Columbiana Hi Tech, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jun 7, 2005

08-CA-035545 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 7, 2005)

JD(ATL)–24–05
Columbiana, OH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
DIVISION OF JUDGES

COLUMBIANA HI TECH, L.L.C.

and Case No. 8-CA-35545

ARTIST HURST, An Individual

Rudra Choudhury, Esq., for the General Counsel.
No appearance for the Respondent.

BENCH DECISION

Statement of the Case

MICHAEL A. MARCIONESE, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this case in
Cleveland, Ohio on May 12, 2005. Artist Hurst, an individual, filed the charge on January 7,
2005. The complaint issued on March 28, 2005, alleging that Columbiana Hi Tech, L.L.C., the
Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating and maintaining, since at least
December 20, 20041, a rule prohibiting its employees from discussing their hourly wage rate,
and by discharging Hurst on December 30 for violating this rule. The complaint also alleged that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) on December 31, through its Manufacturing Manager
Chris Feezle, by orally repeating the rule at a meeting of its employees. On April 7, 2005, the
Respondent, through counsel, filed its answer to the complaint, admitting that it discharged
Hurst but denying that it did so for the alleged unlawful motive and denying that it promulgated
or maintained any unlawful rule.

The Respondent did not appear at the hearing, despite having received notice of the
hearing along with the complaint. After hearing the testimony of the General Counsel’s
witnesses and considering the documentary evidence and oral argument of Counsel for the
General Counsel, I rendered a bench decision in accordance with Section 102.35(a)(10) of the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations. For the reasons stated by me on the
record at the close of the hearing, I found that the Respondent in fact maintained the rule
alleged in the complaint at least since December 20, that it discharged Hurst on December 30,
for violating that rule, and that it reiterated the rule in meetings with employees the following
day. Based on these facts, which were undisputed, I concluded that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.

1 All dates are in 2004 unless otherwise indicated.

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
2

I hereby certify the accuracy of the portion of the transcript, pages 69 through 83,
containing my Bench Decision. A copy of that portion of the transcript, as corrected2, is attached
as “Appendix B”.

Conclusions of Law

1. By promulgating and maintaining, at least since December 20, 2004, a rule prohibiting
its employees from discussing their hourly wage rates, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.

2. By discharging Artist Hurst on December 30, 2004 for violating its unlawful rule
prohibiting employee discussion of their wage rates, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.

Remedy

Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondent having unlawfully discharged an employee, it
must offer him reinstatement and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits,
computed on a quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement,
less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus
interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). Although there
was some testimony at the hearing indicating that the Respondent had closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent may still be operating at other locations. I shall
leave issues as to whether reinstatement is still available as a remedy to resolution at the
compliance stage of the proceedings. However, because of the evidence indicating that the
facility has closed, I shall recommend that the Respondent also be required to mail the Notice
that would ordinarily be posted to all employees who were employed at the Columbiana facility
at any time between December 20, 2004 and the date the facility closed. Finally, I shall
recommend that the Respondent rescind the unlawful rule and advise employees that it has
done so and that they are free to discuss their wage rates and other terms and conditions of
employment without retribution.

On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended3

ORDER

The Respondent, Columbiana Hi Tech, L.L.C., Columbiana, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall

1. Cease and desist from
2 The corrections to the transcript are reflected in the attached Appendix C.
3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
3

(a) Promulgating and maintaining any rules that prohibit employees from discussing their
wage rates and other terms and conditions of employment with other employees.

(b) Discharging or otherwise disciplining employees for discussing their wage rates and
terms and conditions of employment with other employees, or for engaging in any other
concerted activity protected by Section 7 of the Act.

(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, 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) Rescind the unlawful rule prohibiting employee discussions about their wage rates
and notify employees that the rule is no longer in effect.

(b) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Artist Hurst full reinstatement
to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.

(c) Make Artist Hurst whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of his unlawful discharge in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the Decision.

(d) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful discharge, and within 3 days thereafter notify Hurst in writing that this
has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way.

(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.

(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Columbiana, Ohio
copies of the attached Notice marked “Appendix A.”4 Copies of the Notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 8, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where Notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the Notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the Notice
to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
December 20, 2004.

4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the
notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
4

(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.

Dated, Washington, D.C.

____________________
Michael A. Marcionese
Administrative Law Judge

JD(ATL)–24–05
APPENDIX A

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 Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities

WE WILL NOT promulgate and maintain any rules that prohibit you from discussing with your
fellow employees your wage rates and other terms and conditions of employment.

WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discipline any of you for discussing your wage rate or
other terms and conditions of employment with other employees, or for exercising any of the
other rights set forth above.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.

WE WILL rescind the unlawful rule prohibiting employee discussions about their wage rates and
notify employees that the rule is no longer in effect.

WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Artist Hurst full reinstatement to his
former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.

WE WILL make Hurst whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his
discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.

WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files any reference to the
unlawful discharge of Hurst, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify him in writing that this
has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way.

COLUMBIANA HI TECH, L.L.C.
(Employer)

Dated By
(Representative) (Title)

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
6

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
1240 East 9th Street, Federal Building, Room 1695, Cleveland, OH 44199-2086
(216) 522-3716, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (216) 522-3723.

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
7
APPENDIX B

69

1 JUDGE MARCIONESE: Back on the

2 record. Okay at this point I will now render my Bench

3 decision having heard the testimony that there is in

4 the record. I also, I guess Mr. Choudhury, during the

5 break were you able to determine whether there was any

6 response to your voice mail message left with

7 Mr. Powell's office?

8 MR. CHOUDHURY: Upon returning to my

9 office at the close of evidence I did check my voice

10 mail messages. I had no messages left from

11 Respondent's counsel.

12 JUDGE MARCIONESE: Okay. All right.

13 Well at this point there's nothing really left for me

14 to do other than to make a decision in this matter and

15 particularly here where Respondent has not appeared

16 and the evidence is essentially uncontroverted, there

17 seems to be no need for filing of briefs or any

18 further delay in deciding this case.

19 This case started when Mr. Artist Hurst,

20 an individual, filed the unfair labor practice charge

21 that is at the bottom of this case on January 7th,

22 2005. The formal papers in evidence establish that

23 the charge was served by mail upon Columbiana Hi Tech

24 LLC, the Respondent herein, on January 10th of 2005.

25 Based upon that charge the complaint

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
8
70

1 issued on March 28th, 2005 alleging that the

2 Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act since

3 at least December 20th, 2004, by promulgating and

4 maintaining a rule prohibiting discussions among

5 employees about their hourly wage, that it further

6 violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on December 30th,

7 2004, when it discharged Mr. Hurst for violating that

8 rule and again on December 31st when the Respondent's

9 manufacturing manager, Chris Feezle, orally repeated

10 the rule at an employee meeting.

11 On April 11th, 2005 the Respondent filed

12 its answer to the complaint in which it denied the

13 factual and legal allegations that it had committed

14 any unfair labor practice.

15 Now as I noted at the beginning of the

16 hearing although having been served with a copy of the

17 complaint in the notice of hearing and being apprised

18 of the allegations against it and the time and date of

19 the hearing, Respondent has elected not to appear in

20 this proceeding.

21 I have now heard the evidence that the

22 General Counsel has offered in support of the

23 allegations in the complaint as well as any inferences

24 to be drawn by the Respon-, from the Respondent's

25 failure to appear at the hearing and to produce

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
9

71

1 documents that were validly subpoenaed from the

2 Respondent in preparation for this hearing.

3 And I will now render my decision

4 pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) of the Board's Rules

5 and Regulations governing Bench decisions.

6 There are certain requirements that have

7 to be addressed in any decision and I will address

8 those in the course of this as well.

9 In particular with respect to

10 jurisdiction, I note that the complaint alleges and

11 the Respondent has admitted in its answer that it is a

12 Delaware limited liability corporation with an office

13 and place of business in Columbiana, Ohio, and that it

14 is engaged there in the fabrication of specialized

15 metals for the nuclear industry.

16 Respondent further admitted in its

17 answer that it annually purchased and received at that

18 facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly

19 from points located outside the State of Ohio.

20 Based upon these admitted facts I find

21 that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce

22 within the meaning of Section 2.2(6) and (7) of the

23 Act.

24 Respondent also admitted in its answer

25 that certain named individuals including vice

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
10

72

1 president of quality John Bossone, B-o-s-s-o-n-e, and

2 manufacturing manager Mr. Feezle, F-e-e-z-l-e, were

3 its supervisors within the meaning of Section 2.11 of

4 the Act and its agents within the meaning of Section

5 2.13 of the Act.

6 Respondent also admitted discharging

7 Mr. Hurst on December 30th but denied doing so for the

8 reasons that General Counsel has alleged.

9 Now in this proceeding Mr. Hurst, the

10 Charging Party, testified without any contradiction

11 that he had been hired by Mr. Bossone on or about

12 December 18th after some negotiation at the rate of

13 pay of $16.00 an hour and that he started work on

14 December 20th, initially starting on the day shift and

15 then pursuant to an agreement he had worked out with

16 Mr. Bossone, transferring to the night shift the day

17 later.

18 His tenure of employment did not last

19 very long as Mr. Hurst was terminated on December

20 30th, 2004, essentially about a weeks' worth of

21 employment. The incident that apparently led to this

22 short tenure apparently occurred on the night of

23 December 29th when Mr. Hurst received his first

24 paycheck.

25 According to Mr. Hurst, while reviewing

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
11

73

1 his paycheck and discussing and inquiring of other

2 employees about deductions and withholdings and other

3 matters that one would normally expect employees to

4 inquire about or talk about, one employee by the

5 nickname of Fireball, happened to observe Hurst's rate

6 of pay and commented loud enough for others to hear

7 that Hurst was making about three dollars an hour more

8 than he, Fireball, was.

9 From Hurst's testimony there apparently

10 was no follow up to that discussion. Mr. Hurst

11 himself did not pursue the matter and continued to

12 work. But later that evening while working on another

13 job, again with Fireball and another employee,

14 Fireball brought up this difference in pay again and

15 gendering some discussion among the employees as to

16 the reasons why employees were paid different rates of

17 pay.

18 This discussion as described by Hurst

19 and, again, without any contradiction from any other

20 witnesses who may have been there, appears to be a

21 rather routine conversation of the type that probably

22 occurs frequently in work places all over the country.

23 However, Respondent apparently did not

24 perceive it the same way for the next day Mr. Hurst

25 was terminated at the start of his shift by Mr. Feezle

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
12
74

1 who's an admitted supervisor and agent of the

2 Respondent.

3 According to Hurst's testimony

4 Mr. Feezle told him that what Mr. Hurst had done the

5 night before was unethical and not businesslike and

6 when Mr. Hurst inquired further as to what Mr. Feezle

7 was talking about, Mr. Feezle told him that he had

8 flaunted his paycheck around the shop.

9 Even after Mr. Hurst explained what had

10 actually happened the night before, Mr. Feezle told

11 him that he was terminated and had him sign a

12 personnel change notice, as evidenced in General

13 Counsel's Exhibit 5, indicating that the termination

14 was involuntary and that Mr. Hurst was not eligible

15 for rehire.

16 When Mr. Hurst met with Mr. Bossone, the

17 gentleman who had hired him, shortly after his

18 termination, probably several days later, Mr. Bossone

19 confirmed that, in fact, the reason that Mr. Hurst had

20 been terminated was because he had disclosed his rate

21 of pay to other employees.

22 And if there were any doubt as what the

23 reason for termination was, in the position letter

24 that the Respondent's counsel filed with the Regional

25 Office during the investigation of the unfair labor

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
13
75

1 practice, which is in evidence as General Counsel's

2 Exhibit 2, Mr. Powell essentially admits that

3 Mr. Hurst was terminated for violating a specific

4 directive not to discuss his rate of pay with other

5 employees.

6 Now Mr. Hurst testified that before his

7 termination he had not been told, either at the time

8 he was hired or any time in that short period that he

9 was working there, that he was prohibited from

10 discussing his wages but it is clear from other

11 evidence in the record that Respondent, in fact, did

12 maintain such a rule.

13 I note first that the Mr. Dennis

14 Hildebrand, another employee of the Respondent,

15 testified that it was common at each evaluation

16 session for the supervisor or other manager evaluating

17 him to remind him not to discuss his wages with other

18 employees.

19 And Mr. Hildebrand testified without any

20 contradiction that this occurred as recently as August

21 of 2004, during an evaluation by Mr. Bossone, who is

22 an admitted supervisor and agent of the Respondent,

23 that after discussing his wage increase that he was

24 told not to let other employees know what he was, what

25 he was getting and August 2004 is a date well within

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
14
76

1 the Section 10(b) period, the charge having been filed

2 in early January of 2005.

3 It also appears from the limited

4 evidence available in this record that even after

5 Mr. Hurst was terminated Respondent reaffirmed the

6 rule in meetings that it held with employees on

7 December 30th, which was essentially the day Mr. Hurst

8 was terminated but before his shift, apparently.

9 Mr. Hildebrand testified that he

10 attended a meeting in the shop where Mr. Bob Hypes,

11 identified as a quality control manager from the

12 Respondent's Greensboro facility, who was working at

13 the Columbiana plant overseeing a particular product

14 and that Mr. Hypes told employees, in the presence of

15 Mr. Feezle, that Hurst had been fired for displaying

16 his paycheck.

17 And there was no evidence or testimony

18 that Mr. Feezle in any way attempted to correct or

19 contradict Mr. Hypes statements in that regard.

20 There's also hearsay testimony in the

21 record from Mr. Hurst regarding a conversation he had

22 at a gas station the day after he was fired when an

23 individual whose name he did not know but he

24 identified as the person who gave him his welding test

25 before he was hired, told Mr. Hurst that Respondent

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
15
77

1 had held a meeting with the employees on the day that

2 he was fired and that the employees were told that

3 they were not allowed to talk about wages.

4 Although hearsay is ordinarily not

5 admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence the

6 Board has, on occasion, considered and received

7 hearsay when there's other evidence in the record that

8 tends to corroborate it.

9 I also note that here we do have the

10 evidence from Mr. Hildebrand regarding a similar

11 meeting on that day, December 30th, in which Mr. Hypes

12 with Mr. Feezle present essentially said the same

13 thing, as well as inferences to be drawn from

14 Respondent's failure to comply with a validly served

15 subpoena duces tecum which would have required the

16 production of rules, regulations or other documents

17 that would show what rules, if any, exist at the

18 Respondent's Columbiana facility.

19 So in the absence of any contradictory

20 evidence I am compelled to find that as the complaint

21 alleged that the Respondent in fact maintained a rule

22 prohibiting its employees from discussing their wages

23 and that it, in fact, terminated Mr. Hurst, the

24 Charging Party, on December 30th for violating that

25 rule.

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
16
78

1 Now as the General Counsel points out in

2 his closing argument the Board has long held that

3 rules restricting employees rights to discuss their

4 wages and working conditions are unlawful under

5 Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, absent a substantial

6 business justification.

7 And in addition to the cases that were

8 cited by the General Counsel, I would cite one of the

9 lead cases, Jeannette Corporation, J-e-a-n-n-e-t-t-e,

10 217 NLRB 653, 1975 which was enforced by the Third

11 Circuit in 1976 at 532 et 2nd, 916 at Page 917.

12 Also I'll refer you to Heck's

13 Incorporated, that's H-e-c-k apostrophe s, 293 NLRB

14 1111 at Page 1119, 1989, Fredericksburg Glass and

15 Mirror Incorporated, 323 NLRB 165 1997, and NLRB

16 versus Main Street Terrace Care Center, 218 F3rd 531

17 at Pages 537 through 539, a decision enforcing a Board

18 Order in the Sixth Circuit from 2000.

19 And in Jeannette Corporation, perhaps

20 the lead case, the Board, in fact, had rejected as a

21 business justification that the employer's concern

22 that discussions among employees regarding their wages

23 might lead to jealousy and strife among the workers

24 that the Board found that that was a sufficient, was

25 not a sufficient or a substantial business

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
17
79

1 justification to allow a restriction on employees'

2 rights.

3 And I note that it appeared from, I

4 think I had seen it in the Respondent's position

5 statement that it appeared that that was the rationale

6 they were using to justify the rule that they were

7 concerned about the dissension or that, or the

8 controversy that might arise if employees were allowed

9 to discuss their wage rates and the Board has already

10 rejected that as a defense.

11 And as General Counsel points out too in

12 his closing arguments the rationale behind the Board's

13 decisions in this area is pretty clear that usually

14 discussions regarding wages and working conditions are

15 precursor to any other organizational activity.

16 It's really at the core of the Sections

17 cite of the right of employees to engage in concerted

18 activity either for collective bargaining or for their

19 mutual aid or protection and any restriction by an

20 employer on these basic rights obviously runs afoul of

21 the Act.

22 All right and also too, although that's

23 really not at issue in this case because we have

24 enforcement, the Board has also said that even the

25 mere maintenance of such a rule has been, is unlawful

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
18
80

1 because of the reasonable tendency of these

2 restrictions to interfere with employees' Section 7

3 rights.

4 And, of course, one of the cases on that

5 is the Automatic Screw Products Company dealing with

6 the maintenance of a rule when there's no

7 organizational activities cited by the General

8 Counsel.

9 Also the Heck's case that I previously

10 cited and Radisson Plaza Minneapolis at 307 NLRB 94.

11 Here not only do we have maintenance of the rule we

12 have its reaffirmation to employees at evaluations and

13 in employee meetings and we have the enforcement of

14 the rule through the termination of Mr. Hurst.

15 Under all of that, considering the

16 evidence and the law that is still, as far as I know,

17 a good law under the Board's, and currently before the

18 Board, I must conclude that the Respondent did, in

19 fact, violate the National Labor Relations Act as

20 alleged in the complaint, Section 8(a)(1), by

21 maintaining a rule prohibiting employees from

22 discussing wages among themselves and, in fact,

23 terminating the Charging Party for violating that

24 rule.

25 Now in due course I will be issuing my

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
19
81

1 decision upon receipt of the transcript of these

2 proceedings. I will certify the record and certify my

3 Bench decision. I will then issue an order and the

4 order will include the standard remedy.

5 Essentially in a case of this nature the

6 Board's traditional remedies is that Respondent will

7 be required to offer full re-instatement to Mr. Hurst

8 to his previous position or if that position no longer

9 exists to a substantially equivalent one and to make

10 him whole for any wages and benefits that he may have

11 lost as a result of the Respondent's discriminatory

12 and unlawful discharge of him.

13 The Respondent will also be required to

14 rescind whatever rules it has restricting employees

15 from discussing their wages and working conditions, to

16 notify the employees either by issuance of a revised

17 handbook or a notice that it has, in fact, rescinded

18 the rule and that they are free to have those

19 discussions.

20 And Respondent will also be required to

21 post a notice to employees and comply with that notice

22 and I will, the notice to be posted will be included

23 in my written decision that will follow upon receipt

24 of the transcript.

25 Now there was some testimony,

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
20
82

1 Mr. Hildebrand mentioned it, that Respondent had

2 closed the Columbiana plant where the unfair labor

3 practice has been committed but it's my understanding

4 that they are still in business.

5 I will leave to the compliance stage of

6 these proceedings the determination as to whether or

7 not reinstatement is still available to Mr. Hurst

8 either at Columbiana or at some other facility or

9 whether future reinstatement, conditional upon

10 Respondent resuming operations, would be appropriate

11 but those matters can be resolved in the compliance

12 stage of the proceeding.

13 Also if it turns out that the Respondent

14 has closed the plant where the unfair labor practice

15 has occurred, as an alternative I will order that the

16 Respondent mail a copy of the notice to each employee

17 who was on the payroll as of the date of the unfair

18 labor practice, which was December 30th of 2004.

19 Okay, anything further? Okay that is my

20 decision pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations

21 as I indicated previously. Upon receipt of the

22 transcript I will certify the record, make any

23 corrections to the transcript that need to be made.

24 I will prepare the formal order and the

25 notice to be issued and posted. A copy of that

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
21
83

1 written decision will be served on all parties

2 including the Respondent, even though they have not

3 appeared here today.

4 At that point all parties have a right

5 to file exceptions including the Respondent before the

6 Board in Washington. I will refer the parties to the

7 Board's Rules and Regulations for the procedures for

8 the filing of exceptions and service on parties and

9 then the Board will then rule upon any exceptions

10 including any exceptions to evidentiary rulings.

11 Okay, anything further? Okay, I'll ask

12 the Court Reporter, are all of the exhibits, General

13 Counsel's 1 through 5 have they all been received?

14 COURT REPORTER: Yes.

15 JUDGE MARCIONESE: Yes, okay. All

16 right, if there's nothing further then I will close

17 the record and you'll be receiving my decision in due

18 course. Thank you very much.

19 (Whereupon the hearing was concluded at 12:08 p.m. on

20 Thursday, May 12, 2005)

JD(ATL)–24–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
22
APPENDIX C

Page(s) Line(s) Delete Insert_____________

15 8-10 Ben and Mills Bannon Mills
16 11, 17, Ben and Mills Bannon Mills
22-23
17 2 & 18 Ben and Mills Bannon Mills
73 14-15 and gendering engendering
78 11 et 2nd f.2d
78 11 at 917 at 919
79 16-17 sections cite Section 7 rights