Classic Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 170 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Classic Products Corporation and Lola Holmes and
United Furniture Workers of America, Local 75,
AFL-CIO and Richard Lenet
Classic Products Corporation and United Furniture
Workers of America, Local 75, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Cases 5-CA-7512-1, 5-CA-7549, 5-CA-
7592, and 5-RC-9408
September 29, 1976
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On May 4, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Jo-
seph I. Nachman issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent , Classic Products Corpo-
ration , Beltsville , Maryland , its officers , agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
said recommended Order.
IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that, as part of the investiga-
tion - to ascertain a representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining among certain employees of
Classic Products Corporation , in the unit set forth in
the Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Elec-
tion, the Regional Director for Region 5, shall, pur-
suant to the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , within
10 days from the date of this Direction , open and
count the ballots of Carole Lann and Duane Hanlon
and, thereafter , prepare and cause to be served on
the parties a revised tally of ballots , including therein
the count of said ballots . In the event that the revised
tally of ballots shows that the United Furniture
Workers of America, Local 75, AFL-CIO, has re-
ceived a majority of the valid votes cast , the Regional
Director shall issue the appropriate certification of
representative.
However, in the event that the above-named labor
organization does not receive a majority of the valid
votes cast, it is directed that the Regional Director
set aside the election in Case 5-RC-9408 and direct a
second election to be conducted at such time as he
deems it appropriate to do so. In such event, the fol-
lowing shall be applicable.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter heard before me at Washington, D.C., on January
21-23, 1976, involves a consolidated complaint I pursuant
to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (herein Act), which alleges in substance that dur-
ing the course of an organizational campaign among its
employees by United Furniture Workers of America, Local
75, AFL-CIO (herein Union), Classic Products Corpora-
tion (herein Respondent or Company) interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
protected by Section 7 of the Act, and discriminatorily dis-
charged three employees because of their assistance to and
support of the Union. By answer, Respondent admitted
certain allegations of the complaint , but denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practice . For reasons hereafter
more fully stated, I find and conclude (1) that certain con-
duct of the Company did violate Section 8(a)(1); (2) that
the discharges of Charles Reveillac and Duane Hanlon
were discriminatorily motivated; (3) that the ballots of
Hanlon and Latin be opened and counted, and if this re-
sults in a majority of the votes being cast in favor of the
Union, certification should issue. However, if the counting
of the Hanlon and Lann ballots results in the Union receiv-
ing less than a majority of the valid votes cast , the election
held September 9, 1975, should be set aside and a new
election conducted by the Regional Director at such time
as he may deem it appropriate; and (4) that as the General
Counsel failed to prove the remaining allegations of the
Issued November 21, 1975, on three separate charges The charge in
Case 5-CA-7512- 1 was filed and served September 8, 1975 ; in Case 5-CA-
7549 , the charge was filed and served September 26, 1975 , and in Case 5-
CA-7592 , the charge was filed and served October 17, 1975. In the represen-
tative case the material events, all in 1975, are:
Petition filed July 16, Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Elec-
tion-August 11, Election conducted on September 9 resulted in II votes
for and 12 votes against union representation , and 8 challenged ballots,
Objections to conduct affecting results filed on September 9, Report on
objections and challenges-November 25 (Regional Director sustained six
of the challenges The challenges to the ballots of Carole Lann and Duane
Hanlon were referred for disposition in the unfair labor practice cases As
the events alleged as affecting the conduct of the election are also alleged to
constitute unfair labor practices, decision on said objections was deferred
pending results of the unfair labor practice proceeding); and Regional
Director's report adopted by Board on December 22 At the hearing the
Union withdrew its challenge to the ballot of Carole Lann , and that issue is
no longer in the case
226 NLRB No. 14
CLASSIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION 171
complaint by a preponderance of the evidence, such allega-
tions should be dismissed.
At the hearing, all parties had full opportunity to intro-
duce relevant and material evidence, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and to
submit briefs. Oral argument was waived. Briefs submitted
by the General Counsel and Respondent have been duly
considered. Upon the pleadings, stipulations of counsel,
the evidence, including my observation of the demeanor of
the witnesses while testifying, the briefs of counsel, and the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT 2
A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
Sometime in March,' a nonemployee of the Company
began passing out leaflets at a door of the plant leading to
the parking lot 4 This leafletting was observed by several
employees, including Dorothy Malone and Katherine
Harp, as they were leaving the plant at the end of the work-
day. The following morning, Allan Marcus, an admitted
supervisor, told employee Malone, in the presence of Harp,
that the person distributing leaflets the preceding day had
been physically ejected from the Company's property; that
the Company did not want a union; and that Company
President Fogel would fire any employee that tried to bring
a union into the plant.5
The leaflets distributed at the plant in March had at-
tached to them a card which employees might complete
and mail if they desired further information. Several em-
ployees, including Duane Hanlon, mailed such a card, but
about a month later, not having heard anything in response
to the card, he telephoned the office of the AFL-CIO for
further information. This resulted in an AFL-CIO repre-
sentative contacting Hanlon, and subsequent meetings
were arranged which were attended by a representative of
the Union. At one of the meetings authorization cards were
made available and some 20 to 25 signed cards were ulti-
mately obtained. The evidence shows that three employees
were particularly active in distributing and collecting
signed cards, arranging for meetings, and advising employ-
ees of the time and place of meetings. The three were Han-
lon, Charles Reveillac, and Richard Lenet.6 This organiza-
tional effort resulted in a representation petition being filed
on July 16, and the Company admits that it received a
copy thereof on July 18.
On July 22, Magill, manager of the waterbed depart-
2 No issue of commerce or labor organization is presented The complaint
alleges, and the answer admits, facts which establish these jurisdictional
elements I find those facts to be as pleaded
3 All dates hereafter mentioned are 1975, unless otherwise indicated
4 Investigation by the Company disclosed that the leaflets related to a
union , and that the person distributing them was the son of a company
employee The distributor of the leaflets was required to leave Respondent's
premises The General Counsel makes no contention that this conduct vio-
lated the Act.
5 Based on the credited testimony of Malone and Harp Marcus denied
that he made the statement referred to, but I do not credit his denial
6 The complaint alleges that each of the three was discriminatorily dis-
charged on July 25, July 31, and October 13, respectively The facts sur-
rounding these-separate discharges are set forth in connection with the
8(a)(3) allegations of the complaint
ment, and an admitted supervisor, called a meeting of the
employees in that department, at which time he discussed
employee tardiness. Prior to this meeting a posted notice
on the subject had been understood by employees to mean
that two instances of tardiness in a 1-week period would
result in discharge. At the July 22 meeting, Magill an-
nounced that any employee late for work even 1 minute
would for the first offense receive a written warning, and
for the second offense, not mentioning any time period,
would be discharged. The evidence shows that Respon-
dent's employee handbook made no mention of discipline
for two instances of tardiness .7
On Monday, August 11, employees Veely and Lenet,
along with Hanlon and Reveillac both of whom had at that
point been discharged, met at the Regional Office with re-
spect to the representation petition the Union had filed.
Attending for the Company were Vice President and Gen-
eral Manager Longson and Attorney Dukes. A consent
election agreement was quickly negotiated. The following
day all employees were summoned to a meeting where At-
torney Dukes spoke generally - about unions and an-
nounced the filing of the petition and that an election had
been set for September 9. Vice President Longson and
President Fogel were present at this meeting.
Beginning about September 5, and virtually each work-
day thereafter until the election on September 9, various
employees were called to the office of Company President
Fogel or Production Manager Magill. Two employees testi-
fied regarding the discussion while they were in the office.
Employee Bruce Ross testified that when he reached the
office he found President Fogel, General Manager Long-
son, and Production Manager Magill, with the latter two
doing virtually all of the talking. Although Ross was un-
able to identify the speaker, he testified that he was asked
first whether he was aware of the upcoming election, and
he replied in the affirmative. He was then asked how he felt
about the Union, to which Ross replied that he was sitting
in the middle and did not know which way he would go.
To this management stated that it was better not to sit on
the fence, but to take a position one way or the other. Ross
was then asked how he thought the vote would go, and he
expressed the opinion that it would probably be in favor of
the Union. Management then stated that if the Union won
the election it would probably ask for a raise for the em-
ployees, which the Company could not afford to pay, and
the Union would probably call the employees out on strike.
Management also brought up the name of Lenet in this
conversation; stating he would probably be in favor of the
Union, so he could be the shop steward if the Union was
successful . There is no testimony that employees so called
to the office were given assurance against reprisal if they
participated in the interview.
Employee Finney testified that when he was called to the
7 Based on the credited testimony of Hanlon and Reveillac Magill admit-
ted that he spoke to the employees on July 22, but claimed that he made no
basic change in what had always been the rule, simply reiterated policy that
had existed since 1974, and therafter enforced it as he had in the past
According to Magill, when he returned from vacation on July 21, he found
extensive tardiness and absenteeism that was affecting production . Magill
gave no testimony regarding those problems prior to his going on vacation
To the extent that Magill's testimony may be regarded as in conflict with
that of Hanlon and Reveillac, I do not credit it
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
office, only he and Magill were present, and that the latter
asked what he thought about the Union, to which Finney
replied, "not much." Magill then stated that if Finney
thought the Union would be ,good for him, to vote for it,
but if he thought it would not be good for him, to vote
against it, but that either way Finney should vote. Magill
then stated that if the Union got in and teed to get the
employees a raise, it would probably result in a strike.'
B. The 8(a)(3) Allegations
1. The discharge of Charles Reveillac
Charles Reveillac was employed by Respondent on Oc-
tober 24, 1974, and worked in the waterbed department as'
a machine operator until his discharge on July 25. Respon-
dent stipulated that Reveillac was among the best machine
operators it had. Initially, Reveillac's immediate supervisor
was Magill, but when Keith came to work about mid-
March, he took over supervision in that department. Some-
time in April or May, Reveillac was given a number of
union cards, eight of which he distributed among employ-
ees, and got five back signed, in addition to signing one
himself. Also Reveillac attended union meetings at the
homes of employees, having been informed of such meet-
ings by Hanlon.
On July 10, Reveillac was suspended for 2 days, because
he had absented himself from work for a half day and the
following day was approximately an hour late returning
from lunch. Reveillac did not deny that he was in fact
absent as indicated.
On July 22, Reveillac was among the employees present
when Magill spoke concerning the rules on tardiness,
above set forth. A day or two later, Reveillac was 20 min-
utes late reporting for work. As a result of this, Reveillac
was given a written notice which stated that the next time
he was late, he would be discharged.9
The morning of July 25, Reveillac reported for work on
time . Shortly after work started, Reveillac complained to
Supervisor Keith that the man performing the operation
ahead of his was not doing his work properly, and as he
worked at piece rates this affected his (Reveillac's) produc-
tion and earnings. According to Reveillac, Keith ignored
his complaint, and shortly thereafter he called Keith to his
machine again and reiterated his complaint. On this occa-
sion , according to Reveillac, Keith stated that he had a
poor attitude toward his work and that he (Reveillac)
should keep his machine going. After a short interval, Re-
veillac called Keith to his machine a third time, again com-
plained about the operator ahead of him, and asked that
8 My findings in the last two paragraphs are based on the credited testi-
mony of Ross and Finney, and certain admissions by Longson and Magill.
Longson admitted that in the latter part of the week before the election he
talked to some five or six employees who were selected at random, and that
he did this to ascertainwhat the Union was promising the employees, and
what Respondent had failed to do that made employees want the Union
Longson did not deny that he asked these employees how they felt about the
Union Magill testified that he heard Longson's testimony with respect to
the meetings mentioned and agreed with his testimony He also admitted
that he talked with employees Finney and Rubin, and perhaps one other.
9 My findings in this and the preceding paragraphs are based on the
credited and undisputed testimony of Reveillac
Keith change that man's operation. Reveillac claims that
Keith ignored his requests, and stated that he wanted to see
Reveillac's machine operating and at full speed, in order to
get the maximum production. Reveillac conceeded that the
basis of the difference between he and Keith was that
Keith wanted quantity, while he wanted quality. Following
these discussions Reveillac did not complain to Keith
again, and continued to work at his machine until about 2
p.m., when, because of a power failure, he was sent to the
bean bag department to work for the rest of the day. Short-
ly after 4:30 p.m., Reveillac was called to Magill' s office
where the latter discharged Reveillac, giving him a memo-
randum reading as follows:
This is to inform you of your immediate dismissal
from Classic Products Corporation. The reasons for
this action are as follows: (1) you have averaged being
absent from work during the term of your employ-
ment approximately one day per week; (2) you have
averaged being late to work almost two days per week
during the term of your employment; (3) you have for
the past few months had disputes with and _questioned
the'authority of your supervisor on several occasions.
The more immediate causes for this action are as
follows: (1) you were suspended for two days on July
10 and 11 because of a series of breaches of Company
policy including (a) late two hours and fifty minutes
on July 7, a Monday; (b) late forty-one minutes re-
turning from lunch on July 8, the following Tuesday;
and (c) did not return from lunch on July 9, the very
next day; (2) you were absent on July 21, Monday; (3)
on Tuesday July 22, you along with the entire crew,
were warned verbally concerning the Company's con-
cern with excessive tardiness and absenteeism; (4) you
were late to work on Thursday July 24, and received a
written warning advising you that any further breach
in company policy would result in your dismissal. On
Friday July 25, commencing almost immediately, you
showed disrespect toward and disputed the decisions
made by your supervisor.10
2. The discharge of Duane Hanlon
Hanlon worked for Respondent as a machine operator
in the waterbed department from August 20, 1974 , until his
discharge on July 31. Respondent makes no claim that
Hanlon's work was in any respect deficient. In, fact Produc-
tion Manager Magill conceded that except for the fact that
Hanlon was at times late in reporting for work in the morn-
ing, or in returning from his lunchbreak, the latter was a
satisfactory worker. Hanlon was active in the movement to
obtain union representation in the plant, having contacted
the union agent who initially met with the employees, solic-
ited employees to attend scheduled, union meetings and to
sign authorization cards; he also gave cards to other em-
10 Reveillac additionally testified that on July 29 (the Monday following
his discharge on Friday ), he returned to the plant for personal reasons, and
while there talked with Keith According to Reveillac , Keith asked if he
(Reveillac) knew why he had been fired, and when he asked why, Keith
replied that it was because of his poor attitude and his union activity. Keith
denied that he made the statement attributed to him I do not credit Reveil-
lac in this regard.
CLASSIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION
ployees who solicited signatures , collecting a total of 22
signed cards which he delivered to the Union.
A few days after the filing of the representation petition
on July 16, Hanlon asked Supervisor Keith for permission
to take 2 hours off to attend to personal matters." Keith
refused the request , and when Hanlon explained that the
matter was urgent and that he needed the time off, Keith
replied, "why should I do you any favors, you are trying to
screw us." In this conversation , no mention of the Union
was made by Keith or Hanlon.12
On July 25, Hanlon asked Magill for timeoff on July 28.
The latter replied that he would look into the matter, and
in a little while told Hanlon that production schedules
made it impossible to permit him to take time off on July
28, but that he could do so on July 30 . Before 8 o'clock the
morning of July 30 , Hanlon telephoned Magill at the plant
to remind the latter that he had permission to be off that
morning . Hanlon then also told Magill that he did not ex-
pect to be more than a few hours, but if he was unable to
get back to the plant by noon, he would telephone - Magill
replied that in such event Hanlon should bring a note.
Hanlon's business took him much longer than he antici-
pated, with the result that he did not return to the plant at
anytime on July 30 . When Hanlon attempted to check in
the morning of July 31, he found his tunecard missing from
its customary place and went to Magill asking where it was.
Magill replied that Hanlon was fired , and when the latter
asked why , Magill stated that it was because Hanlon had
not called in the previous day as he had promised . Hanlon
explained that Magill had said that all he needed was a
note, and tendered a note for Magill to examine, but the
latter refused, saying he did not want to see it.
Magill admits that he granted Hanlon 's request for time
off on July 30. He also admits the telephone conversation
with Hanlon the morning of July 30, and that he told Han-
lon that if the latter would be later than noon in returning
to the plant, to bring a note. According to Magill , he decid-
ed to discharge Hanlon the afternoon of July 30, and that
he reached this conclusion because Hanlon did not tele-
phone as he had promised, if he was later than noon in
getting back. Magill also admitted that when he discharged
Hanlon the morning of July 31 , the latter sought to give
him a note to explain why he-did not return to the plant by
noon July 30, and that he refused to accept it. According to
Magill his reason for refusing to accept the note was that
Hanlon had already breached the agreement to telephone
the plant if he was delayed beyond noon . Magill also testi-
fied that Hanlon's job attitude became a problem ; that he
defaced company property, disputed orders of his supervi-
sors, argued incessantly with his fellow workers, appeared
on the job in outrageous uniforms such as a band uniform
with a trumpet in his hand and playing ,the trumpet in the
building. Magill's testimony in this area is entirely uncorro-
borated. Although Magill claimed that this conduct' on the
part of Hanlon existed over the entire period of the !latter's
employment , and got steadily worse as time went on,: there
11 Hanlon explained that he went to Keith , rather than to Magill, his own
supsaervisor, because the latter was then on vacation.
Based on the credited testimony of Hanlon Although Keith testified as
a witness, he did not deny making this statement.
173
is no evidence that Magill , or any management representa-
tive, reprimanded Hanlon for it. Moreover, Magill admit-
ted, that had Hanlon telephoned on July 30, as promised,
he would have had no reason to discharge him at that time.
3. The discharge of Lenet
Lenet was employed by Respondent on September 20,
1973, to perform various factory functions and except for
some temporary layoffs for short periods was so employed
until his discharge on October 13. Because of the nature of
the case and the facts involved , something of Lenet's back-
ground and training is relevant.
In 1967, Lenet graduated from the University of Mary-
land with a B.S. degree in business administration , special-
izing in advertising and marketing, and is now working
towards a Masters degree at American University. From
1967 to 1972 , Lenet worked as director of management
training and marketing communications for International
Fabric Care Institute , where as part of his duties he taught
finance and marketing and wrote various management bul-
letins. He voluntarily left that job to 'become marketing
manager for Carpet Tec, a franchise operation for carpet
cleaning, charged with developing a market for this service
in the Washington area. About 3 months later Carpet Tec
was purchased by Eastern Airlines which decided to move
the operation to Chicago, leaving Lenet without work.
From 1967 to the termination of the Carpet Tec job,
Lenet's annual income was from a low of $7,500, to a high
of about $13,500. After termination of the Carpet Tec job,
Lenet became an investment broker, spending the first 6
months in training and obtaining the required license. At
the same time he worked for Leasco Information Products,
analyzing financial statements for the S.E.C., pursuant to a
contract between that agency and Leasco. After a short
time the aforementioned contract was terminated, and with
the reduced activity in investment securities, Lenet again
found himself without meaningful employment . It was at
this point that Lenet answered a blind ad for general facto-
ry work, which resulted in his employment by Respondent
at a starting rate of $2.75 an hour, with his first assignment
being to the waterbed department where he cut vinyl to
pieces of predetermined length . After about 2 months, Len-
et was made a supervisor in bean bag filling at a weekly
salary of $ 125 and was on that job for about 2 months.
About mid-March 1974, Lenet was assigned to the job of
preparing packages for shipment via United Parcel Service,
and on this job he, worked at an hourly rate of $3.13. After
a short period in that job Lenet was transferred back to the
waterbed department, this time inventorying bean bag
skins in preparation for their being filled, also at an hourly
rate of $3.13. Lenet was working at this job when the union
activity above referred to began.
Lenet learned of the union activity from Hanlon in the
latter part of June. He took a number of union cards from
Hanlon which he distributed in the plant, and eventually
returned signed cards, which included his own, to Hanlon.
Lenet was also active in arranging for union meetings; and
himself attended a number of meetings . As heretofore indi-
cated, he was one of the three employees who appeared at
the Board 's office on August 11 in connection with the
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representation petition; as well as the meeting of all em-
ployees a few days later which was addressed by Company
Attorney Dukes and at the conclusion of that meeting, in
the presence of company officials, announced the union
meeting to be held that night, urging all employees to at-
tend.
Also on August 15, Lenet was told by Longson that there
would be no work the following Monday in the bean bag
filling department, where Lenet then worked. Lenet replied
that he had theretofore worked in the waterbed department
and asked to be assigned there. Longson said there was a
full complement of employees in the waterbed department
and suggested that Lenet telephone the plant Monday to
ascertain if there would be any work Tuesday. When Lenet
called Monday, Longson said there would be no work in
bean bag filling on' Tuesday. Lenet again asked to be as-
signed to waterbed, but Longson replied that the waterbed
crew ,was full. Being of the opinion that the refusal to per-
mit him to work in the waterbed department was discnmi-
natorily motivated, Lenet discussed the situation with
Union Agent Stover who filed a charge alleging that Lenet
had been unlawfully terminated.
In a telephone conversation with Longson on August 19,
the latter told Lenet to report for work in the bean bag
department on August 21, and when Lenet did so,13 Long-
son discussed with him the charge that had been filed.14
Later the same day Lenet had another conversation with
Longson, to seek a- final answer to his request for permis-
sion to take off Thursday afternoon and all day Friday so
that he might take his wife for necessary medical attention,
to which request he had not theretofore received an an-
swer. After considerable conversation, 15 Longson told Len-
et that officially he could not have the requested time off.
Lenet replied that his wife's health was more important to
him than filling bean bags, and that he would take the time
off for the purpose stated.16
As indicated, the election was held September 9, be-
tween 8:30 and 9 a.m. Lenet testified that he served during
the election as an observer for the Union." During the
afternoon of September 9, Longson sent for Lenet and in-
formed the latter that he would thereafter work in the
headroom,18 and that the transfer would be effective the
13 Lenet testified that when he returned to work on August 21, he learned
that various employees had,worked in the bean bag department during the
3 days he was not-permitted to work. Except for this hearsay, there is no
testimony to establish such to be a fact
14 Longson took exception to the use of the word "discharged" claiming
that was untrue. Lenet agreed that the use of that word was inappropriate,
and said that he would so inform Union Agent Stover so that the latter
might correct the charge.
Both Longson and Lenet admit that their discussion ranged over a wide
area of subjects Lenet testified that toward the end of this conversation
Longson stated'that there would never be a union at Classic, and that he
laid Lenet off the preceding week because of his union activity, but that he
would not repeat the statement publicly I do not credit Lenet's testimony in
this regard.
16 Based on the credited testimony of Lenet, which is basically undisput-
ed
17 The tally of ballots is signed by Bernard Jeweler as observer for the
Union, but the certificate that the election was fairly conducted is signed by
Lenet. As heretofore indicated the vote was 11 for the Union, 12 against,
and 8 challenged ballots, 2 of which are involved in this proceeding '
is The headroom is a small room about 10' by 25', with no windows,
where drug related products, which Respondent sells, are stored and orders
following morning. Lenet was also told that the reason he
was selected for that job was that the items there' were
small and susceptible to pilferage, and that Longson con-
sidered him honest and reliable. Except for about 3 hours
on September 11, when Lenet was temporarily assigned to
bean bag filling, he worked .in the headroom for about a
week and was then told that he was being transferred to
turning bean bags,19 and that he would be paid for this
work at piece rates. Lenet protested this' transfer, saying
that bean bag turning was the most "degrading, ignomini-
ous, demotivating [and] ego deflating". job in the plant and
asserted that the transfer was being made to, punish him for
his union activities. Lenet also told Longson that he was
the most senior employee at the Company, and the job he
was being transferred to was usually performed by the very
new employees or those "who don't have much manual
dexterity or intelligence" for a higher position. Lenet asked
for assignment to some other duty in the plant, but Long-
son insisted that bean bag turning was work that had to be
performed and that he wanted Lenet to perform it.20
Lenet began turning bean bags on September 15. After
about a week, Supervisor Marcus told Lenet that thereafter
he was restricted in his movements to the bag turning area.
Prior to this Lenet was permitted to carry bags he had
turned to the bag filling area. The same day Supervisor
Marcus told Lenet that thereafter he could not receive calls
from, or make calls to, his wife on the company phone,
except in a dire emergency. Prior to this, according to Len-
et, he had made calls to his wife at least once a day and
had received calls from her. According to Lenet, Marcus
knew that his wife's health was the reason for these calls,
and Respondent stipulated that it knew that Lenet was us-
ing the telephone as Lenet claimed. Also, on October 3
Marcus informed Lenet that the latter would not be per-
mitted to smoke in his work area. Prior to this time, Lenet
and other employees had been permitted to smoke in their
work areas.
On September 12, General Manager Longson gave Len-
et a written warning concerning complaints from fellow
employees and supervisors that Lenet was annoying and
disturbing other employees with matters unrelated to com-
pany business, and that any further instances of such con-
duct would result in Lenet's immediate dismissal: Twelve
for such goods are prepared for shipment. Due to the nature of the goods,
they cannot be sent by mail and must be shipped by United Parcel Service
on a CO D basis
19 Among the items Respondent produces are bean bag chairs and has-
socks. These are made both in vinyl and cloth' After cutting the Material to
length, it is folded over, sewed on two sides 'and a zipper installed on the
top Because the material is sewed on the wrong side,i it is necessary to turn
the bag inside out before it is filled with beans The vinyl being quite heavy,
is more difficult to turn and takes more time', than bags made of cloth
20 Company President Fogel testified without contradiction that he made
the decision to transfer Lenet out of the headroom , but left it to Longson to
decide the work Lenet should be transferred to. Fogel's reasons for his
decision were that the headroom was isolated 'land a place that could not be
observed from other parts of 'the plant;, that' on two occasions during the
'week Lenet worked there, he had occasion to go by and heard Lenet and
other employees talking about matters unrelated to company business, from
which he concluded that Lenet spent too much time talking, and that he
therefore directed Longson to transfer Lenet to a job where he would work
in the open Lenet admitted that on at least two occasions during the week
he worked in the headroom, he did talk at some length ,with other employ-
ees, regarding matters unrelated to company, business.
CLASSIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION
days later Longson gave Lenet another written warning,
complaining that: (1) his production for the 3 preceding
weeks was unsatisfactory in that his piece rate earnings
were insufficient to satisfy the minimum statutory rate of
pay; (2) Lenet was receiving and making numerous tele-
phone calls on the Company's lines, which should be used
for business and emergency calls only; and (3) on Septem-
ber 19Yand September 23,,Lenet had left work before com-
pleting his 8-hour- tour of duty, allegedly for personal rea-
sons. The warning stated that `unless Lenet's production
improved, and his conduct in the other areas mentioned
ceased, Respondent would be forced to terminate him.
Lenet gave no testimony to the effect that the allegations
by Marcus were untrue.
On October 7, Supervisor Marcus gave Lenet another
written warning. This stated that a review of Lenet's time-
cards for the past 2 weeks indicated a pattern of being late
for work; that company policy required that he report for
work at 8 a.m.; and that if he continued to be late Respon-
dent would be forced to terminate him. Lenet, when he
testified before me, admitted that the charge of being late
was true 21
On October 13, Lenet was called to Longson's office and
told that he was being discharged for inadequate produc-
tion.22 Documentary evidence shows that from Monday
through Friday, October 6-10,23 Lenet's production and
earnings -were as follows:, -
Units ' Earnings at Earnings at
Date produced piece rates minimum rate
Oct. 6 worked at hourly rates $16,80
Oct. 7 273 $9.56 16.80
Oct. 8 191 9.51 16.80
Oct; 9 110 5.50 16.80
Oct. 10 66 3.30 - 16.80
The evidence additionally shows that during the early peri-
od of his assignment to bean bag turning, Lenet's normal
daily production was from 500 to 600 units in an 8-h6ur
day, which would give him gross earnings of $25 to $30 per
day, -and' that on at least one occasion he produced over
1,000 units a day.24
C. Contentions and Conclusions
1. The 8(a)(1) allegations
Upon the facts above detailed, I find and conclude that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
(a) The statement by Marcus, an admitted supervisor, to
employee Malone in the presence of employee Harp, that
21 Lenet additionally testified that he told Marcus that other employees,
as well as supervisors, reported late, that no warning had been given to
them, and asked if the threat of termination applied also to those employees
and supervisors.
22 Lenet did not dispute Longson's claim of inadequate production, but
argued that thejob of bean bag turning was an uninteresting job which did
not challenge his interest land asked to be transferred to some other duty,
but Longson insisted that'Lenet be terminated
23 The plant did not` work Saturday and Sunday, October 11 and 12
24 Although Lenet kept no records of his production, be admitted that the
figures mentioned are substantially correct
175
Company President Fogel would discharge any employee
that attempted to bring a union into the plant. This was
clearly a threat to discharge employees who sought to exer-
cise rights protected by Section 7 of the Act. The fact, if it
be a fact, that Marcus may not have been authorized to
make such a statement, or that the statement did accurate-
ly reflect Fogel's views, is beside the point.-To the employ-
ees he spoke with the authority of management.
(b) Magill's announcement to employees on July 22 that
henceforth any employee tardy would be reprimanded for
the first offense and discharged for a subsequent offense.
This change in the working conditions of the employees,
being made as it was dust 4 days after Respondent learned
of the filing of the representative petition and only the day
after Magill returned to the-plant from his vacation, was
made, I find and conclude, to retaliate against the employ-
ees for their concerted activity, in an effort to deter them
from further activity in that regard, and hence interfered
with their Section 7 rights.
(c) Supervisor Keith's statement to employee Hanlon
following the filing of the representation petition, and in
response to Hanlon's request for time off for personal rea-
sons, "why should I do you any favors, you are trying to
screw us." In context, this was clearly a statement that the
request for time off was being denied because Hanlon and
his fellow employees had exercised their Section 7 rights to
assist, and support the Union, and constituted the interfer-
ence,restraint, and coercion proscribed by Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. Keith's testimony that he was unaware of any
union activity -among the employees until sometime after
August 5, and hence could not have been referring to the
union activities of the employees when he made the state-
ment referred to on or about July 25, 1 reject as incredible,
and I find that he was in fact well aware of the union
activity at the time mentioned.
(d) The conduct of Company Officials Fogel, Longson,
and Magill in calling employees into the office and interro-
gating them concerning their views about the Union, and
what the'Union was promising them. In the circumstances
of this case, the interrogation was plainly for the purpose
of ascertaining the union sympathies and attitudes of the
interrogated employees. In fact, Longson did not deny the
testimony of employee Ross that he was asked how he felt
about the Union, and Magill testified that Longson' s testi-
mony correctly reflected what was said at the interviews.
Moreover, at the interviews Respondent gave the interro-
gated employees no assurances against reprisal. Absent
such assurances, interrogation reasonably tends to be coer-
cive, and hence violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Long
Island Airport Limousine Service Corp., 191 NLRB 94
(1971), enfd. 468 F.2d 292 (C.A. 2, 1972).25
25 The General Counsel additionally alleged in his complaint and urged
before me that, in the interviews above referred to, management also told
the interviewed employees that if the Union became their bargaining repre-
sentative-a strike would be inevitable and would cause Respondent to cease
operations According to employee Ross, Respondent stated that if the
Union won the election, it would probably have the employees go on strike,
but that nothing was said as to why there aught be a strike Finney 's testi-
mony is to the same effect. According to Longson, management' s statement
was that if ' the Union won the election and asked for a raise it would
bargain with the Union regarding that issue, but if the parties were unable
Continued
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The 8(a)(3) allegations
a. Duane Hanlon
Upon consideration of the entire record I am convinced,
and therefore find and conclude, that `Respondent dis-
charged Duane Hanlon because of his activity on behalf of
the Union, and that the latter's failure to telephone Magill
the preceding day was a mere pretext seized upon in an
attempt to obscure the true motive for the discharge. I
reach this conclusion on the totality of the following con-
siderations:
1._ The evidence leaves no room ' for doubt, indeed Re-
spondent concedes, that Hanlon performed his work in a
satisfactory manner.
2. Likewise, the evidence leaves no room for doubt that
Hanlon was among the most active, if not the leading
force, in the movement to obtain union representation for
the employees. Although Magill testified that when he dis-
charged Hanlon on July 31 he was unaware of any union
activity among the employees because he was on vacation
for 2 weeks proceeding July 21, I reject his testimony in
that regard as incredible. 6
3. That Respondent was opposed to the unionization of
its employees is made evident by its interrogation of a sub-
stantial number of its employees just before the election.
4. Magill granted Hanlon permission to take time off for
personal reasons on July 30. When Hanlon told Magill that
he thought he could be back at the plant by noon of that
day, and, if this proved not to be possible he would tele-
phone, Magill rejected the suggestion and instead told
Hanlon to bring a note from the person with whom he had
his business. Notwithstanding this arrangement, Magill ad-
mittedly discharged Hanlon because the latter did not tele-
phone on July 30, and when Hanlon offered the note which
Magill directed him to obtain, the latter admittedly refused
to even look at it, allegedly because Hanlon had already
broken his promise to telephone if he was delayed beyond
noon. This is not the reaction of a normal employer and
strongly suggests that something other than the failure to
call in was the true motive for the discharge.27
5. What all this adds up'to is that a theretofore satisfac-
tory employee is discharged hard upon discovery of his
union and concerted activity, for an alleged reason that is
not only trivial, but on analysis does not withstand' scruti-
ny. From this it is appropriate to infer, as I do, that the
to agree, the. Union would„have the right to strike I find this evidence
insufficient to support the General Counsel's contention.
26 As theretofore indicated, Respondent admittedly received a copy of the
representation petition on July 18 To believe that such a fact was not made
known to one of the top members of management when he returned from
vacation on July 21, the following business day, simply strains credulity
beyond the breaking point.
7 Magill also complained that Hanlon frequently reported late for duty,
defaced company, property, and came to work dressed in outrageous uni-
forms saying this conduct was engaged in by Hanlon from the inception of
his employment in August 1974 and that it got worse as time passed Magill
did not claim and there is no other evidence to show that Hanlon was ever
reprimanded for this alleged conduct or otherwise informed that Respon-
dent objected to it. The conduct therefore was plainly tolerated by Respon-
dent for 11 months ,'and reliance upon it as a reason for Hanlon 's discharge
not only has all the indicia of an afterthought, but is itself evidence of
discriminatory motivation
assigned reason for the discharge was not the true reason
therefor, and that the true reason is one which the employ-
er desires to conceal ; namely, Hanlon's union and concert-
ed activity. As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
stated the principle in Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v.
N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466, 470 (1966):
If he [the trier of fact] finds that the stated motive for
a discharge is false, he certainly can infer that there is
another motive. More than that, he can, infer that the
motive is one that the employer desires to conceal-an
unlawful motive-at least where , as-in this case, the
surrounding facts tend to reinforce that inference.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated , I find and conclude
that by discharging Hanlon, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
b. Charles Reveillac
Consideration of the entire record convinces me, and I
therefore find and conclude, that Respondent also dis-
charged Revveillac for the latter's' union and concerted ac-
tivity, and that the factor's enumerated in the discharge
letter given Reveillac on July 25 were in the main matters
that Respondent had long tolerated and forgiven, but res-
urrected at the time of the discharge in an attempt to ob-
scure-the true motive for the discharge. I am led to this
conclusion by the following factors:
1. Like Hanlon, Reveillac's work performance was ad-
mittedly satisfactory.
2. As in the case of Hanlon, Reveillac was among the
leading forces in the campaign to organize Respondent's
employees, and I have heretofore rejected Magill's claim
that he was unaware of any union activity among the em-
ployees for some period after he returned from vacation on
July 21.
3. The discharge memorandum given Reveillac on July
25 was predicated primarily on his record for absenteeism
and tardiness, most of it extending over the entire 9-month
period of his employment. If this record was as intolerable
to Respondent as the memorandum indicates , it is difficult
to understand .why Respondent did not discharge Reveillac
long before it did. The answer, of course, lay in the fact
that Respondent, for reasons best known to it, chose to
tolerate Reveillac's absenteeism and tardiness, and found
that conduct intolerable only after Reveillac's union activi-
ty came to light . Respondent's reliance upon Reveillac's
prior conduct, in the circumstances of this case, as a reason
for the latter's discharge in July, not only has all the indicia
of an afterthought, but is itself evidence of a discriminatory
motive. The final reference in the memorandum to
Reveillac's alleged disrespect toward and disputing the de-
cisions of his supervisors was likewise seized upon, I am
convinced, in an attempt to obscure the true motive for the
discharge. The "dispute"-if such it can be called-be-
tween Reveillac and Supervisor, Keith during the morning
of July 25 was one of a very, minor nature and of a kind
any competent supervisor should be able to control with-
out any real difficulty. In fact,, the record shows that the
precise situation had occurred on "several occasions" in
CLASSIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION 177
the past, and Respondent apparently found it unnecessary
to take any action to control the situation.28
4. In short, the basic picture presented by the facts relat-
ing to Reveillac's discharge shows that a satisfactory work-
man, whose past derelictions of duty-if his past conduct
was actually considered by Respondent to be such-but
except for a 2-day suspension for being absent from work
for 4 hours without leave it had never imposed discipline
for, is suddenly discharged hard upon discovery that union
activity was in progress, and in which I infer Respondent
believed Reveillac was a participant, for reasons which it
had in the past accepted without finding it necessary to
impose discipline. These factors are the classic indicia of a
discriminatorily motivated discharge, appropriately giving
rise to the inference that the stated reason for the discharge
is simply a pretext, and that the true reason for the dis-
charge, and the one which Respondent desires to conceal,
was its desire to stamp out one of the moving spirits in the
organizational campaign, and this is particularly true
where, as in the instant case, the alleged reason for the
discharge does not withstand scrutiny. Shattuck Denn Min-
ing Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466, 470, 472 (C.A.
9).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, I find and conclude
that by discharging Reveillac on July 25, Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
c. The discharge of Lenet
The discharge of Lenet, I find and conclude, was for
cause and hence did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act. Although the evidence offered by the General
Counsel to support his claim that the September 15 trans-
fer of Lenet to bean bag filling, as well as the subsequent
warnings to and restrictions placed upon Lenet were all
discriminatorily motivated, leaves much to be desired, I
assume for the purposes of decision, and that such was the
case . Had Lenet quit because of the discrimination against
him, it could be appropriately concluded that he had been
constructively discharged. Instead, as the evidence shows,
Lenet elected to engage in a partial strike against Respon-
dent by slowing down, or at least failing to achieve even a
minimal standard of performance of his duties. Although
the right of an employee to strike his employer is protected
by the Act, he may not continue to work and at the same
time strike. Such conduct is unprotected by the Act, and
provided Respondent with the . opportunity to affect the
discharge of Lenet for cause, onolulu Rapid Transit Com-
28 The final sentence of the first paragraph of the memorandum of July
25, which was given Reveillac at the time of his discharge and set forth
Respondent's reasons therefor, states that Reveillac had "for the past few
months had disputes with and questioned the authority of your supervisor
on several occasions."
29 Respondent devoted portions of its brief to arguing that the evidence
does not - support an allegation that Lola Holmes was discriminatorily dis-
charged. Although a charge filed by Holmes, which alleges here unlawful
termination by Respondent, is attached to the complaint issued herein, the
complaint itself makes no allegation that Lola Holmes was discharged for
discriminatory reasons, nor did the General Counsel introduce any evidence
regarding her termination. Accordingly, I make no findings regarding the
alleged discharge of Lola Holmes.
pany, Limited, 110 NLRB 1806 (1954).21 1 so find and con-
clude.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, I state the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth in section C,1 hereof, Re-
spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act, and thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discharging Charles Reveillac on July 25 and
Duane Hanlon on July 31, because of their union and con-
certed activities, Respondent discriminated against each of
them in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, and the
terms and conditions thereof, discouraging membership in
a labor organization, and thereby engaged in, and is engag-
ing in, unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) 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.
6. The General Counsel has failed to prove by a prepon-
derance of the evidence that Respondent's discharge of
Richard Lenet was for reasons other than cause.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
protected by Section 7 of the Act, and discriminatorily dis-
charged two employees , I shall recommend that it be re-
quired to cease and desist from such conduct, and take
certain affirmative action hereafter set forth , designed and
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. The
unfair labor practices found being of a character which got
to the very heart of the Act, an order requiring Respondent
to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon
employee rights is warranted , and I shall so recommend.
N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4,
1941); California Lingerie Inc., 129 NLRB 912 (1960).
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Charles Reveillac and Duane Hanlon, I shall rec-
ommend that it be required to offer each of them immedi-
ate, full , and unconditional reinstatement to his former job
or, if such job no longer exists , to a substantially equivalent
one, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights,
privileges, or working conditions, and make each of them
whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them , respectively, by paying them,
severally, a sum of money equal to the amount each would
have earned from the date of his discharge to the date of
Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during that period. Such backpay shall be computed in
accordance with the Board's formula set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent'per annum , as set forth in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). It will
also be recommended that Respondent be required to pre-
serve and upon request make available to authorized
agents of the Board, all records necessary or useful in de-
terminging compliance with the Board's Order, or in com-
puting the amount of backpay due.
REPORT ON OBJECTIONS AND CHALLENGES
As above indicated, the election held on September 9
showed 11 votes for the Union, 12 against, and 8 chal-
lenged ballots. The Regional Director sustained the chal- '
lenges to six of the ballots, referring the other two for de-
termination in this proceeding. The two challenged ballots
here involved are those of Carole Lann, whose right to vote
was challenged by the Union on the ground that she was a
clerical employee and not within the unit, and of Duane
Hanlon, whose right to vote was challenged by Respondent
on the ground that he was not an 'employee during the
eligibility period, having been allegedly discharged for
cause on July 31.
At the outset of the hearing the Union withdrew its chal-
lenge to the ballot of Carole Lann. Having 'found the dis-
charge of Duane Hanlon to have been disc'riminatonly mo-
tivated, it follows that Duane Hanlon remained in
employee status and was entitled to vote at the election
held on September 9. The discharge of Reveillac and Han-
lon and promulgation of work rules and interrogation of
employees, which I have found violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, all occurred between the filing of the petition
and the date of the election, the time which the Board
regards as the critical period, it follows that unless a count
of the challenged ballots will resolve the matter, the elec-
tion should be set aside. Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc.,
136 NLRB 1782 (1962); Leas & McVitty, Incorporated, 155
NLRB 389 (1965); L. B. Foster Company, 168 NLRB 83
(1967), enfd. 418 F.2d 1 (C.A. 9, 1969), cert. denied 397
U.S. 990; Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals, A Division of Kai-
ser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, 187 NLRB 661
(1970), enfd. 473 F.2d 374 (C.A. 5, 1973). Accordingly, it
will be recommended that the ballots of Carole Lann and
Duane Hanlon be opened and counted by the Regional
Director, in accordance with Board practice,' and that he
serve a revised tally of ballots on the parties. If this results
in a majority for the Union, the Regional Director shall
certify the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the unit involved. If the
revised tally of ballots show no majority for the Union, it is
recommended that the election held on September 9 be set
aside, and that a new election be conducted by the Region-
al Director at such time as he may deem it appropriate to
do so.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following rec-
ommended:
ORDER"
The Respondent, Classic Products Corporation, Belts-
ville, Maryland, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees with respect to
their assistance to, or support of any labor organization.
(b) Threatening to discharge employees who assist or
support a"labor organization.
(c) Promulgating changes in the wages, hours, or work-
ing conditions of its employees because such employees
have assisted or supported a labor organization:
(d) Denying employee requests for time off because
such employees have assisted or supported a labor organi-'
zation.
(e) Encouraging or discouraging membership in United
Furniture Workers of 'America, 'Local 75, AFL-CIO, or
any other'labor organization of its employees, by' discharg-
ing, or in any other manner discriminating against any em-
ployee in regard to his hire, tenure, or any other term or
condition of employment.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor, organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed and
found necessary to effectuate the, policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to each Charles Reveillac and Duane Hanlon
immediate, full, and unconditional reinstatement to his for-
mer job or, if that job no longer: exists, to a substantially
equivalent one, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges or workmgconditions, and make each
of them whole for any loss of earnings suffered, in the
manner stated in the section hereof entitled "The Reme-
dy.'
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to au-
thorized agents of the National Labor Relations Board, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social securi-
ty payment records, timecards, personnel records and re-
ports, and all other records necessary' or useful in de-
termining compliance herewith, or in computing the
amount of backpay due.
(c) Post at its plant in Beltsville, Maryland, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 31 Copies' of said no-
tice, on forms provided' by the Board's Regional Director
for Region 5, after being signed by an authorized represen-
tative of Respondent, shall be posted as herein provided
30 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec'
102'48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
3l` In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 "
CLASSIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION
immediately upon receipt thereof and be so maintained for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it
has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated
the National Labor Relations Act, and we have been or-
dered by the National Labor Relations Board to post this
notice. We intend to carry out the order of the Board, the
judgment of any court enforcing the same, and abide by
the following:
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
179
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing
To engage in activities together for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with our
employees in the exercise of those rights. All our em-
ployees are free to become or remain members of
United Furniture Workers of America, Local 75,
AFL-CIO, or any other union, or not to become or
remain a member of Local 75, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you concerning
your assistance to or support of any union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you because you
assist or support a union.
WE WILL NOT refuse time off to any employee be-
cause our employees assisted or supported a union.
As' the National Labor Relations Board found that we
violated the law when we discharged Charles Reveillac and
Duane Hanlon, WE WILL offer each of them reinstatement
to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent one without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make each of them
whole for any loss of pay suffered, together with 6 percent
interest.
CLASSIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION