Chicago Rivet & Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1985

275 N.L.R.B. 1298 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chicago Rivet & Machine Co . and International
Union of Electronic , Electrical , Technical, Sala-
ried and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO. Case 6-
CA-17495
31 July 1985
DECISION AND ORDER -
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 25 March 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Marvin Roth issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed an answering 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 briefs and
has decided to affirm the judge's-rulings, findings,2
and conclusions 'and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order -of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Chicago
Rivet & Machine Co., Tyrone, Pennsylvania, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to the judge's failure to consider
whether employee, Marion Glasgow would have been transferred to an-
other shift in the absence of his union activities in accordance with the
guidelines announced in Wright Line. 251 NLRB 1083 (1980) Despite the
judge's failure to rely explicitly on Wright Ltite. supra, we adopt the
judge's finding that the Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (1) by trans-
ferring Glasgow to a different shift because we find the judge's "analysis
satisfied the analytical objectives required by Wright Line" Industrial
Erectors, 261 NLRB 888 fn 1 (1982), enfd 712 F 2d 1131 (7th Cir 1983)
2 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 Cir 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
DECISION
. . STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARVIN ROTH , Administrative Law Judge, This case
was heard at Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , on January , 22,
1985 The charge and amended charge were filed on
July 25 and ' August 30; 1984 ,1 respectively by Interna-
tional Union of Electronic , Technical , Salaried and Ma-
chine Workers , AFL-CIO (the Union ) The complaint,
which issued - on August 30 and was amended at the
' All dates herein are for 1984 unless otherwise indicated
hearing, alleges that Chicago Rivet & Machine Co. (the
Company or Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act. The gravamen of
the complaint is that the Company allegedly reassigned
its employee Marion Glasgow to a different shift because
of his union and concerted activities and in order to dis-
courage other employees from engaging in such activi-
ties. The Company's answer denies the commission of
the alleged unfair labor practice. All parties were afford-
ed full opportunity to participate, to present relevant evi-
dence, to argue orally, and to file briefs. The General
Counsel and the Company each filed a brief. .
On the entire record in this case2 and from my obser-
vation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and having con-
sidered the briefs and arguments of the parties, I 'make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, an Illinois corporation. operates a plant
in Tyrone, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the man-
ufacture and nonretail sale of rivets and automatic rivet
setting machines. In the operation of its business, the
Company annually receives at -its Tyrone plant, goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000, directly from
points outside of Pennsylvania.. I find, as the Company
admits, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section- 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE:
TRANSFER OF MARION GLASGOW FROM SECOND-TO
FIRST SHIFT ON JULY 23, 1984
Since 1957 Marion Glasgow has. worked as a lathe op-
erator at the Tyrone plant He is regarded as a qualified
and competent employee. He is also a long-time union
activitist, having played a leading role in unsuccessful or-
ganizational campaigns in 1968, 1976, 1982, and 1984.
The most recent campaign, involving the present union,
culminated in a Board-conducted election on June 7
which the Union lost by a vote of 75 to 170 in a unit of
about 253 employees. Glasgow was again the principal
union, activist in this campaign, and his activities and
views were well known to management. The Company
operates three other plants. At one of these (the Compa-
ny's home plant in Illinois), the employees are represent-
ed by a union. During the 1984 campaign the Company
actively opposed, unionization The Company has no his-
tory of unfair labor practices, -and there is no contention
that the Company ever discriminated against Glasgow
except with respect to the transfer which is the subject
of this case, or otherwise violated the Act.
2 Transcript errors have been noted and corrected
275 NLRB No. 178
CHICAGO RIVET & MACHINE CO. , ' 1299
Glasgow worked on the first or day shift until 1978.3
During this time he made known to management that'he
preferred to work on the second shift because he operat-
ed a farm on a part-time basis. However he declined two
opportunities to work at 'different jobs on the second
shift In 1978, at a time when the Company was increas-
ing its employee complement, the Company commenced
utilizing Glasgow's lathe on a two-shift basis. Glasgow
was transferred to the second shift, where in accordance
with his own preference he worked on a regular basis,
and another employee, one Charles Fischer, operated the
machine on the first shift. After about 1 year, the work-
load declined, and Fischer was assigned to a different
job. Glasgow testified without contradiction that at this
time, his immediate supervisor, Too] and Parts Depart-
ment Supervisor Leonard Miller, told him to remain on
the second shift because he was "needed."4 It is undis-
puted that the Company thereby failed to adhere to its
own policy whereby if a job or a given machine on the
job is vacant on first shift, the employee assigned to that
job is to.work first shift. Miller testified that then Gener-
al Manager Peter Castello decided to leave Glasgow on
the second shift, and that Glasgow was assigned to the
second shift in order to provide "on-the-spot assistance"
for the header department employees on that shift. (The
nature of that assistance will be discussed.) Castello was
general manager and in charge of day-to-day operations
at Tyrone from October 1977 until September 1981.
Roger Branstetter, now company vice president and gen-
eral manager at the plant, who assertedly made the deci-
sion to transfer Glasgow in July 1984, began working at
Tyrone in 1947 He" progressed through. the ranks until
1967, when he became vice president and general manag-
er, and in that capacity was in charge of day-to-day op-
erations at Tyrone for the next 10 years. In 1977 his
functions were. divided, with Castello functioning as gen-
eral manager of operations and Branstetter, as vice presi-
dent, performing "corporate" functions, principally in
sales. In August 1980 Branstetter left the Company's
employ, but functioned as a private consultant for the
Company, servicing its customers. However in Septem-
ber 1981 he returned to the Tyrone-plant where he re-
sumed his former duties as the individual in charge of
day operations, with the titles of vice president and gen-
eral manager.
In the meantime, from 1979 until July 1984, Marion
Glasgow operated his lathe on the second shift without
any employee operating that machine on the first shift.
As a second-shift employee Glasgow received a premium
of 75 cents per hour in addition to his regular wage In
late 1982 Glasgow was away, from work for about 10
weeks because of illness. During this time Charles Fisch-
er, who had been working elsewhere on the first shift,
9 The first shift normally operates from 7 am to 3 30 p in and the
second from 3 30 p in to midnight However when there is a third shift
ih operation (as was the situation until October 29, 1984 ), the tool and
parts department (including Glasgow), maintenance and machine shop
personnel work the above hours on first and second shift, but the header
department shifts are from l a m to 3 p in , 3 to I and 11 pm to 7
am
4 Miller was tool and parts supervisor until August 1, 1984, when he
was promoted to assistant general manager , the second highest position
on the plant Miller was a principal company witness in this proceeding
was assigned to Glasgow's machine on the first shift. In
December 1982, when Glasgow returned to his job, he
also "returned to the second shift Although Branstetter
was now in charge of day-to-day operations, Leonard
Miller testified that there was no discussion of assigning
Glasgow to the first shift, because he was working the
second shift when he became ill.. Whether on, first or
second shift, Glasgow's principal job was to lathe stock
and component parts for the header machines. However
a small proportion of his work consisted of various main-
tenance and repair functions, involving the use. of his
lathe, for the benefit, of the header machine operators.
Glasgow had little occasion to perform these functions
on the first shift, as there were other personnel available
to do so. However, on the second shift, in Glasgow's ab-
sence, the operators would find it necessary to -request a
maintenance employee to perform these functions.. The
operators and their supervisors found it advantageous to
call upon Glasgow to perform these functions.5 First,
Glasgow regularly worked at one location and was
easily accessible to the operators, whereas the mainte-
nance employee might be anywhere in the.plant at any
given time. Second, since these functions involved the
use of his lathe, Glasgow had the necessary tools and
materials available at hand. Third, while some of the
functions could be performed as easily by the mainte-
nance employee as by Glasgow, e.g., sharpening knives
and quills, Glasgow could perform difficult functions,
e.g., resetting broken dies, more expeditiously, as this
was his area of expertise.
The Tyrone plant was shut down for its annual vaca-
tion from July 1 to July 15. On July 17 Glasgow was
summoned to the personnel office. Vice President Bran-
stetter, Personnel Manager William Decker, and Supervi-
sor Miller were, present. Branstetter told Glasgow that
he would be returning to the first shift effective as of the
following Monday, July 23. Glasgow asked why. Bran-
stetter answered that there was no problem with Glas-
gow's work, that his work was satisfactory, but that it
was contrary to company policy to-permit him to work
the second shift unless there was another employee on
his lathe. Glasgow offered to give. up his shift premium,
but Branstetter answered that this was also not permitted
under company policy. Branstetter told Glasgow that he
could return to the second shift if business picked up to
the point that the Company needed a second employee
on his lathe. In view of the, facts that the Company had
not used a second employee on his lathe for some 5
years, and the Company was in the process of consoli-
dating rather than expanding its operations, the likeli-
hood of such an opportunity would be extremely, remote.
Vice President Branstetter testified that he did not
learn until April 1984 that Glasgow was working on the
second 'shift and that no one was operating his lathe on
the first shift. At the time the Company was in the proc-
ess of consolidating its, Tyrone operation by closing a
S John Kobuk and Samuel Waite rotated as header department fore-
man on the second shift There was no tool and parts supervisor on the
second shift Prior to the July 23 transfer Supervisor Miller would assign
Glasgow his work for each day Glasgow would perform the mainte-
nance and repair work at the direction'of the header foreman on duty
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A
building which it had been using since 1979 Branstetter
and Supervisor Miller were discussing how they could
make room for equipment from the closed building
Branstetter suggested getting rid,of Glasgow's lathe, but
Miller advised against such a move. Branstetter, who ad-
mittedly knew that Glasgow operated this particular
lathe, testified that he, then asked Miller why Glasgow
was not then working on the-lathe According to Bran-
stetter, he then learned for the first time that Glasgow
was working -on the second shift. Branstetter testified
that about a week later he told Miller that he intended to
put Glasgow on the first shift, and that he also informed
Company President Brown (based in Illinois) of his in-
tention However Brown told him to wait until after the
union election campaign and the scheduled summer va-
cation (which he did).' Branstetter testified in sum that he
transferred Glasgow because of the Company's policy of
assigning employees to the first shift in` such situations,
and that the Company followed this policy because (1)
the Company had management support and component
operations available on the first shift, and (2) it was more
economical to place employees on the first shift because
the Company did not then have to pay a shift premium
In order' to accept Branstetter's explanation, I would
have to believe that for more than 2-1/2 years as general
manager he was not only unaware that no one was oper-
ating Glasgow's lathe on the first shift. but `that he was
also under the mistaken impression that, Glasgow was
working on the first shift. Branstetter's assertions in this
regard are incredible. Branstetter was in charge of day-
to-day operations at the Tyrone plant' since September
1981. The plant complement was relatively, small. As of
June 30, 1981, the plant had a total of 333 active produc-
tion employees. By June 30, 1983, that, figure had de-
clined to a low of 229 employees. Thereafter the comple-
ment increased slightly, but remained- below 250 Bran-
stetter had been employed at the plant for some 37 years,
had progressed - through the ranks and ' was obviously
thoroughly familiar with every facet of its operations. He
was responsible only for the Tyrone plant. Branstetter
admitted that he regularly walked through the plant to
observe operations, that he went through every depart-
ment at least once a week, that' ,he, was familiar with
Glasgow's lathe, and that if you "pay particular atten-
tion" to any, piece of equipment, you- can tell whether it
is running on a given shift. Nevertheless Branstetter in-
sisted that he simply never noticed that no one was oper-
ating the lathe on the first-shift. However Branstetter im-
pliedly .contradicted- his corollary assertion (that • he- did
not -know -that- Glasgow was working the second shift)
when he indicated 'in his testimony that'he,was familiar
with the circumstances under which Glasgow went from
the first shift to the-second shift. 'Glasgow, was along-
time and valued -employee. In' order-'to credit Branstetter,
I, would have to believe that from September 1981 to
April 1984, Branstetter never, saw Glasgow at : work;
since by :observing him' at work he- would. know that
Glasgow worked the second shift.' Such 'a premise. is in-.1 11 -1 1
credible. Moreover; Branstetter's tenure as general man-
ager (beginning in 1981 ) was marked by declining busi-
ness and a-declining work force. In these circumstances,
such as Branstetter would have overlooked an opportuni-
ty to economize by transferring an employee to, the first
shift,, unless there were compensating advantages which
warranted retaining that employee on the second shift.
In sum , I do not credit Branstetter's professed lack of
knowledge concerning, the actual situation I find that
from September 1981 to July. 1984 the Company, and
specifically Branstetter, knowingly permitted Glasgow to
work on the second shift, although no one was operating
his lathe on the first shift. Castello, rather than Branstet-
ter, made the original decision to retain Glasgow on the
second shift. Branstetter evidently considered himself a
better manager than Castello. However both general
managers were charged with carrying out the same cor-
porate policies. Those,policies did not change,in any per-
tinent respect when Branstetter resumed his former posi-
tion as general manager of the Tyrone plant. In light of
the testimony of Assistant General Manager Miller,' it is
evident that Castello decided to retain Glasgow on the
second shift in order to enable him-to continue to service
the header operators on that shift For the reasons dis-
cussed, I find that Branstetter adhered • to that decision
after he succeeded Castello -
The. question then remains: Why did Branstetter sud-
denly decide in April '1984 to transfer Glasgow to the
first shift? In support of its position in this case, the
Company presented the testimony of an industrial man-
agement consultant, who testified-in sum that, as a gener-
al rule; it is preferable to have employees work on the
first shift, and that he would so advise his clients.-For its
part,.the General Counsel presented testimony concern-
ing' the 'advantages of having Glasgow on the second
shift,:-and the fact that'his supervisors preferred that he
work-on the second shift in order to service the header
operators If all- that were involved in this case was a
question. of the'-relative advantages, from the standpoint
of industrial efficiency of having Glasgow work on the
first shift instead of the second shift, I would agree with
the' Company that the General ' Counsel would not have
much of a case The key question is not what the Com-
pany `should have done from the standpoint of industrial
efficiency, but what'it `did do As the Company points
dut in its brief -(p. 17), the "real issue" in this case is
whether Branstetter's' recitation of the chain of events
culminating in Glasgow's transfer is credible. As dis-
cussed; I have found' that Branstetter's recitation is not
credible in its critical aspect; namely, his professed lack-
of knowledge of-the actual situation. As of 1979, when
Castello decided`to'keep' Glasgow on the second shift,
and-as•of September 1981 when Branstetter became gen-
eral' manager and retained 'Glasgow on the second shift,
the situation was no different from the standpoint of in-
dustrial -'efficiency"than it was-in July 1984 when Bran-
stetter transferred Glasgow to the first shift. The Compa-
ny's policy did not change, and Branstetter did not learn
anything"pertinerit''about industrial 'efficiency that he did
not already know -'He did not consult an industrial man-
agement consultant except before transferring Glasgow 6
6 The management consultant who testified for the Company, had
never acted as a consultant. for the Company (nor had his firm), and he
it is unlikely that an'astute' and knowledgeable' manager. Continued
CHICAGO RIVET & MACHINE CO 1301
Indeed, if Branstetter was motivated by considerations of
industrial efficiency, then July 1984 would seem an un-
likely time to tighten up operations by putting Glasgow
on the first shift Rather it is more likely that the Compa-
ny would take such action when it was reducing its -op-
erations. However, although the Company had - been
laying off employees since mid-1979 and had reduced its
complement of production employees to about one-half
of its size at that peak period, the Company was, as of
the summer of 1984, in the-process of temporarily in-
creasing its work force.
Moreover, the evidence indicates that the Company
did, in fact, accommodate the personal preferences of its
valued employees, without regard to considerations of
company policy or industrial efficiency. Thus, the Com-
pany permitted employees to temporarily transfer to the
second shift during the hunting season , and. (contrary to
Branstetter's assertion to Glasgow) permitted them to
waive their shift premium in order to accommodate their
preference Branstetter testified that former Manager
Castello permitted this- practice, but that when he
learned about it he instructed his supervisors that this,
practice would no longer be permitted. According to
Branstetter, he so informed his supervisors at a meeting
in April or May 1982. However header operator William
Hunter testified that he waived shift premium in order to
work on second shift during the 1982 hunting season,
i.e., after May 1982, and that he did so on a form provid-
ed by the Company. Even Branstetter admitted that an-
other employee, Jerry Kobuck, was permitted to waive
shift premium to work on second shift during the 1982
or 1983 hunting season, i.e., after he allegedly informed
his supervisors that this practice was not permitted.
Plainly, this could not have occurred without Branstet-
ter's approval.
As indicated, Glasgow offered to waive shift premium
in order to remain on the second shift. Therefore the
Company did not effectuate even this minimal saving
from his transfer There 1is no contention that Glasgow
needed more supervision or support services which were
available only during the first shift.. There is no conten-
tion or evidence that Glasgow's transfer was designed to
or did improve production on either the first or second
shift. From an industrial management standpoint, the
only tangible effect of Glasgow's transfer was delay and
inconvenience during the period that the maintenance
employee adjusted to a system under which-he was re-
quired to perform the maintenance and repair functions
which had formerly been,performed by Glasgow. The
transfer did result in considerable personal hardship to
Glasgow. In addition to losing his shift premium ,,Glas-
gow was placed in a position, as- Branstetter well knew,
whereby he might be forced to choose between his.job
and his farm •
In sum, nothing occurred between September 1981 and
July 1984 which, from an industrial management. stand,-_
point, would warrant Glasgow's, transfer to the day,shift.
had no personal knowledge concerning the Tyrone plant Rather he was
simply retained by company-counsel to testify as an expert witness in this
proceeding Therefore the value of his testimony is at best questionable
See Plasterers Local 121 (Associated Building Contractors), 264 NLRB 192
fn 1 (1982)
Branstetter's explanation for the transfer,, i.e., that after
all these years he suddenly discovered- a violation of
company :policy, 'was demonstrably false. What did
happen was-that during the spring of 1984 there was a
union organizational campaign, vigorously opposed by
the Company, in which Glasgow once again was the
leading union adherent.? At the height of the campaign,
Branstetter informed, his supervisors that, he would be
transferring Glasgow to the first shift, and after the elec-
tion.results were certified he carried out that decision.8
In these circumstances, including the Company's outspo-
ken opposition to unionization, the timing of-the transfer,
the absence of any legitimate occasion or need to trans-
fer Glasgow, the demonstrably false reason advanced by
Branstetter for the transfer, and the absence of any tangi-
ble economic benefit to the.Company, coupled with pre-
dictable hardship to Glasgow, the inference is warranted
that the Company transferred Glasgow in retaliation for
his union.activity, and ,as an object lesson to other em-
ployees who, might..be`inclined to engage in,such-activi-
ty. The Company violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3),of the
Act. See Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d
466, 470-(9th Cif'. 1966), ' W..- T. Grant Co. v. NLRB,
supra.
,CONCLUSIONS OF. LAW -
1 The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section ' 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union-is a labor organization- within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 "of the Act, the Company has engaged, and, is
engaging, in-unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. -
4 By discriminating in regard to the terms and condi-
tions of employment of Marion Glasgow, thereby dis-
couraging membership in the Union,- the Company has
The fact that the Company opposed unionization may properly be
considered as background evidence of the context in-which Glasgow was
transferred, and-Sec 8(c) of the Act does not prohibit such consideration
See Darlington Mfg Co v NLRB, 397 F 2d 160, 169 (4th Cir 1968), cert
denied 393 U S 1023 (1969), Hendrix: Mfg Co v NLRB, 321 F 2d 100,
103-104 (5th Cir 1963), Auto Workers (Hero Corp) v NLRB, 363 F2d
702, 707•(D C Cir 1966), cert denied 385 U S 973 (1966) Indeed, it
would fly in the face of reason to conclude that'an 'employer's opposition
to unionization may not be considered in•a case of alleged discrimination
which turns on a question of employer motivation Under the Company's
argument (Br fn 10), the Board would be precluded from finding dis-
criminatory action in a case involving a question of employer motivation,
unless the personnel action at issue occurred in the context of threats,
promises, or other statements or actions which were themselves unlawful
Such a result would be,contrary to settled law See, e g, W T Grant Co
NLRB, 337 F 2d 447 (7th Cif 1964)
8 It is evident that Branstetter made his decision after April 24 when
the Union filed its election petition Branstetter testified that in April he
learned from Miller that Glasgow was working on the second shift, that
he informed,Miller of his decision about a week.later, and that he in-
formed the other supervisors of his decision at a regular Friday afternoon
meeting that ' s ame week Miller testified that this, meeting took place in
May Therefore the meeting could not have taken place before Friday,
May 4 As indicated, Branstetter testified that Company President Brown
referred to the pending election when they discussed Glasgow's transfer
In sum, Branstetter made his decision on learning that Glasgow's organi-
zational efforts had resulted in another election campaign
1302 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair -labor. practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. - , - ,
THE REMEDY
Having found that the, Company has violated 'Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be
required to cease and desist from such conduct and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act, including posting of an appropriate
notice . Having found that the Company discriminatorily
transferred Marion Glasgow, it will be recommended
that the Company be ordered to offer him immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job on the second shift,
without prejudice 'to -his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make -him whole for any loss of earnings
and benefits that he may have suffered from the time of
his discharge to the date of-the Company's offer of rein-
statement , including loss of- shift premium, with interest
computed in the manner and amount prescribed in Flori-
da Steel,Corp., 231• NLRB 651 (1977).9 It. will also be
recommended that the Company be -required to preserve
and make available to the Board, or its agents, on re-
quest , payroll and other records to facilitate the compu-
tation of backpay due. -
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed10
ORDER
The. • Respondent,. Chicago Rivet & Machine -Co.,
Tyrone, Pennsylvania , its officers , agents , successors, and
assigns, shall - - . - ,
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union of
Electronic, 'Technical, -Salaried and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO or any other labor organization by discrimina-
torily transferring employees, or in any other -manner
discriminating against them with regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment. .
(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 Marion Glasgow - immediate 'and full rein-
statement to his former job on the second shift, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights acid privileges
previously enjoyed, and make him whole `for losses he
9 See generally Isis Plumbing, Co., 138 NLRB 716,'717-721 (1962)
10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 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
suffered by reason of. the discrimination against him as
set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board, or its agents,' for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards,- personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due.
(c) Post at its Tyrone, Pennsylvania plant, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix "11 Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 6, after being signed by the Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu-
tive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to` employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that
said 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 -
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 Na-
-tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al 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
WE-WILL NOT discourage membership in International
Union of -Electronic, Technical, Salaried and Machine
Workers, AFL-:-CIO or any other labor organization by
discriminatorily transferring employees, or in any other
manner discriminating against you with regard to your
hire or- tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment:
• WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain; or coerce you in the exercise of your right
to engage in union or concerted activities, or to refrain
therefrom.
- WE WILL offer Marion Glasgow immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job on the second shift, with-
out prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges previously enjoyed, and make him Whole for losses
he suffered -by reason of the discrimination against him,
with interest.
CHICAGO RIVET & MACHINE CO.