. Dresser, Esq., of Fort Wayne, Indiana, for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MICHAEL O. MILLER, Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on January 23, 1989, based upon a charge filed by the International 296 NLRB No. 18 128 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union of Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL- CIO (the Union) on August 12, 1988, and a complaint issued by the Regional Director for Region 25 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board (the Board), on September 26, 1988. The complaint alleges that Fort Wayne Found- ry Corporation, Machining Division (Respondent or the Company), violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act (the Act) by more closely scrutinizing Mark Walker's work performance, by issuing him an unwarranted warning, and by discharging him, all because of his union activities, and by threatening em- ployees with reduced promotional opportunities if they joined or supported a union . Respondent's timely filed answer denies the commission of any unfair labor prac- tices. All parties were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, argue orally, and submit briefs. Briefs, which have been carefully considered, were submitted on behalf of the General Counsel and the Respondent. Based on the entire record, including my observations of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS AND THE UNION'S LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS-PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent is an Indiana corporation with a plant and place of business on Conestoga Drive in Fort Wayne, In- diana, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of machine aluminum castings and related products for the automobile industry . The complaint al- leges and Respondent admits facts sufficient to establish, and I find and conclude, that Respondent is, and has been at all material times, an employer engaged in com- merce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The complaint alleges, the evidence establishes, Re- spondent has stipulated , and I find and conclude that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondent has been operating the Conestoga Drive facility since about August 1988. In August 1988, it had a complement of about 20 employees , working on a single shift. Unlike the employees at two other facilities owned by Respondent, the employees at Conestoga Drive were not represented by any labor organization. The manager at this plant is Judy Kessler, Anthony Krouse is the floor supervisor , John Steward is the lead- man (an admitted statutory supervisor), and Rick Cole is one of the corporate owners. Included in Respondent's operation is a line of machine tools known as the 4.3 line. That line consists of four machines, operations 10, 20, 30, and 40. Material goes from operation 10 (Op 10) to each successive operation and each machine performs one or more tooling functions, machining or drilling holes at precise points and to precise depths, on each part being produced. Mark Walker was hired by Respondent in September 1987 as a machine operator. He was evaluated in Octo- ber, after 30 days, and his performance, attendance, and attitude were all rated in the good to excellent range. He was evaluated again after 90 days, in mid-December and was given favorable comments with respect to his job knowledge, time utilization , cooperation with fellow em- ployees, safety, quality, and quantity of production. It was noted that he was "slow getting started in the morn- ings," that he did not like to do de-burring, and that he "frown[ed] on overtime." Under "Areas for Improve- ment" it was noted that he needed to accept more re- sponsibility and "watch his temper " with respect to overtime assignments . In January 1988,' Walker was of- fered a promotion to the leadman position; he declined it because it would conflict with his commuting arrange- ments. In late April, Walker was offered and accepted a pro- motion to the position of toolsetter for the 4.3 line. This key position required that he check the drills used at each station in each of the four machines, remove dull drills for sharpening, set the proper drills in collars so that they are at the right lengths, reinstall them in sleeves in the machine heads, and maintain two addition- al sets of drills, all set up in their collars, for the replace- ment of dull or broken bits. One spare set was main- tained at the machine, the second was on a board at the toolcrib. Additional drills were maintained, by the tool- setter, in compartmentalized and labeled drawers in the toolcrib. In the toolsetter capacity, Walker started work at 7 a.m., an hour after the machine operators, and worked about an hour after they left. In the evenings, he checked the drills which were in the machines, replacing those which were dull with the spares at the machines, and then replacing the spare tooling. On July 22, Tim Fuhrman, a machine operator and brother-in-law of Walker, made the initial contact with the Union. On July 28, at a restaurant outside of town, Walker and Fuhrman met with Ted Sautter, the Union's representative. They discussed organizing Respondent's employees, received union literature and authorization cards from Sautter, and signed authorization cards. On July 29, beginning before the start of the shift, both Walker and Fuhrman distributed the cards and literature they had received and secured signed cards from about six of their fellow employees. At the end of the July 29 shift, Kessler and Krouse held a meeting with the production employees to discuss problems on the line and the Company's certification by General Motors. At the conclusion of that meeting, an employee volunteered that he had heard rumors about a union starting and was frightened. Krouse, who had simi- larly heard such rumors, told the employees: We don't need a union here. It makes us [manage- ment] look like we're not doing our job. You can come to us with any problems and questions you have, and we'll gladly try and answer them, and solve our problems ourselves. 1 All dates hereinafter are 1988 unless otherwise specified FORT WAYNE FOUNDRY CORP. 129 Immediately after that meeting, Walker approached Krouse and volunteered that if a union were to come in, he would join and support it. When asked why, he said that he wanted more job security. He did not tell Krouse that he was involved in the organizational activities. Sometime thereafter, Cynthia Krouse, a unit employee who was Anthony Krouse's sister, asked Fuhrman for some union literature . She was directed to Walker's car, from which she took it. There is no evidence concerning whether or not she told her brother about this. On August 1, there was a problem on one of the oper- ations and Walker asked Steward whether he preferred that Walker take his break at his usual time, 2 p.m., or while the operation was down, at 1 p.m. Steward told him to take it early and Walker took his coffee and went to the door to the parking lot. While he stood there, Krouse came up on a forklift and proceeded to load boxes on to a skid . Walker asked if Krouse wanted his help and was told "No." After his break, Krouse called Walker aside and reprimanded him, stating that he did not ever want to see Walker standing in the doorway doing nothing, drinking coffee, again. Walker told him that he had been on a break approved by Steward and suggested that Krouse verify that with Steward. Walker then observed Krouse and Steward in conversation. Nothing more was said to Walker.2 On August 3, leadman John Steward approached em- ployees Steven Lothamer and Charles Davenport and in- dicated that he wanted to talk about the Union. Loth- amer said that he was in favor of it and Steward stated: If a union gets in, the Company will not promote anyone who supports the union . . . . They will just come and tell us . . . what to do . . . . Things will get worse. There will be stricter rules if the union gets in . . . . The union would force us to hire minorities. When Lothamer said that the Union had nothing to do with the hiring of minorities, Steward said that they would enforce the law and walked off. He returned, however, to ask Lothamer and Davenport how they would like it if a union tried to organize a business they owned. Before he made these uncontradicted statements, Stew- ard testified, he had been told by Krouse that, as he was hourly paid, he was a unit member. He has since been told that he is a supervisor. Krouse did not corroborate Steward's testimony. Steward was perceived by some employees as a supervisor and by others as an employee. There is no evidence that Respondent either knew about or disavowed Steward's remarks. On August 4, Lothamer completed his shift at Op 10. When he left, Krouse and Edwin Gervais, the manufac- turing engineer, remained to make adjustments to one of the station heads on that machine.3 Because they were 2 Walker's testimony is uncontradicted and was credibly offered a Krouse did not recall working on Op 10 on August 4, however, he acknowledged coming in at 6 or 6.30 a m. on August 5 because Op 10 was already down Gervais was not asked whether he had made adjust- ments to Op 10 on August 4 1 credit Lothamer's straightforward testi- mony While Lothamer favored the Union, he was not one of its organiz- working on Op 10, making adjustments which could change the required drill settings, Walker could not set either the working tools or replacement sets required for that operation. Walker set the tooling required for the other machines.4 Lothamer arrived at work on August 5 shortly before 6 a.m. and found Krouse already there, working on Op 10. They immediately ran into problems with the size and placement of holes drilled by station 3. Krouse changed drills several times, using tools that had previ- ously been set, and he set at least one additional set of tools for it, using drills from the tool crib. After Walker came in, he also set tools for Op 10, replacing drills which were being broken in the effort to readjust that machine. Sometime before 9 a.m., as a result of a problem with a switch, the drills "rapided" into the material being ma- chined, broke, and the machine "crashed." The head and the switch were reset and Krouse looked for Walker to prepare another set of tools.5 Not seeing him in the im- mediate area, Krouse sent Lothamer to find him . Walker was on his break, sitting at a picnic table in the parking lot, when Lothamer told him that Krouse wanted him. Walker replied, "Okay, I'll be in after break." Lothamer reported to Krouse that Walker was on his break and should be in in a few minutes, at its conclusion.6 Krouse then walked to the door and called out to Walker, "You mind coming in here now?" As Walker credibly recalled, he replied, "I am on my way. I am on break."'' Walker came in at the conclusion of his break and found Krouse in the toolcrib , preparing another set of drills. Krouse did not ask for his help and Walker did not volunteer it. Lothamer, however, heard Krouse tell Walker, "We're having trouble with the machines, you're supposed to be here" and Walker reply, "I didn't ers and is no longer employed by Respondent He is among the group of witnesses least likely to have an interest in the outcome of these proceed- ings and therefore most likely to be both impartial and credible * According to his checklist for August 4 , Walker checked the tooling on Op 10 and found that it did not require replacement . The record does not indicate whether this entry was mistaken or was made before Krouse and Gervais began to make the adjustments on the head S According to Krouse , there should have been a spare set on the tool board, already prepared by Walker In view of the changes being made to the head settings the prior evening and throughout the morning hours, and the fact that they had already gone through several sets of tools that morning in an effort to get the proper machining, I cannot credit this at- tempt by Krouse to depict Walker as failing to perform his job functions. Walker cannot be faulted for the absence of additional sets of tools at that point in time. I note that Krouse also attempted, in his pretrial affida- vit, to blame Walker for causing the crash by missetting the tools, Re- spondent did not contend before me that they could attribute the crash to any failure on Walker's part. 6 The foregoing events were credibly described by Lothamer. ' Krouse's version varies in emphasis, he testified that Walker had flatly refused to either get tools for him or show him where the tools were until he finished his break. Kessler, however, testified that Krouse had told her that Walker had replied - "I am on my break. You can wait until my break is over " I credit Walker's version, noting, in addition to demeanor, Krouse's attempt to make Walker look bad by portraying him as failing to have properly prepared backup tooling for Op 10, attempting to blame him for the breakdown, and exaggerating the effect of the shut- down of Op 10, as set forth, infra . I also note the credible testimony of Lothamer and former employee Davenport to the effect that everything in the toolcrib was plainly marked and that Krouse was able, without any difficulty, to find the tools he desired, contrary to Krouse's testimony 130 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD know you . . . was having trouble with the machines." Krouse told Walker to set more tools for station 3 and proceeded to install the tools he had already set himself. Walker then went to the plant manager's office where he asked Kessler whether he was entitled to breaks like everyone else. When she said that he was, he described the foregoing incident . She told him that while employ- ees were allowed breaks, they were a team and some- times had to help out . Walker then told her that "If I wasn't going to be allowed to take a break like everyone else, I was going to have to find a job where I could." Kessler went out on the floor after her conversation with Walker and spoke with Krouse . Krouse told her that there should have been sets of tools on the machine and on the board in the toolcrib, ready to go, but were not. He also said that, when he asked for Walker to come in and show him where the tools were, so that they could get Op 10 up and running, Walker refused be- cause he was on his break . He concluded, "I can't work with him anymore. I think we should get rid of him."s According to Kessler and Krouse, Krouse suggested a number of reasons for terminating Walker : poor attitude, repeated poor work performance and poor attendance. According to Krouse, the entire line of four machines ran out of parts and went down within minutes of Op 10 going down and remained down until 10 a.m., resulting in a substantial loss of production. Walker, he claimed, was aware that the entire line was down and had actual- ly been on break throughout much of the morning while that line was down. His testimony is contradicted by that of Charles Davenport and Donald Leon , both former employees on the 4.3 line with little or no interest in the outcome of this litigation. According to Leon, while Op 10 was down on August 5, Op 20 ran on accumulated materials for all but 30 or 45 minutes; Ops 30 and 40 never went down on that day. I credit Leon and Daven- port. While downtime is unquestionably serious to any production facility, Krouse grossly exaggerated both the down time and its effect in this incident. Sometime after Krouse spoke with Kessler , the two of them, together with Gervais, met with Rick Cole, one of the owners, and a decision was made to discharge Walker. The immediate cause, according to Krouse, was what was characterized as Walker 's refusal to cooperate by coming in off a break in order to assist in getting Op 10 running . In his notebook, Krouse wrote that he fired Walker for "(1) not preforming [sic] his job properly, (2) poor atten. (3) attitude, not part of the team effort." Ac- cording to Kessler, the main reasons were his repeated poor job performance and his attitude . Krouse, she said, gave her his notes of various problems with Walker, notes which he had accumulated over several months. Thus, Kessler noted that Walker had been given a verbal warning, by Steward , for insubordinate conduct to the leadman on May 26; Walker had signed a file note acknowledging that warning. In that incident, when told to deburr parts, Walker had become upset, yelled, screamed and swore. On July 7, Kessler and Krouse rep- 6 Krouse, contrary to Kessler's account of having gone out on the floor, recalled that he went to Kessler's office to tell her what had hap- pened and to suggest Walker's termination rimanded Walker for having failed to show up for work after calling in to say that he would be 3 hours late due to car problems. That warning noted that he had been late on June 22 for the same reason and had been told, at that time, that "car trouble was not considered an ex- cused absence." On July 19, Krouse and Steward told him to test tools after changing them and then warned him for replying "negatively and sarcastically" to their direction. On July 27, Krouse noted that he had caught Walker on the parking lot, talking to his wife, after having clocked in, and told him to stay in the plant. His note contained a reference to Walker's claim that his car had broken down again and that he wanted to fix it while his wife was waiting.9 Krouse also gave Kessler four pages of notes, purport- edly made on August 2, describing eight incidents wherein he had observed that Walker had failed to place the proper drills at work stations, failed to replace worn drills or installed an improper part. Krouse had discussed these observations with Walker but did not show him the notes. Finally, Krouse gave Kessler a note, dated August 3, reflecting that he had spoken to Walker about starting his breaks early and returning from them late and about staying busy when there was nothing for him to do.1 o At the end of the day on August 5, Krouse called Walker over to the toolcrib and told him that he was being discharged because of his attendance, his "bad atti- tude" and for not being "a team player." Respondent did not have an established progressive discipline system and did not allege that the discharge of Walker was mandated by any such program . It did have an attendance program, begun in June, which provided that an employee would be discharged after accumulat- ing five points; Walker had two. His last absence had been on July 6. On the Monday following Walker's termination, Stew- ard told Lothamer that Walker had been fired because of his attendance. Lothamer pointed out that he had more points accumulated than Walker had and asked if he, also, would be fired. Steward told Lothamer that he would not be fired because the point system had been eliminated on August 5, without anyone being told at that time. III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS A close case, requiring a determination of Respond- ent's motivation, has been presented by the foregoing facts. On balance, I believe that the record herein sup- ports the allegations of General Counsel's complaint. 9 Walker did not dispute the first three warnings , referred to above However, he denied being outside after the start of his shift on July 27 for more than 2 or 3 minutes and he denied that Krouse had spoken to him about it His wife denied that he had been outside the plant at all after 7 a.m. Krouse's knowledge of the car problem , which he would not likely have known about if he had not spoken to Walker at that time, supports Krouse's testimony. 1 ° These notes, and the August 1 incident at the doorway, would appear to form the basis of General Counsel 's allegations that Respondent discriminatorily subjected Walker's work to closer scrutiny and gave him an unwarranted reprimand regarding his taking of a break . Walker did not refute the observations reflected in Krouse 's notes FORT WAYNE FOUNDRY CORP. 131 Thus, General Counsel has established that Walker was engaged in union activity , that Respondent had knowledge of his union activity," and that there was union animus among Walker's immediate supervisors. That animus was reflected both in Steward 's threats and Krouse's statements, in Kessler's presence, to the effect that no union was needed and that a union would reflect badly upon the management . Most significant is the timing. Respondent "cracked down" on Walker, giving him an unwarranted reprimand and more closely scruti- nizing his work, and then discharging him within the first week after the advent of union activity. Such evi- dence creates a strong prima facie case. Applying the analytical framework of Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), which is appropriate to cases turning on motivation, the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to establish that it would have dis- charged Walker even if there had been no union activity. In support of that burden, Respondent has shown that it recognizes unions at its other facilities, that there were no unlawful animus statements by anyone above the level of leadman, that Walker's work performance and attitude appeared to deteriorate in the months immediately pre- ceding the discharge, resulting in several warnings or reprimands, and finally that Walker responded in a manner which could be deemed at least uncooperative when asked to cut short a break and assist his supervisor during a breakdown on the line. If the record contained no more than this, I would be inclined to find that Re- spondent had sustained its burden of rebutting General Counsel's prima facie case. However, the General Counsel has adduced additional evidence which, I find, effectively overcomes that prof- fered by Respondent and establishes that the reasons as- signed for the discharge were pretextual . Had Walker not been engaged in union activity, I must conclude, he would not have been discharged. Taking first the primary incident, Walker's alleged re- fusal to help Krouse on August 5, I note that Krouse had unwarrantedly "jumped" Walker on August 1 concern- ing a legitimately taken break and had never retracted that verbal warning . It was, therefore, not unreasonable for Walker to "bristle" when asked to forgo or cut short a break or for him to question the plant manager about whether he was being treated differently than other em- ployees. Moreover, Op 10 had been down throughout the morning and Walker was not made aware of any change in that circumstance, creating any greater urgen- cy, when he was asked to cut short his break. Lothamer did not convey any particular sense of urgency when he relayed Krouse's message, Krouse's own request did not necessarily do so, and Walker's responses, to both Loth- amer and to Krouse, to the effect that he would return in a few minutes, followed by his actually doing so, may not have been the optimum response but was not an un- equivocal rejection of a supervisor 's order. i i In light of the small size of the unit, Walker's open profession of his support would reasonably have led Respondent to suspect that he was one of the organizers. Moreover, it is a fair assumption, although not cnt- ical to resolution of this issue, that Cynthia Krouse told her brother that Walker was supplying employees with union literature Of particular significance to my conclusion is what I find to be Krouse's otherwise inexplicable efforts to por- tray Walker in the worst possible light. He intensified his observations of Walker, beginning immediately after Walker's disclosure of support for a union, first making an unwarranted assumption about his being on break and then making what appears to be an unprecedented exami- nation of the work he had done, compiling a list of al- leged deficiencies. He then attempted, without justifica- tion, to blame Walker for the breakdown and/or the extent of the downtime , both in his report to Kessler and in his testimony in this hearing. He also attempted to claim that Walker was remiss in his duties by failing to have additional tool sets ready on August 5. As the facts reflect, all of the sets which Walker had prepared were used up in the efforts of Krouse and Gervais to reset the heads. He could not have prepared any additional sets for Op 10 because of the adjustments being made by Krouse and Gervais. Krouse's efforts to add unwarranted blame to Walker, over and above the immediate incident of the break, are akin to the assertion of false or shifting reasons and are indicative of pretext. See Delta Gas, 282 NLRB 1315 (1987), and Swift & Co., 250 NLRB 1223, 1225 (1980). Respondent has alluded to other incidents , preexisting the union activity, to show attitude and attendance prob- lems. One, the July 27 incident , was essentially insignifi- cant, involving a couple of minutes and a reasonable desire to see that his wife got help with the car . The ab- senteeism allegations were similarly insignificant. Re- spondent had an absenteeism program ; Walker's record did not warrant any discipline under that program and was less that that of other employees who were not dis- ciplined. Moreover, Respondent eliminated that program on the same day that it discharged Walker, indicating that it did not consider the program to be significant. Finally, I note that "bad attitude" and "not being a team player" are frequently employed euphemisms for union activity. While it is arguable that Walker had, on occasion, displayed some attitude problems, those prob- lems, particularly his reluctance to accept direction, were known as early as December 1987 and did not preclude the Company from offering him a promotion to leadman and actually promoting him to toolsetter. His alleged "bad attitude" and his "not being a team player" did not become significant to Respondent until after he became involved in union activity. These facts lead me to con- clude that Respondent 's use of these terms convey its displeasure at his involvement in union activity. Accordingly, I must conclude that Respondent dis- charged Mark Walker because of his union activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I further find that Krouse's reprimand of Walker on April 1 , and his in- creased scrutiny of Walker's work, both coming immedi- ately after Krouse acquired knowledge of Walker's union activity, were similarly discriminatorily motivated. Finally, I find, in agreement with the General Counsel, that the statements of John Steward, threatening union supporters with the denial of promotional opportunities and other reprisals, violated the Act. Steward's opinion of his own supervisory status at the moment when he ut- 132 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tered these unequivocal threats is irrelevant . "It has long been recognized that the test of interference, restraint, and coercion . . . is whether the supervisor's conduct reasonably tended to interfere with the free exercise of the employee's rights under the Act." Florida Steel Corp., 224 NLRB 45 ( 1976). It is from the employees ' prospec- tive, not the supervisor's, that these statements must be viewed. At least some of the employees who heard Steward's statements considered him to be the supervisor that he was. Therefore, his inherently coercive state- ments must be found to violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By threatening employees with the loss of promo- tional opportunities or other reprisals in the event that they join or support a union, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. By giving Mark Walker an unwarranted reprimand, by more closely scrutinizing his work and by discharging him because of his union activities and support, Respond- ent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 3. The unfair labor practices described above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Re- spondent having discriminatorily discharged Mark Walker, an employee, it must offer him reinstatement and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other bene- fits, computed on a quarterly basis from the date of dis- charge to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Wool- worth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as comput- ed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). On the basis of these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended' 2 ORDER The Respondent, Fort Wayne Foundry Corporation Machining Division, Fort Wayne, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for joining or supporting the International Union of Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL- CIO, or any other union. (b) Threatening employees with the loss of employ- ment opportunities or other reprisals if they join or sup- port a union. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer Mark Walker immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimina- tion against him, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision. (b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge and notify Mark Walker, in writing, that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way. (c) Post at its plant in Fort Wayne, Indiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'s Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being signed by the Respondent's au- 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. (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 12 If no exceptions are riled 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 12 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."