Astro Shapes

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 14, 1995

317 N.L.R.B. 1132 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

1132
317 NLRB No. 166
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
In adopting the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated
Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully soliciting employee Patton to
resign, we find it unnecessary to rely on his finding that Patton was
wearing a union hat and T-shirt when Supervisor Hoover solicited
his resignation. Further, in adopting the judge’s finding that the Re-
spondent was aware of the prounion stance of the three
discriminatees, we find it unnecessary to rely on the ‘‘small plant
rule.’’
In adopting the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated
Sec. 8(a)(3) by suspending and discharging the three discriminatees,
we find it unnecessary to rely on the drug tests taken by each of
the discriminatees subsequent to their discharges. Also, we note that
at one point in his decision, the judge stated that Supervisor Hoover
did not inform higher management about the incident in which he
allegedly saw the three discriminatees hastily leave a breakroom that
smelled of marijuana until ‘‘at least 4 hours’’ after the incident, and
at another point the judge stated that Hoover told higher manage-
ment about the incident ‘‘3 hours’’ after the event. We note that al-
though the record is inconclusive regarding the exact time when
Hoover informed higher management of the alleged incident, the
record indicates that it was at least several hours after the event.
2 Although the judge found that the Respondent had unlawfully
suspended the three discriminatees before it unlawfully discharged
them, he failed to include in the cease-and-desist provisions of his
recommended Order any specific reference to the suspensions. Thus,
we shall modify his recommended Order and notice to reflect the
fact that the Respondent also unlawfully suspended the discrimi-
natees.
Astro Shapes, Inc., Astro Coatings, Inc. and Chauf-
feurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers
Local Union No. 377. Case 8–CA–26199
July 14, 1995
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, COHEN, AND
TRUESDALE
On March 27, 1995, Administrative Law Judge Rob-
ert T. Wallace issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the General Counsel and the Charging Party each filed
an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
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 de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Astro
Shapes, Inc., Astro Coatings, Inc., Struthers, Ohio, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c).
‘‘(c) Suspending, discharging, or otherwise discrimi-
nating against employees for supporting Chauffeurs,
Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No. 377, or any other union.’’
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad-
ministrative 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 or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these pro-
tected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT suspend, discharge, or otherwise dis-
criminate against any of you for supporting Chauf-
feurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Local
Union No. 377, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT engage in unlawful surveillance of
your protected union activities.
WE WILL NOT ask you to resign rather than seek
union representation.
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 Robert Stipetich, Ralph Davila, and
Charles Patton immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges pre-
viously enjoyed and WE WILL make them whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
their discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus in-
terest.
1133ASTRO SHAPES
1 Because the two named entities admittedly constitute a single-in-
tegrated enterprise, both are included in the term ‘‘Respondent’’ for
purposes of this decision.
2 All dates are in 1994 unless otherwise indicated.
3 Although Respondent admits that its foremen are statutory super-
visors within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act, internally it
makes a distinction between foremen and supervisors with the latter
having higher status.
4 Sevi continues to be employed by Respondent.
WE WILL notify each of them that we have removed
from our files any reference to their suspensions and
discharges and that those unlawful actions will not be
used against them in any way.
ASTRO SHAPES, INC., ASTRO COATINGS, INC.
Thomas M. Randazzo, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Dean E. Westman and John W. McKenzie, Esqs., for the Re-
spondent.1
Timothy R. Piatt, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT T. WALLACE, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Youngstown, Ohio, on October 3–5, 1994,2
The charge was filed on March 4 and the complaint issued
on April 18.
At issue is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act by surveillance of union
activities and by soliciting resignations of union supporters.
Also at issue is whether it violated Section 8(a)(3) by dis-
charging three employees because of their union activism.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs
filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and Re-
spondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent fabricates and applies coatings to aluminum
extrusions at a plant in Struthers, Ohio, from which it annu-
ally ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points in other States. It admits and I find that it is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The owners and executive officers of Respondent are
President Robert Cene Sr., his two sons Paul Cene and Rob-
ert Cene Jr., who are vice presidents in charge, respectively,
of overall operations and human resources, and Vice Presi-
dent James DiBacco who is responsible for administration.
The plant has a total of approximately 190 hourly employees
working on 3 shifts.
A campaign to organize Respondent’s work force in 1991
failed when the Union lost an election. A new drive began
in the fall of 1993, and, as in 1991, Respondent on learning
of the effort promptly held meetings with its supervisory per-
sonnel3 to explain the ‘‘do’s and don’ts’’ of dealing with em-
ployees under applicable labor laws. And in a letter dated
October 6, 1993, employees were advised of its opposition
to unionization.
Robert Stipetich, Ralph Davila, and Charles Patton were
each employed by Respondent for over 6 years prior to their
alleged discriminatory discharges on January 11. They
worked on the first (7 a.m. to 3 p.m.) shift in a building
called ‘‘Press #2’’ and regularly operated on or worked in
close proximity to metal cutting machines that were ex-
tremely dangerous to life and limb unless great care was ex-
ercised. Their immediate supervisor was Foreman James
Chise. Respondent offers no criticism of their job perform-
ance.
The three employees were active union supporters during
the 1993 campaign. Stipetich and Patton were members of
the Union’s organizing committee and all three openly urged
other employees to sign union authorization cards in
breakrooms and on the plant floor, often in the presence of
supervisory personnel. Robert Cene Jr. admits he knew or
suspected that Stipetich and Patton were union supporters,
and Paul Cene, in connection with the 1991 campaign, states
that a number of people kept him informed of the activities
of the then principal union activist, Tony Sevi.4 In these cir-
cumstances, I conclude that Respondent was aware of the
prounion stance of the three individuals prior to the pertinent
events detailed below, and this apart from an inference war-
ranted under the ‘‘small plant rule’’ cited in Health Care Lo-
gistics, 273 NLRB 822 (1984).
B. Surveillance
On a workday in late October 1993 a number of hourly
employees and Maintenance Supervisor Ray Vasvari were
present in a breakroom. Stipetich stood up and announced
that there would be a meeting after work that day at a nearby
local tavern for anyone interested in learning about the bene-
fits of union membership.
Shortly after 3 p.m., Stipetich and other employees arrived
at the tavern parking lot where they immediately noticed
Vasvari’s Astro Shapes truck parked just outside the en-
trance. Because of that development they held the meeting
at another facility. For his part, Vasvari explains that he went
to the tavern because he was ‘‘extremely curious’’ about how
many employees would show up. He admits seeing at least
three employees there.
The situation patently constitutes unlawful surveillance of
union activities, as alleged in paragraphs 8 and 11 of the
complaint. Supervisor Vasvari’s intentional presence at the
site of the union meeting was unjustifiably intrusive and co-
ercive.
C. Soliciting Resignations
Also in October Patton, at his work station and wearing
a Teamsters hat and T-shirt, availed himself of an oppor-
tunity to discuss advantages of unionization with a newly
hired employee. Overhearing the conversation, Supervisor
1134 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 Hoover is responsible for all extrusions produced in a building
housing ‘‘Press 2.’’ Four shift foremen report to him, including
James Chise and Tom Harklerode. He also administers payroll en-
tries and issues paychecks to all employees under his supervision.
These include 11 who work the day shift and among those are the
3 alleged discriminates.
6 Employee lockers are located in the nonsmoking breakroom. An
adjacent ‘‘smoking’’ breakroom is equipped with a refrigerator and
coffee/soda machines.
7 Hoover could not recall the time of day he told Cene Jr., but
thinks it was ‘‘before noon.’’ Cene Jr. testified to the same effect
but on reviewing his prior affidavit conceded that Hoover may have
come after lunch.
Derek Hoover5 interrupted, and addressing Patton said, ‘‘If
you don’t like working here, you can get a job somewhere
else.’’ Patton received a similar admonition a month later
from Foreman Harklerode. Patton had been going from one
work station to another promoting unionization by showing
groups of employees that their counterparts at a nearby alu-
minum fabricating plant earned substantially higher wages.
After following Patton across the length of the plant,
Harklerode told him, ‘‘If you don’t like working here, go
work in a union shop.’’ Patton’s account is not disputed by
either supervisor.
Crediting Patton, I find the statements to be unlawful so-
licitations to resign rather than seek union representation, as
alleged in paragraphs 8, 9, and 11 of the complaint. Patton
was given alternatives that are incompatible with employee
rights under the Act.
D. Discharges
Friday, December 17, 1993, was the last workday before
a scheduled 2-week holiday plant shutdown. On that day in
the lunchroom Patton told employees in the presence of
Foreman Chise that there would be an NLRB election shortly
after the plant reopened in January.
On January 11 Stipetich, Davila, and Patton were fired
based on Manager Cene Jr.’s determination that they had
used marijuana at the plant on Thursday, January 6. His deci-
sion was based on information provided by Supervisor Hoo-
ver.
Hoover testified that on entering the work area about 7:30
a.m. on January 6 he was told by Head Saw Operator Larry
Nicula that another employee (Ken McLaughlin) had fallen
and injured his shin. Hoover assisted McLaughlin toward a
nearby ‘‘nonsmoking’’ breakroom where icepacks were
available.6 As they approached within 4 or 5 feet of the
lunchroom door, three individuals with cigars in their mouths
‘‘came out in a rush’’ heading for the work floor. Hoover
recognized them as Stipetich, Patton, and Davila.
On entering the breakroom with McLaughlin, Hoover
noted that the lights were out and that there was a strong
odor of marijuana. After attending to McLaughlin’s injury,
he accompanied the latter to his office, where he completed
and had McLaughlin sign an accident report.
Later in the day Hoover told Manager Robert Cene Jr.
about having smelled marijuana in the darkened breakroom
just after the hurried exit of Stipetich, Patton, and Davila.7
Cene Jr. instructed him to ‘‘monitor’’ the three individuals
and then, after seeking out Managers DiBacco and Paul Cene
told them he suspected the three of smoking marijuana on
the premises. He took no further action that day although
Hoover assertedly reported at least three more instances of
sighting Stipetich, Patton, and Davila together in the break-
room for 5 to 10 minutes at a time with the lights out and
of smelling heavy disinfectant there after they left.
Hoover also states that early on the morning of January 7
he looked over at the window of the nonsmoking breakroom.
He observes that the light inside ‘‘was off . . . and they
came out again.’’ Regarding this instance, he does not claim
to have made a smell check of the room or to have made
any report about the matter. Finding the three together in the
room later that morning with cigars in their mouths, assert-
edly he admonished them that smoking was against the rule
and, when they professed ignorance, provided each with a
copy of the plant code of conduct.
The account of the three affected employees differs radi-
cally from that of Hoover. They claim not to have been to-
gether on breaks on January 6 except for a 20-minute lunch
period in the ‘‘smoking’’ breakroom when other employees
were present and at the 3 p.m. shift change when they and
others doffed protective gear after punching out. They deny
ever having smoked marijuana in the plant or indeed being
users of drugs.
Patton testified that he entered the nonsmoking breakroom
7 a.m. just as Davila came out. He dressed hurriedly because
he observed the saw table was adjusted to produce window
parts for a company called ‘‘Creation,’’ a dangerous labor in-
tensive job. The person who regularly operated the saw
(Nicula) was off that day so Patton ran it while Davila re-
moved cut metal. McLaughlin arrived 20 minutes later and
helped them until injuring himself about 9:30 a.m. Patton
brought the situation to the attention of Hoover who pro-
ceeded to administer first aid, taking McLaughlin to the non-
smoking breakroom and then to his office. Another employee
(Don Cicone) was assigned to help with production and the
pace was such that no one took a break until lunchtime at
1 p.m.
For his part, Stipetich explained that he was a one-half-
hour late for work on January 6, arriving at 7:30 a.m. and
having Foreman Chise endorse his timecard. After changing
in the nonsmoking breakroom, he went immediately to his
station where he worked through until between 10 and 11
a.m. when he took a 10-minute break in the smoking room
with an employee who worked with him all day, John
Vanavash.
At midmorning on January 7 Stipetich, Patton, and Davila
were on break together in the nonsmoking room. Hoover en-
tered and Stipetich, concerned that he was late 2 days in a
row, asked him if he could be disciplined. Hoover went into
his office and promptly returned with a code of conduct
manual and pointed out provisions relating to tardiness. He
also gave copies to Patton and Davila.
Shortly thereafter Hoover escorted the three to the front
office where the vice president in charge of personnel Robert
Cene Jr. interviewed each separately in the presence of Hoo-
ver, President Robert Cene Sr., and Vice Presidents Paul
Cene and DiBacco.
Cene told them only that a supervisor had detected the
odor of marijuana in the nonsmoking breakroom shortly after
the day shift began on the previous day. He did not mention
any other times or that the supervisor had seen them exit the
room hurriedly about 7:30 a.m. The employees’ answers to
him were consistent with their testimony in this proceeding.
1135ASTRO SHAPES
8 After leaving the interview room, Patton returned a few minutes
later, opened the door, and announced, ‘‘Well, sometimes in the
morning I smoke marijuana on the way to work, maybe that is what
you smelled.’’ Assertedly he did so at the prompting of Heldman
‘‘to say something’’ to save his job. Patton testified that he had not
smoked marijuana but said so in the hope that ‘‘Maybe that way
they would just leave us alone.’’
9 As noted above Hoover and a foreman (Harklerode) under his su-
pervision in separate instances each engaged in intimidating conduct
by soliciting employees to resign rather than engage in union activi-
ties.
10 Hoover also testified that after the three employees were termi-
nated he observed Patton and Davila driving behind him on Main
Street, that later in the evening he received threatening calls from
someone whose voice he could not identify, and on the same day
reported those incidents to the police. Those matters, assuming they
occurred, provide at best a tenuous basis for inferring misconduct on
the part of the three employees. Further, Hoover’s credibility is not
enhanced by his claim that the incidents and report occurred on Jan-
uary 16. The police report (R. Exh. 3) sets the date as 1–12–93. Al-
though the year patently should be 1994 and results from a common
year-end mistake, the date 1–12 occurs several times and at one
point correctly designates that day as a Wednesday. Hoover’s insist-
ence appears due to his perception that the employees might not
have known of their terminations until after January 12.
11 Between January 11 and 17 each of the three employees had
their urine tested under controlled conditions. Laboratory reports
(G.C. Exhs. 26, 27, 29, and 31) show no drugs, including marijuana
in their systems. Although I do not regard the results as conclusive,
they are consistent with the employees’ denials and, together with
other matters discussed above, lead me to conclude that they did not
use marijuana on January 6.
In effect, they denied being in the room together that day or
having smoked marijuana there. Asked whether they would
submit to a drug test, each declined. At the end of each inter-
rogation Cene handed the employee a previously prepared
written ‘‘warning report’’ stating that the employee was
‘‘suspended for investigation of use of illegal drugs on com-
pany premises,’’ and a security officer (Howdie Heldman)
escorted them out of the plant.8
After conferring with his father and the other vice presi-
dents and obtaining their agreement, Robert Cene Jr., without
any further investigation, sent each of the suspected employ-
ees a letter dated January 11 in which he advised them that
‘‘Based upon its investigation into the incident at Press #2
on January 6, the company has decided to terminate your
employment effective on the date of this letter.’’
In light of Respondent’s antiunion animus manifested by
the unfair labor practices found above, its awareness that the
three employees were union activists, and their discharge
shortly before an announced representation election, a prima
facie showing has been made that protected or union activity
by the employees was a motivating factor in Respondent’s
decision to suspend and discharge them. Accordingly, under
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899
(1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), the burden
is on Respondent to demonstrate that the same actions would
have been taken in the absence of the employees’ union ac-
tivities and support.
I find it has not met this burden because I am not per-
suaded that the pertinent sequence of events that led to their
discipline was based on anything other than a fabrication by
an overzealous, antiunion9 supervisor.
The problems presented by Supervisor Hoover’s account
are many. Among other things, he would have us believe that
three known union supporters, who had worked for the Com-
pany for many years without any apparent history of drug
abuse, gathered together on four or five occasions on 2 con-
secutive days just prior to an announced representation elec-
tion under circumstances suggesting repeated use of mari-
juana during working hours. He did not confront them but
instead allowed them to continue to perform admittedly dan-
gerous work. Nor did he advise anyone in higher manage-
ment of his suspicions until at least 4 hours after the first
claimed incident.
Also, it does not appear that he alerted other supervisors.
They might have averted potential accidents and corroborated
the claimed suspicious sightings. Chise in particular could
have rebutted the claim that heavy production on January 6
prevented Patton and Davila from taking any breaks other
than at lunchtime because he was their immediate foreman.
But none of them testified.
Similarly unexplained is the absence as a witness of in-
jured employee McLaughlin. As noted above Hoover was as-
sisting him to the breakroom for first aid when the initial in-
cident allegedly occurred. McLaughlin therefore was in a
unique position to verify Hoover’s claim that three employ-
ees furtively rushed out and that the smell of marijuana lin-
gered in that room.
Then there is the matter of head saw operator Nicula.
Hoover states that Nicula was the one who called his atten-
tion to McLaughlin’s injury. But Patton claims that Nicula
was out that day and that Patton ran the saw and was the
one who notified Hoover of the injury. Although uniquely
within knowledge of the Company through timecards or oth-
erwise, the question of Nicula’s presence (or absence) was
not resolved. And again I note that Chise, who could have
verified whether or not Patton was the lead saw operator that
day, did not appear as a witness.10
In these circumstances, and having found credible the de-
nials of the alleged discriminatees,11 I conclude that they are
not shown to have engaged in misconduct and that they were
suspended and discharged due to false information provided
by Supervisor Hoover in a misguided effort to assist the
Company in defeating unionization.
Accordingly, I find that the disciple imposed by higher
management was unlawful even assuming they acted in good
faith in relying on Hoover’s misrepresentations. Under Sec-
tion 2(13) of the Act ‘‘an employer is bound by the acts and
statements of its supervisors whether specifically authorized
or not.’’ Dorothy Shamrock Coal Co., 279 NLRB 1298,
1299 (1086); Ideal Elevator Corp., 295 NLRB 347 (1989).
On this record, however, I find ample reason to, and do,
conclude that higher management was more interested in rid-
ding itself of known union supporters than ascertaining
whether the employees were guilty of misconduct.
Admittedly a patently dangerous situation is created if and
when employees working in close proximity to metal cutting
machinery use drugs; and the offense warrants immediate ter-
mination under the Company’s code of conduct. Yet, when
on January 6 Hoover told Personnel Manager Cene Jr., 3
hours after the event, about the activists’ hasty exit from a
room reeking with marijuana Hoover was not chided for or
even asked why he had waited so long to make the report,
1136 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
12 Patton’s statement to the interviewers (‘‘Well, sometimes in the
morning I smoke marijuana on the way to work, maybe that is what
you smelled.’’) does not admit use on company premises.
13 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended 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 purposes.
14 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
National 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.’’
why he had allowed the three employees to continue work-
ing, and why he had not alerted the plant security detail. In-
stead, Cene simply told him to monitor the situation and,
without himself alerting security or doing anything further
that day, made haste to relay Hoover’s observations to fellow
Vice Presidents Paul Cene and DiBacco. And despite the
statement in suspension notices given the three employees on
January 7, admittedly no investigation was ever conducted
beyond their successive five on one interviews on that date.
Those interviews, again admittedly, elicited no significant
contradictions or disparities in the employees’ denials of
marijuana use at the plant and accounts of their activities on
January 6.12 Accordingly, the collective decision to terminate
them was based entirely on Hoover’s fabrications.
Any reservation of mine concerning management acquies-
cence, indeed complicity, in the stratagem is dispelled by
Patton’s father, Charles Patton Sr., whose testimony I find
credible against the background of the record as a whole.
Concerned about his son’s suspension, he called Respondent
President Robert Cene Sr. (whom he knew as a fellow pa-
rishioner) on Sunday, January 7. In response to his inquiry
concerning why the suspension was imposed, Cene Sr. told
him it was because of suspicion of marijuana use. He also
asked, ‘‘Do you know that they are trying to organize a
union?’’ and he repeated several times, ‘‘if he was a good
boy, then there’s no problems, but if he was a bad boy, then
there would be some problems.’’ I infer from his mentioning
the organizing drive that Cene Sr. was suggesting that further
disciplinary action might not be taken if the son promised to
forgo union activity.
I find the suspensions and discharges unlawfully discrimi-
natory as alleged in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the complaint.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Respondent is shown to have violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act in the particulars and for the reasons stated
above, and its violations have affected, and unless perma-
nently enjoined will continue to affect, commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
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.
Among other things, it must offer the unlawfully dis-
charged employees immediate reinstatement and make them
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed
on a quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of proper
offer of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus
interest as computed 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 recommended13
ORDER
The Respondent, Astro Shapes, Inc., Astro Coatings, Inc.,
Struthers, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Engaging in unlawful surveillance of employees en-
gaged in protected union activities.
(b) Soliciting employees to resign rather than seek union
representation.
(c) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees for supporting Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehouse-
men and Helpers Local Union No. 377 or any other union.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, 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 ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Robert Stipetich, Ralph Davila, and Charles Pat-
ton immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or,
if those jobs no longer exists, to substantially equivalent po-
sitions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole, with
interest, for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
as a result of the discrimination against them in the manner
set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(b) Remove from all files any reference to their unlawful
suspensions and discharges and notify them in writing that
this has been done and that the suspensions and discharges
will not be used against them in any way.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Struthers, Ohio, copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’14 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt 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
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, 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 Respondent has
taken to comply.