Halstead Industries, Inc.

HALSTEAD INDUSTRIES 759 Halstead Metal Products, a Division of Halstead In- dustries, Inc. and Donald Franklin Hazelwood. Case 11-CA-13238 September 20, 1990 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY On February 26, 1990, Administrative Law Judge Marion C Ladwig issued the attached deci- sion The Respondent filed 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 conclusions2 and to adopt his recommended Order The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cu 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings We also find no merit in the Respondent's allegations of bias and preju- dice on the part of the judge Thus, we perceive no evidence that the judge prejudged the case, made prejudicial rulings, or demonstrated a bias against the Respondent in his analysis or discussion of the evidence The Respondent has also excepted to the judge's finding that the night- shift hours were 11 p m to 11 am We find ment in this exception as it is clear from the record that the night-shift hours were 7 p m to 7 a m This error does not affect the results of our decision Finally, the Respondent excepts to the judge's rejection of its offer of proof regarding the alleged bias of the General Counsel's "chief witness," Diane Coffill, the Respondent's former employment manager The Re- spondent argues, in effect, that Cook, the Respondent's former personnel manager, had engaged in a "vendetta" against the Respondent by filing numerous charges and suits against it The Respondent asserts that as part of this vendetta Cook induced Coffin to testify falsely that Plant Manager Piper had told her not to rehire Hazelwood because "he was with the bunch up at the tree" We find no merit in the Respondent's exception First, we note that the judge did not reject the Respondent's offer of proof but admitted it into the record Thus, the Respondent fully pre- served its position on the record Second, while the judge rejected the Respondent's evidence in support of the offer of proof, he did so only after the Respondent's attorney failed to provide any connection between the evidence It sought to submit and the Issue of Coffin's credibility Be- cause we agree with the judge that the proffered evidence concerning the alleged relationship between Cofffil and Cook is not probative re- garding the Issues in the case, we find no merit in the Respondent's ex- ception 2 In concluding that the Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(1) by refusing to rehire Hazelwood, the judge found that Hazelwood, having informed Plant Manager Piper on the evening of August 20, 1988, that he wanted his job back, was an applicant for employment and therefore protected under Sec 7 of the Act Although we agree with the judge, we note that even if Hazelwood only became an applicant on August 22 when he sub- mitted his formal application for rehire, the result would be the same In this context, we emphasize that Hazelwood was not rehired because of his association with the employees Involved in the protected concerted activity at the Oak Tree See E Erection Co, 292 NLRB 587 (1989) ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the admmistrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Halstead Metal Products, a Division of Halstead Industries, Inc, Pme Hall, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order Rosetta B Lane, Esq , for the General Counsel Terry A Clark and James F Edwards, Esqs (Edwards, Ballard, Bishop, Sturm & Clark), of Spartanburg, South Carolina, for the Respondent DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARION C LADWIG, Admuustrative Law Judge This case was tried m Winston-Salem, North Carolina, on Oc- tober 16-17, 1989 The charge was filed by Donald Ha- zelwood on March 15, 1989, and the complamt was issued September 5, 1989, and amended at the trial Oiler Hazelwood quit August 16, 1988, 1 after 2 days' notice, because of a proposed change m his night-shift schedule to 7 days on and 2 days off When other em- ployees walked off the job 4 days later for the same reason, he joined them in a meeting outside the premises and asked Plant Manager Blame Piper for his job back Piper told him to "put your application in We need good maintenance men" Hazelwood filed his written ap- plication, but he was not rehired—even though his em- ployee termmation notice showed "Gopd" skill, "Good" production, and "Entitled to consideration for re-em- ployment" About 7 months later, on March 15, 1989, Hazelwood filed the charge after the former personnel manager in- formed lum that the reason the Company had not rehired him was his joining the others who walked off the job The pnmary issues are (a) whether the 10(b) 6-month limitations period was tolled and (b) whether the Compa- ny, the Respondent, 2 unlawfully refused to rehire Hazel- wood because of his protected concerted activity in vio- lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the bnefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION The Company, a corporation, manufactures copper tubing at its facility in Pine Hall, North Carolina, where it annually ships goods valued over $50,000 directly out- side the State It admits and I find that it is an employer All dates are in 1988 unless otherwise indicated 2 The name of the Respondent were amended at the trial 299 NLRB No 116 760 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act II ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Requests to be Rehired Donald Hazelwood, hired in December 1986, was a maintenance oiler on the 10-man C crew, which was on a four-three schedule, working 12-hour shifts from 11 pm to 11 am with 4 days on and 3 days off, followed by 3 days on and 4 days off (Fr 8-9, 14, 184) In late July the maintenance department supervision began proposing a seven-two schedule, to work 7 con- secutive days with 2 days off Because of a daytime sleeping problem, Hazelwood complained to Foreman David Sizemore and members of the crew that he could not work 7 nights in a row (Fr 10-11, 100) On Sunday, August 14, Hazelwood told Dean Boat- wright, the C-crew general foreman, that he wanted to put in a notice that he was quitting He said, "I hate to leave you're a good general foreman and I like ev- erybody I'm working with," but that he could not work 7 nights in a row Boatwright said he would prepare the papers Hazelwood continued working until Tuesday morning, August 16, the end of his 3-night week (Fr 11-14, 71 ) Hazelwood, Sizemore, and Boatwright signed Hazel- wood's employee termination notice The notice (G C Exh 2) showed that Hazelwood's skill was "Good," his production was "Good," and he was "Entitled to consid- eration for re-employment" Boatwright told Hazelwood that "he filled it out like that because he figured I might want to get back on down there sometime" (Fr 13) Boatwright first testified "I don't recall" and then adnutted filling out the employee termination notice and reluctantly admitted that as an employee Hazelwood was "all nght" (Fr 175-176) The following Saturday night, August 20, the remain- ing members of the C crew saw the seven-two schedule posted on the bulletin board and unsuccessfully sought a meeting with Plant ("Location") Manager Blame Piper They then walked out and waited at the Oak Tree, a picnic area near the plant One member of the crew tele- phoned Hazelwood, who joined the striking employees soon after Piper, Acting Maintenance Manager Michael Louvette, and Materials Manager John Hess arrived The managers urged the employees to return to work and promised to meet with them the next morning to get the schedule straightened out The employees ended the walkout and returned to work (Fr 14-17, 102-103, 113- 115 ) During this discussion Hazelwood requested his job back As he credibly testified (Fr 17, 38) "I said I had a good job and I hated to quit my job," but "I just couldn't work no seven-two schedule" He asked Plant Manager Piper, "Have I got a chance of getting on back down there when you all get this schedule straightened out?" Piper answered, "Yeah, put your application in We need good maintenance men" (Hazelwood appeared on the stand to be an honest, forthnght witness ) Maintenance mechanic Charles Raines recalled (Fr 116) that Piper told Hazelwood to submit an application and that "he didn't see why [Hazelwood] could not come back to work, because they need good personnel" Maintenance mechanic Brews Davis recalled (Tr 134) that Piper told Hazelwood "to go ahead and put your application back in because we need all the maintenance people we can get" Piper admitted (Fr 239-240) that Hazelwood said, "I want my job back," but he claimed that he merely suggested, "The best thing you can do, Donald, is to put your application in and we'll go from there" (Piper's credibility is discussed later ) The following Monday morning, August 22, Hazel- wood went to the plant and filed an application to be re- hired He told Employment Manager Diane Coffill, "I'd like to see about getting my job back I seen Blame [Piper] up at the Oak Tree" the night before and Piper said, "Put in an application" (Fr 18-20, 73-74) B Concealed Reason for Not Rehinng At this time, as she credibly testified (Fr 66-67, 88), Employment Manager Coffill did the hiring and rehiring for the maintenance department—without consulting with Acting Maintenance Manager Louvette—as well as for the rest of the plant (Although the Company attacks Coffill's credibility, she impressed me most favorably by her demeanor on the stand as a sincere, candid witness, doing her best to give an accurate account of what hap- pened) Coffill credibly recalled that after talking to Hazel- wood and returning to her office that Monday morning, August 22, Plant Manager Piper came in and confirmed that he had told Hazelwood over the weekend that Ha- zelwood could fill out an application She told Piper that Hazelwood felt that the shifts had been straightened out, but Piper said nothing had been worked out and to go ahead and let Hazelwood fill out an application (Fr 74- 75 ) Coffill proceeded to follow the regular process for re- hiring employees (Fr 75-76) She checked Hazelwood's file and found nothing indicating any reason not to rehire him She talked to Maintenance Supervisor Troy Barkley and then to General Foreman Perry Hole, each of whom said "no problem" in rehiring Hazelwood Hole did not testify I discredit Barkley's denial that he was consulted (Fr 179), he appeared less than candid I also discredit, as a fabrication, personnel clerk Ginger Lawson's claim that when Hazelwood filed his application Coffin told him she "would have to discuss it with the department heads before it could be considered" (Tr 222) By her demeanor on the stand Lawson impressed me unfavor- ably as a witness Coffill heard nothing further from Piper about solving the scheduling problem About the first of September (Fr 20) Hazelwood return and inquired about being re- hired Coffill said she "did not have any information about the shift," but that she would check on it and if she needed to be in touch, she would call him A few minutes later Plant Manager Piper came in, asked what Hazelwood wanted, and said not to rehire him Piper stated that Hazelwood "was with the bunch up at the tree [emphasis added] and we were not going to call him back" (Fr 77-78, 96) HALSTEAD INDUSTRIES 761 Piper did not deny making this statement, although he claimed he never saw Hazelwood back in the plant (Fr 271) I note that he also claimed that he was not upset that the men walked out of the plant that night, that "we could have brought in other people to do the job" (Fr 266) (By his demeanor on the stand he impressed me as being less than candid ) Operating under Piper's instructions, Coffin never told Hazelwood that his application was rejected or why he was not being rehired (Tr 85) Each time his wife called to inquire, as Hazelwood credibly testified without ob- jection, "they'd always tell her that they hadn't got the schedule straightened out" (Fr 20) The credible evidence is clear that Coffin would have rehired Hazelwood if the plant manager had not forbid- den it The C crew was remaining on the same four- three schedule and the Company clearly had abandoned the idea of a seven-two schedule As Coffill credibly tes- tified, Hazelwood's position was left vacant, "we were in need of maintenance people anyway and, then with all the disturbance about the shift, several of the other em- ployees in maintenance quit" and "We were looking for applications of anybody with maintenance background" (Fr 79--80) Finally, before the end of September, the Company placed newspaper ads for skilled maintenance employees As Coffin credibly testified, "Those applications were handled differently We got those in and Mike Louvette wanted those applications he said that the mainte- nance people that we had were not experienced enough and he did not want to get those kinds of people again So, he wanted to check them out and make sure of their maintenance background better than maintenance em- ployees had previously been checked out" (Fr 80-81) Of course, a skilled mechanic was not required to fill Ha- zelwood's oiler position, which the Company admits in its brief (at 23-24) was "an unskilled position that basi- cally requires an ability 6 maintain oil in the machines" and "not a position which requires mechanical or electri- cal background" The schedule for the C crew was at last changed around the first of November to a four-four (4 days on and 4 days off) schedule (Tr 241), but Hazelwood was not notified After 90 days (ending in November) his ap- plication was discarded (Fr 77) The Company succeeded in concealing from Hazel- wood the reason he was not being rehired until the mid- march 1989—almost 7 months after he placed his appli- cation on August 22 to be rehired Hazelwood credibly testified that it was then that the former personnel man- ager, Tony Cook, informed him what Cook had learned from Coffill, who was then working for a law firm after leaving her employment-manager position with the Com- pany on December 31 (Fr 21-22, 65) As Hazelwood credibly testified (Fr 22), Cook in- formed him that Coffin had revealed to Cook that [t]he second time [Hazelwood] came down there [about the first of September] Blame [Piper] asked her what I was doing and she told [Piper] that I was trying to get my job back And, she said that Piper told her not to hire me, that I was up at the oak tree that night with them boys [Emphasis added ] Hazelwood then realized that his joining the striking employees after the August 22 walkout—not the unre- solved scheduling problems—was the reason for the Company's refusal to rehire him He filed the charge on March 15, 1989 C The Company's Defenses 1 Untimely charge The Company states in its brief (at 19) that the 10(b) lmutations period began September 15 (6 months before the March1 15, 1989 charge) It then contends (at 20) that even if Employment Manager Coffill's testimony is ac- cepted as true that Plant Manager Piper "walked down to her office [about September 1, a week or so after Ha- zelwood filed his August 22 application] and made the statement which is the basis for the Complaint in this case such an alleged unlawful statement and rejec- tion by Piper is well outside of the 10(b) period" In making this contention, however, the Company ig- nores the undisputed fact that Hazelwood was unaware before September 15 that his application had been reject- ed As shown in four recent court of appeals decisions, it is now well established when the limitations period begins The D C Circuit held in Land Air Delivery v NLRB, 862 F 2d 354, 360 (D C Cff 1988), cert denied 862 F 2d 354 (1989) "The limitations period does not begin to run until the party filing the charge knows or has reason to know that an unfair labor practice has oc- curred" The First Circuit held in Teamsters Local 42 v NLRB, 825 F 2d 608, 614 (1st Cir 1987) "It is settled that the limitations clock does not begin to tick until the charging party has notice that an unfair labor practice occurred" Similarly the Seventh Circuit held in Esmark, Inc v NLRB, 887 F 2d 739, 745 (7th Cir 1989) "Section 10(b)'s limitations period commences then the aggrieved individual has actual notice that an unfair labor practice has been committed" Also, the Ninth Circuit held in NLRB v Electrical Workers Local 112, 827 F 2d 530, 533 (9th Cir 1987) "The limitation period does not begin to run until the party filing the charge receives actual notice that an unfair labor practice has occurred" Before September 15 Hazelwood did not know, and he had no reason to know, that the Company was unlawful- ly refusing to reinstate him because, as one manager told another manager, "he was with the bunch up at the tree and we were not going to call him back" He knew that applications were kept on file for 90 days (Fr 21) He had no reason to know that his application had already been rejected Employment Manager Coffill had merely told him that she would be checking on the shift-sched- uling problem, which was the cause of his quitting She never notified him that the Company had abandoned the proposed seven-two schedule 762 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I find that the limitations period began sometime after September 15 I therefore reject the Company's conten- tion that the March 15, 1989 charge was untimely filed 2 No protected concerted activity The Company contends in its brief (at 14) that Hazel- wood and the "members of C-crew who walked our of the plant on the evening of August 20" had "resigned and were no longer employees" by the Company and "It is well established that employees who resign from their employment no longer retain Section 7 rights and projec- tions" It further argues (at 16) Thus, at the time they congregated outside of the plant entrance, they were no longer employees of [the Company] As far as their relationship with [the Company] was concerned at that time, they possessed no Section 7 rights or projections Therefore, even assummg that [the Company] re- fused to rehire [Hazelwood] because of his presence and participation in the meeting outside the plant entrance, no violation of the Act occurred [His] ac- tivities outside the plant entrance were not protect- ed by Section 7 of the Act I reject this contention as frivolous Regarding Hazelwood's status, the Company states in its brief (at 16-17) "There is no question that [on August 22] when [he] submitted his application for reemploy- ment, he regained his legal status of employee and the projections of Section 7 of the Act" I find, however, that he had the same employee status as an applicant for reemployment on August 20 when he joined the employ- ees at the Big Tree picnic area and orally applied for his job back Plant Manager Piper admitted at the trial that Hazelwood told him, "I want my job back" Regarding the status of the other employees, Piper was aware that they had not resigned, but were engaged in a walkout and were waiting there outside the plant to resolve the problem Piper admitted (Tr 237-238) that when he was called back to the plant that night, Vice President Norris Stanley told him "The maintenance crew just walked off a little while ago and they're up at the Oak Tree I guess we need to go up there and find out what the problem is and get them back into work" The employees returned to work after being promised a meeting the next morning to resolve the scheduling prob- lem Thus, then Hazelwood joined the employees at the Oak Tree, the Company was aware that he was applying for his job back and that the other employees had not resigned, but were engaged in a lawful walkout Both Hazelwood and the strikers were engaged in protected concerted activity 3 Legitimate reasons for not rehiring The Company denies that it unlawfully refused to rehire Hazelwood because of protected concerted activi- ty and argues in its brief (at 30) [The Company] had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for deciding not to rehire [Hazelwood] Namely, because he had qua without notice because of a proposed schedule change [Tr 190] In support of this defense Acting Maintenance Manag- er Louvette claimed that about August 23 or 24 Employ- ment Manager Coffill told him that Hazelwood was out- side and wanted his job back and that Louvette told Cof- fill "no, absolutely not" because "we did not have a place in our organization for someone that just quit without notice" (Tr 190) I find that this purported conversation is a pure fabri- cation Employment Manager Coffill's creditbly testified that she did not discuss Hazelwood's reemployment with Louvette (Tr 96-97) Louvette testified that he reported his decision to the Acting Personnel Manager Ken Barnwell because "I made a concerted effort that anything I had dealt with from a managerial standpoint, that Ken be informed of it, especially along personnel lines" (Tr 190-191) Al- though I do not doubt that Louvette discussed the Com- pany's refusal to rehire Hazelwood with Barnwell, I find that the discussion did not concern the purported con- versation between Louvette and Coffill Barnwell testified that Louvette approached him "one day after the Wednesday morning meeting and said that Donald [Hazelwood] had reapplied and that [Louvette] had no intentions of hiring him back" (Tr 206) I note, however, that Barnwell admitted that the Wednesday meetings began in September (Tr 207) The first Wednesday was September 7-16 days after Hazel- wood's August 22 application and 14 or 15 days after Louvette claimed he had the conversation with Coffill (By his demeanor on the stand, Louvette appeared will- ing to give any testimony that might help the Company's cause ) I infer that Louvette was not aware at the time that Hazelwood was applying for reemployment and that he belatedly fabricated the purported conversation with Coffill, without knowing the date of Hazelwood's appli- cation or the fact that Hazelwood had given 2 days' notice before resigning I also infer that what Louvette reported to Barnwell 2 weeks later was the Company's decision (which Plant Manager Piper relayed to Coffill) not to rehire Hazelwood for joining the striking employ- ees in the meeting on August 20 at the Oak Tree I therefore reject the Company's contention that it re- fused to rehire Hazelwood because he had quit without notice As another "legitimate nondiscriminatory" reason for decidmg not to rehire Hazelwood, the Company con- tends in its brief (at 23) In order to upgrade the [maintenance] department, [Louvette] specifically looked for experienced main- tenancemen with mechanical or electrical back- ground [Tr 193], and consequently, [the Company] lured several applicants with mechanical or electri- cal background The evidence in this case clearly shows that [Hazelwood] did not have electrical or mechanical background [Tr 194] HALSTEAD INDUSTRIES 763 I reject this purported reason as an afterthought The Company had already decided not to rehire Hazelwood weeks before Louvette decided to place newspaper ads for skilled mechanics and to interview them himself Fur- thermore, Hazelwood had demonstrated that he was a good employee, fully qualified to be an oiler D Concluding Findings Having credited Employment Manager Coffill's testi- mony that Plant Manager Piper instructed her not to rehire Hazelwood because he "was with the bunch up at the tree and we were not going to call him back," I find that the General Counsel has made a prima facie show- ing sufficient to support the mference that Hazelwood's protected concerted activity (joining the other employ- ees on August 20 in the lawful walkout) was a motivat- ing factor in the Company's decision not to rehire him Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980) Having re- jected the Company's defenses, I find that the Company has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that it would have refused to rehire Hazelwood in the absence of the protected conduct I therefore find that the Company refused to rehire Hazelwood for engaging in protected concerted activity, violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act CONCLUSION OF LAW By refusing to rehire Hazelwood about September 1, 1988, because of his protected concerted activity, the Company has engaged in an unfair labor practice affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act The Respondent having unlawfully refused to rehire an employee, it must offer him employment and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from the date of the refus- al to rehire to the date of a proper offer to rehire, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed m 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 these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- eds ORDER The Respondent, Halstead Metal Products, a Division of Halstead Industries, Inc , Pine Hall, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 3 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 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to rehire any employee for engaging in protected concerted activity (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer Donald Hazelwood immediate employment in his former job or, if that job no longer exists, in a sub- stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to any rights or privileges previously enjoyed and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the refusal to rehire him, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision (b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful refusal to rehire and notify the employee in writing that this has been done and that the refusal to rehire will not be used against him in any way (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 (d) Post at its facility in Pine Hall, North Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being signed by the Re- spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing withm 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply '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 Umted States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board" APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice 764 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To act together for other mutual aid or protec- tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect- ed concerted activities WE WILL NOT refuse to rehire any of you for engaging in protected concerted activity WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL offer Donald Hazelwood immediate employ- ment in his former job or, if that job no longer exists, in a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to any rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings and other bene- fits resulting from our refusal to rehire him, less any net mtenm earnings, plus interest WE WILL notify lum that we have removed from our files any reference to the refusal to rehire him and that the refusal to rehire will not be used against him in any way HALSTEAD METAL PRODUCTS, A DIVISION OF HALSTEAD INDUSTRIES, INC