Detroit Forming, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 205 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

DETROIT FORMING, INC. 205
Detroit Forming, Inc. and Marianne Dubuque. Case
7-CA-9656
June 18, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND PENELLO
On January 10, 1973, Adminsitrative Law Judge
Irving M. Herman issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions I
and a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed a
brief in response to exceptions of Respondent.
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 briefs
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 Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Detroit Forming, Inc., De-
troit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order.
1 The Respondent has requested oral argument . This request is hereby
denied as the record , the exceptions , and the briefs adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRVING M. HERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was tried before me at Detroit, Michigan, on September 19,
1972.1 The charge was filed by Marianne Dubuque, an indi-
vidual, on June 30 and served upon Respondent July 3. The
complaint issued July 21. The primary issue is whether a
cause of Dubuque 's discharge on June 29 was her engage-
ment in protected concerted activity in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29
U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the brief filed on
1 All dates are in 1972.
behalf of Respondent,2 I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
Respondent is a Michigan corporation, with its principal
office and place of business in Southfield, Michigan, where
it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
pressure form plastic food trays and covers and related
products; that during the representative year ending June
30, 1972, Respondent received directly from points outside
of Michigan goods and materials valued in excess of
$275,000, and shipped directly to points outside of Michi-
gan finished products valued in excess of $500,000; and that
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts 3
Dubuque was hired by Respondent on May 3.4 Roberta
Murray, who had then been working for Respondent for
some 10 months, was "the training girl," assigned to train
Dubuque to operate one of three hydraulic machines in
which Respondent's products are formed. Two employees
are stationed at each machine. They work on opposite sides,
one (the operator) standing and the other sitting. Each em-
ployee picks up certain parts as they come through on her
side and stacks them on an adjoining table from which they
are taken by a third employee and boxed. If the parts are
not so picked up and stacked some would fall on the floor
or go down through the chopper that is under the machine
for chopping up scrap. While there is an emergency button
to stop the press, Respondent wants to keep it going con-
stantly. To this end there is a relief person to relieve the
operators during their staggered break periods, and the ma-
chines are not even stopped at shift changes .5 If relief is
needed between breaks or if a mechanical problem arises,
a bell is provided on the operator's side of the machine to
signal for assistance , but the press continues to run until the
emergency stop button is used.'
The machines generate heat. One part of them heats up
as high as 300° F. To counter the effect on the employees
working in surrounding areas floor fans are maintained, and
air conditioners are used "under extreme conditions." 7
Much of the difficulty in Respondent's relationship with
Dubuque involved the latter's complaints concerning venti-
lation, including, according to Murray, the nonoperation of
2 No brief was filed on behalf of the General Counsel
3 All of the testimony herein comes from company officials called by the
General Counsel and one employee called by Respondent.
The Company had about 18 or 19 employees dunng the period here
involved
5 There were two shifts during Dubuque's employment. She was on the
second , which operated from about 3.30 to 11 15 or 11 30 p.m
6 Respondent pays weekly bonuses for regular attendance as well as an
annual bonus based on minimal absences or latenesses
i It was stipulated that the plant "is comparable in terms of ventilation to
other plants in the industry built within the last 5 years"
204 NLRB No. 30
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the air conditioners and the operation of the floor fans; i.e.,
as to whether the latter should be on or off at particular
times or as to their direction or distance from her. This
sometimes involved frequent movement of the fans and at
the expense of other employees' comfort.
These complaints about ventilation commenced early in
Dubuque's employment. Within her first 2 or 3 weeks, she
approached Murray and two other employees and asked
them to sign a petition to get the Board of Health to inspect
the plant. Murray and at least one of the others refused and
walked off. Murray recounted the event to Blair Rodney
and Scott Booth who were then foreman and assistant fore-
man, respectively, of the second shift. Blair Rodney report-
ed the matter within the next week to his father, James, who
was vice president, general manager, and majority stock-
holder of Respondent, and who had day-to-day control of
its operations . James Rodney ,' according to his son, "per-
haps expressed concern about the fact regarding the possi-
bility of the Board of Health coming in and disrupting the
production activity" and said "something like, `Is she trying
to shut us down?' "
Dubuque also complained, but to a lesser extent, about
the noise emanating from the machines and about other
working conditions. These things, too, were reported to
James Rodney from time to time, F( as were the observations
of Booth and Blair Rodney that Dubuque was inattentive
and a daydreamer, whose lapses caused losses like those
indicated above, and that, unlike most of her fellow employ-
ees, her work did not improve with time.[1
Also brought to James Rodney's attention were certain
incidents of Dubuque's quitting work during her shift. This
sometimes occurred when Dubuque would complain about
feeling faint and would call for assistance before leaving the
machine . 12 But there were one or more occasions when she
simply left the machine without signaling or waiting for
relief . This was unprecedented.
Blair Rodney testified that there were two such incidents,
the first occurring about 5 to 6 weeks after Dubuque's hire,
8 Sometimes herein called only by his surname.
9 Blair Rodney testified to Dubuque 's complaining about having to slide
back a preheater mechanism at times when the machine broke down, a task
which the other employees performed without objection Murray testified to
Dubuque 's refusal to join in the usual odd jobs while the machine was being
repaired.
10 As its brief concedes , "Respondent and its agents believed Charging
Party to be a constant and chronic complainer ," and assistant Foreman
Booth also described her as a "troublemaker " because "she made [his] job
hard ." Blair Rodney thought her "abusive" because she asked why Respon-
dent expected 100-percent efficiency when it failed to give its workers ade-
quate working conditions.
11 On the last Friday of every month , the work shift stops 15 minutes early
to enable the employees to meet with management in the lunchroom where
they can make suggestions or register complaints concerning their working
conditions Although the May meeting occurred during the period of
Dubuque's employment , she did not exercise her privilege in any respect
12 There was some testimony that her illness sometimes involved "boy
friend" problems, and Respondent's brief suggests therefrom that her ail-
ments were "faked ," relying on Murray 's testimony that "one time I over-
heard her telling Barbara that she was suppose to call her boyfriend at a
certain hour , which I think was six o'clock , and at this particular day she
didn 't call him at six , I think it was six -fifteen, and when she did call him
she came back and that was the time that she told Blair that she had severe
pains in her stomach . The reason she left was because her and her boyfriend
had had some words or something ." I find this testimony at least as suscepti-
ble of an inference of genuine normal psychosomatic symptoms as of fakery.
when she "stormed off the machine," forcing Assistant
Foreman Booth "to jump on it ... take over." This led to
Blair's remonstrating with her, the "only one time where [he]
actually talked to her as supervisor to employee about [his]
dissatisfaction with her work performance." 13 The second
instance of Dubuque's leaving the machine without notice,
according to Blair, occurred 2 days before her discharge,
when she became ill and had to leave. Booth also testified
to two such incidents. However, while confirming the first
incident recounted by Blair Rodney but placing it 3 to 4
weeks following Dubuque's hire,14 he described the second
incident as also involving her "storming off the machine"
and placed it 2 to 3 weeks prior to her discharge, both
incidents being "fairly close together. Probably a week
apart." Roberta Murray's version differed from both of the
foregoing. She testified too to only two instances of
Dubuque's leaving the machine without warning. In agree-
ment with Blair Rodney, she testified to a single "storming
off" incident which occurred about a month before the
discharge. There was a prior incident, however, which she
said she called to Blair's attention, of Dubuque's leaving the
machine without signaling. And Murray's testimony was
that after she had reported it to Blair, he "went back there
and talked to her."
On June 28, an inspector of the Michigan department of
health, and so representing himself, visited the Company's
premises unannounced but was denied admittance due to
James Rodney's absence and the inspector's lack of creden-
tials on his person. Upon Rodney's arrival, he was informed
that the inspector had been there and had attributed his visit
to an employee's complaint concerning the ventilation.
Rodney admittedly assumed Dubuque to be the source of
the complaint. He called her into his office immediately
before or just after the start of her shift that day and asked
her why she was dissatisfied with her working conditions,
with specific reference to her complaints about ventilation.
She admitted having called the inspector but told Rodney
that she had thereafter decided not to file a formal com-
plaint and had destroyed the form therefor." Dubuque re-
turned to work after this conversation. She became ill,
however, more than once, and ultimately went home before
the end of her shift. But she did ring the bell or otherwise
properly signaled that day before leaving her machine.'6
On the following day, June 29, a Thursday,l" James Rod-
ney told Assistant Foreman Booth early in the second shift
to discharge Dubuque at the end of the shift. Booth did so.
He told her he did not know the reason, that he was just
13 He used that occasion also to notify Dubuque that he was aware of her
attempt to circulate the health petition mentioned above.
14 Booth stated the occurrence was Dubuque 's response to his telling her
he could do nothing to remedy her complaint about the noise level.
15 Rodney testified that he also talked to her about her general dissatisfac-
tion with her working conditions and her walking away from her machine.
He had never talked to her prior to June 28 about her leaving the machine.
16 Assistant Foreman Booth, who "was standing pretty close to the ma-
chine," testified at one point that "on one occasion [that evening] I don't
recall exactly if she rang the bell or not . I don't know for sure " However,
at two points earlier in his testimony that she had signaled for relief was
unqualified , and I so find This conclusion is supported by the fact that
neither of the other witnesses who had an opportunity to observe Dubuque's
work (Blair Rodney and Murray) mentioned June 28 as an occasion when
Dubuque had failed to ring the bell
17 The workweek ended on Friday
DETROIT FORMING, INC.
following orders , that she could draw her own conclusion,
and that she could talk to Rodney about it. She started to
cry and said, "I tore up the petition and my boyfriend can
prove it." Rodney had left by this time, so Dubuque saw
him the next day at the plant and said she thought the
discharge had resulted from her going to the health depart-
ment and that was unfair. According to Rodney, Dubuque
stated she had not in fact gone to the Health Department,
but he told her that that was not the reason for her dis-
charge, "that we were generally dissatisfied with her perfor-
mance and we were worried about her dizzy spell. We did
not want her falling down and being hurt , and that because
of her general work attitude and performance that we
thought it would be better to replace her."
Rodney's testimony as to his reasons for the discharge
included the following:
Q. Isn't it a fact, however, that that was not the
reason why or at least not the only reason why Marian-
ne Dubuque was discharged? The fact that she had to
leave work on two occasions?
A. No, that wasn't the only reason. Her general con-
duct and attitude towards the other employees was-as
I say , there seemed to be a continual dispute between
the employees that she was working with concerning
whether the fan was turned on them or on her or wheth-
er something else was not right resulting in disruption
of our operation and our production.
Q. Are you saying that you thought that Miss
Dubuque's complaining was bad for morale and that's
one of the reasons you fired her?
A. Complaining is always bad for morale certainly.
Q. Isn't it a fact that one of the reasons you dis-
charged her was because you didn't like the idea that
she was complaining about the ventilation?
A. I didn't mind that idea at all. It didn't trouble me
because I know that our ventilation-in my lifetime
and in the work I've done, I've been in hundreds or
maybe thousands of manufacturing plants and I know
in my own mind that our ventilation is as good as any
I've ever been in, and, consequently, when I was told
the ventilation was bad I was nonplussed . I said we
have three-way air exposure , we have four fans, and
under extreme conditions we have air conditioners that
can be used.
Q. Isn 't it a fact-however , it is a fact that one of the
reasons for Marianne Dubuque's discharge was the
fact that she was complaining about various things in
the plant? You felt that this might be bad for morale?
A. It led me to believe that Miss Dubuque was neu-
rotic. A neurotic person can upset others that they are
working with, and, therefore, it is bad for the morale in
our business, yes.
Q. Isn't it a fact that one of the reasons why you
thought her complaining might be bad for morale was
because you didn't want her to get any of the other
employees to join her in her complaints?
A. When you say join her, as we discussed earlier, as
far as formally joining her, she had tried to do that and
I was quite pleased to at least get the word back that
the other people that she spoke to didn't agree with her
in any way and had no interest in pursuing the matter
207
or joining with her.
Q. Wasn't it a fact that you were afraid that she
might get other employees to join her in the future?
A. No, sir. No, sir.
Q. You would deny that?
A. I absolutely deny that as far as-I'm worried
about her upsetting them or giving the power of sugges-
tion that it was too hot to work, let us say, or nobody
should work in this hot weather. Well, we struggle
against absenteeism continuously, and, or course, ev-
eryone knows that absenteeism is most prevalent on
Monday mornings and Friday afternoons and when
the weather is inclement. Certainly I have had enough
experience with people to know that if one individual
says isn't it awfully hot to work that someone else might
agree with them and pretty soon two people don't show
up to work the next day, so this was my only concern.
Q. You weren't afraid that she would get other girls
to join her in helping to shut the plant down for a
couple of days?
A. No.
Q. You deny that under oath?
A. I deny that under oath because you' re taking it
from this statement which I have with me and which
I have read, and that statement-I agreed to the words
that are used, but I think it's just a case of them being
taken entirely out of context.
The person that wrote that down did not take all of our
words. She did not have a recording device or did she
use shorthand. She was writing it in longhand and she
only wrote a fraction of what was said.
Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Rodney, I'm going to hand you
a document. It has been marked for purposes of identi-
fication as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2. This docu-
ment is an eight page document, and I asked you if you
can identify it.
A. Yes. This document is the notes made by the
person that interviewed me.
Q. Are those notes or is that statement an affidavit?
A. It says affidavit. I'm sure it it. (sic)
Q. I direct you attention to the eighth and last page
of that document and to the last paragraph. Does that
document not say that, "I have read this statement
consisting of eight pages. I fully understand its contents
and I certify that it is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief?"
A. Yes, it is true and correct but it is not complete.
D
Q. And this is the statement that you gave?
A. Yes. It's part of the statement I gave.
Q. Well, did you ask to add anything to the state-
ment?
A. No, I didn't think it was necessary.
Q. Did you ask whether or not it would be neces-
sa A. No. The person that interviewed me told me that
before she came that simply this was a matter of form
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that she had to go through and to get some statements
and notations from me for the file and the record to
satisfy this complaint that had been made . Therefore,
I did not realize the gravity of it or the-I also felt for
the fact that she was trying to keep up with what I was
saying writing in longhand and time had go on instead
of a few minutes into two or three hours , and, frankly,
I was most anxious-I didn't want to have to go back
and have her write another eight or ten pages which it
would have taken.
Q. Well, directing your attention to this last page,
you didn't make any changes in the portion or you
didn't ask to make any changes in the portion where
you state , "I thought her complaining might be bad for
morale . I didn 't want her to get any of the other em-
ployees to join her in her complaints . I was concerned
because in the summer it's hot and rather uncomforta-
ble at times, and I didn 't want her getting the other
girls , for example, to join her in helping to shut the
plant down for a couple of days because it was too hot
to work?"
A. Yeah, that was my thought and I'd say there
was-I elaborated considerable on that statement so
that the person would understand what I was saying,
but that was part of what I said-
Q. You didn't ask to make any additions?
A. No.
Q. (By Mr. Henry): Directing your attention to the
last paragraph on page seven , is it correct, Mr. Rodney,
that your affidavit sworn under oath states that, "I
didn't view Dubuque 's attendance record as poor-she
wouldn't have been discharged for this . The main rea-
son she was discharged was because she always seemed
to have a problem-the ventilation, her boyfriend, or
something . I didn't know if her reaction to the ventila-
tion was real or imagined, but I didn't want a
workmen 's compensation case on my hands, and I
thought her complaining might be bad for morale-,"
and at this point we go into the portions that have
already been read?
A. Yes. Again I said that with elaboration.
s
Q. Now I take it at one point in time you made the
decision to discharge her?
A. Yes.
Q. And approximately when was that if you recall?
A. Well, I might have made the final decision on the
day or the day before she was discharged . Prior to that
time I began building up this impression that this per-
son just does not just is not making progress and just
is not working out, so I had a tentative thought that she
would have to be terminated . Again, I thought it would
be voluntary . I thought that she would probably leave
due to her dissatisfaction in her work. When her work
was not satisfactory and was not getting any better,
then I said she doesn 't seem to be inclined to quit,
therefore , I will have to take the necessary action and
terminate her.
Q. Was there any one event which finally was, if you
will, the straw that broke the camel 's back?
A. Well, finally it was this particular night when she
left the machine while it was running without ringing
the bell or without asking for help. She simply walked
away from production , stayed away for-I couldn't
specify the number of minutes-stayed away for five,
ten, fifteen , twenty minutes , again returned to her work
station , would repeat the same performance, and again
without calling the foreman for any kind of formal
relief , and I knew then that we had a very severe prob-
lem. If she actually in fact was faint and dizzy , I didn't
want someone falling down and hurting themselves,
and I think at that time or the following day when I got
this report I think I questioned both the foreman and
the assistant foreman and said something to the effect
that it doesn 't look like Miss Dubuque , Marianne, is
going to be able to do this job, does it, and they an-
swered something back like not as long as she has
boyfriend trouble . We aren't counsellors, you know,
for personal problems and we said, well, let 's replace
her.
Q. Mr. Rodney, there's been some testimony about
this before , but why did you discharge her? What is
your reason in your mind that caused you to decide
that she should be discharged from your employment?
A. Well, because she was more of a liability than an
asset . That's the only reason that I would discharge
anybody.
Q. Why was that in your mind?
A. Because she was not doing the job that she was
employed to do.
Q. Could you give us some particular that existed in
your mind to support that belief?
A. Well, primarily the most immediate and serious
thing was this leaving her work station and showing
evidence of dizziness or illness. We could not-the
thing was in fact that one working on the next machine
to her's who could directly see Miss Dubuque 's opera-
tion on the machine said to us after she left, she said,
if I did what Miss Dubuque did I would have been fired
several weeks before . This was a statement to me be-
cause she saw her leave her work station and she knows
that we cannot tolerate that.
Q. Mr. Rodney , was the fact that she seemed to be
what you said a constant complainer or a chronic com-
plainer-was that part of your consideration in making
your decision to discharge her?
A. Yes, certainly . No one wants an organization
with one person continually complaining , or sowing
seeds of unhappiness , or putting the thought in people's
minds that , you know, that the conditions are intolera-
ble and so on.
Q. Is it fair to say to some extent that you were
worried about the power of suggestion?
A. I've had a lot of experience with that . I was in-
volved in the Army in a court material case that strictly
DETROIT FORMING, INC. 209
came about through the power of suggestion . One man
made some claims to all the other soldiers , the claims
were ridiculous , and nonetheless he finally-after
awhile several of them began to think it was true and
then began to refuse to do their duty and it resulted in
one man being court martialed.
Q. Well, Mr. Rodney, would it be fair to say that
you nevertheless would be willing to discuss any mat-
ters that would come up on this Friday that was set
aside for this kind of discussion?
A. That's the purpose of our meeting . We pay for
the employees time during that meeting, and we do
everything we can to encourage them to speak openly
and freely.
Q. Were you concerned about the fact that in your
mind Miss Dubuque appeared to have gone to the
Health Inspector who then showed up at your plant?
A. Would you repeat that, please?
Q. Well, I believe there was some inference by the
questioning previously that there was some concern by
you that Miss Dubuque appeared to have gone to the
Health Inspector as a result of which he showed up at
the plant. Did this concern you?
A. Only in that it confirmed or furthered my believe
that she was neurotic.
Q. What if Marianne Dubuque had come directly to
you or during the Friday meeting and had raised some
question about ventilation ? Would that have made any
difference?
A. Well, certainly. That's the normal thing that we
expect and ask. We would have said , well, what is it
about the ventilation, what would you like us to do-do
you think we should have two fans per machine, or
should we perhaps open the windows wider , or should
we use the air conditioners when the temperature
gets-we normally only use them under extreme heat
because several of our employees last summer when we
were using them said they didn 't like them-that it
tended to cause them to have sinus or a cold or some-
thing, and they preferred that we just use the fans ex-
cept under extreme conditions.
We would have discussed the various things that could
have been done to alleviate the problem . I frankly don't
really know what they might have been, but we would
have tried.
Q. Would it be fair to say that the method of ap-
proach that she took was part of the concern that was
your problem?
A. Certainly. I didn't understand why an employee
didn't want to work with us and let us help her rather
than trying to call in an outside authority that really
couldn't benefit her in any way. It was just intended as
a harassment of some kind for us to create a problem
for us.
Q. You say this was a concern of yours, Mr. Rod-
ney, but was this to any substantial degree part of your
consideration in discharging her, or, if it was , to what
extent was it?
A. Well, as far as the discharging of her for that
reason , it was a very , almost non-existent fact that she
or a very minor fact that she called him. Her work
performance was more the problem . If her work perfor-
mance had been excellent , I would have gotten her
aside and said, Marianne, for pete sake what are you
thinking of. Why don't you come tell us what's bother-
ing you and let us try to do something about it, or why
don't you bring it up at the meeting and let's see what
everybody thinks about it, but her work performance
was not adequate and that's really all that we're inter-
ested in. I mean, that's the main thing we're interested
in.
Q. Now directing your attention again to your testi-
mony this morning, you testified that on two occasions
in one night Miss Dubuque as you put it abandoned
her machine. Is this correct?
A. Yes. I understood it was two or more times in one
night.
Q. Was this the occasion when Miss Dubuque re-
ported that she felt-was this the night that Miss Du-
buque felt faint, was leaning against a wall, and then
went home sick?
A. That was one of the occasions when she left her
work post, yes. I would say there were others for differ-
ent reasons . I don 't remember the exact details in each
case.
Q. When did this event occur where she felt faint on
two occasions and left her machine because she was
sick?
A. The night before I discharged her.
Q. And it's your testimony-it's your testimony that
you were upset because she failed to ring the bell on her
machine?
A. Well, either she failed to ring it or failed to ask.
I don't know which side of the machine she was on.
One person is next to the bell and has access to it. If
the working partner wants the bell rung , she says ring
the bell, you know, so I don't know whether she could
have done it herself or asked her co-worker to do it.
Q. Do you know how long it was before the other
individual rang the bell on the machine?
A. No, I don't know whether it was ever even rung
or whether it was a case where the foremen seeing what
happened just took it upon themselves to get over there
and do something about the situation.
Q. But you weren't upset with the fact that the other
employee, observing Miss Dubuque appearing faint,
leaning against a wall, failed to ring the bell on the
machine?
A. Well, this happened-as I understand it, this
happened after she left the machine. As to what she was
acting like on the press, the employee never told me
whether she acted faint at the press. It was after she
walked away that she leaned against a carton or some-
thing or went to the ladies room. If the bell was rung
after that I don't know. As I say, the foreman observed
what happened and tried to get over and rectify the
situation.
210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. So you don't know in fact whether the bell was
ever rung on that occasion?
A. No, I don't know. It wasn't rung before she left
her work station.
s
Q. Did you ever ask her why she left her work sta-
tion?
A. No.
Q. Isn't it a fact that at least on two occasions when
she left her work station she went home because of
illness?
A. She said-
MR KIENBAUM Your Honor, I think-left her work
station I think is-there was some focus placed on
leaving without notice, in other words, unilaterally
leaving a workstation, but there are other-there's evi-
dence talking about leaving a work station with permis-
sion, and I think that should be clarified in any
questions Counsel for General Counsel asks because
this I think is now ambiguous in context of the prior
testimony.
JUDGE HERMAN: Do you want to add to that question
on the occasions when she left her work station without
notice?
MR HENRY. Strike the question. On these four occa-
sions-on these two, three, perhaps four occasions
about which you've testified that Miss Dubuque left
the machine upon which she was working, how many
days does this represent?
THE WITNESS: Well, the same number of days that it
happened . On the one occasion-on the last occasion
I understand she left her station three times. I didn't
count them, but I was told there was three, perhaps it
was two or perhaps four, and that was the occasion in
which I said we can 't take a chance on this continuing
any longer.
bell is there. What caused me to come up short and
question her ability was that she did not ring the bell.
The bell is rung frequently by employees, but she
would not ring it.
Q. On the second occasion do you know whether
she was in a physical position to ring the bell?
A. No, sir.
Q. And it could have been the employee that she
was working with that failed to ring the bell?
A. It could have been.
Q. On the first occasion it could have been the other
employee that she was working with that failed to ring
the bell?
A. It could have been.
Q. And on the third occasion, the evening before her
discharge, it could have been the other employee who
failed to ring the bell?
A. It could have been.
Q. Now-
A. Does your question mean that perhaps she asked
the employee to ring the bell and the employee refused
to ring the bell? Is that what your question is?
Q. No. I'm asking if you know.
A. Oh.
Q. Do you know?
A. Do I know what, sir.
Q. Do you know whether or not she was in a physi-
cal position-
A. No, I do not know.
Q. Did you ever attempt to find out?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever ask your foreman?
A. No, but it's-
Q. Did you ever ask your assistant foreman?
A. No, but it's obviously assumed that-
JUDGE HERMAN No, not what' s assumed.
THE WITNESS No, I didn't.
Q. (By Henry): When you spoke to her on or about
June 28th, did you ask her if she was in a physical
position to ring the bell on these three occasions?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Now on the first occasion do you know what-
first of all on the first occasion, the reports that you
heard, did she ring the bell or not?
A. To my knowledge she did this without ringing the
bell.
Q. Do you know what side of the machine she was
working on?
A. No, I wouldn't know that.
Q. Do you know what the cause of her not ringing
the bell was?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether she was in a physical posi-
tion to ring the bell?
A. No.
Q. On the second occasion was it reported to you
that the bell was rung or not?
A. If she had rung the bell, I wouldn't have taken it
with the seriousness that I did because that's why the
•
Q. (By Mr. Kienbaum): Mr. Rodney, just a couple
of questions. We talked about the ringing of the bell
before for various purposes, and I suppose in one in-
stance this might be for or to allow the employee who
was on the machine to leave and a new employee to
take the place of that employee, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So am I correct in assuming that the distinction
between an employee leaving when the bell is properly
rung and when it isn 't rung at all is that when it is rung
there would be no interruption in service , but if it isn't
rung you would have the material piling up or falling
off-
A. An inevitable interruption.
According to James Rodney, the Company has an "infor-
mal probationary period ... a ninety day period, approxi-
DETROIT FORMING, INC. 211
mately a ninety day period." He could recall only one prior
discharge during Respondent's 10-12 year history because
an employee did not prove satisfactory. Dubuque was never
warned about the possibility of discharge.
B. Analysis
Considering the Charging Party's failure to take the wit-
ness stand in her own behalf and the General Counsel's
failure to call her despite her presence at the hearing, I find
that there were occasions when she left her machine without
notice notwithstanding the contradictions and inconsisten-
cies as to time and cause among the witnesses who testified
thereto. Accordingly, and in view of the other uncontradict-
ed evidence of her poor work and job attitude recited above,
there can be no question on this record that Dubuque's
work performance provided good cause for discharge. The
sole points to be resolved are whether (1) such work perfor-
mance in fact constituted a reason for Respondent 's action
or was only a pretext to mask an unlawful motive, viz., a
desire to rid itself of a "chronic complainer" and "trouble-
maker" who had earned these appellations by activity pro-
tected by Section 7 of the Act; and (2) if her work
performance motivated Respondent at all, the discharge
was also motivated in part by the protected activity.
1. Respondent's motivation
a. Pretext
Although James Rodney mentioned additional factors
that entered into his determination to discharge Dubuque,
looming largest in his mind at the time , or at least "the straw
that broke the camel 's back ," according to his testimony,
was the night of June 28
when she left the machine while it was running without
ringing the bell or without asking for help. She simply
walked away from production, stayed away-I
couldn't specify the number of minutes-stayed away
for five , ten, fifteen , twenty minutes, again returned to
her work station, would repeat the same performance,
and again without calling the foremen for any kind of
formal relief, and I knew then that we had a very severe
problem."
Although Rodney added that he did not want an employee
who became faint or dizzy and that he was concerned about
a possible workmen 's compensation case, he also stated:
If she had rung the bell, I wouldn't have taken it with
the seriousness that I did because that's why the bell is
there . What caused me to come up short and question her
ability was that she did not ring the bell. The bell is rung
frequently by employees , but she would not ring it.
(emphasis added)
And Respondent 's counsel stressed the significance of the
18 Rodney had testified earlier:
We have a bell on each machine specifically put there by ourselves so
that when a person working there needs relief they can signal for it In
no instance did Miss Dubuque signal for it She simply walked away
from the machine , abandoned it, and left the foreman and other employ-
ees to scramble.
bellringing, eliciting an affirmative answer to the following
question:
So I am correct in assuming that the distinction be-
tween an employee leaving when the bell is properly
rung and when it isn't rung at all is that when it is rung
there would be no interruption in service, but if it isn't
rung you would have the material piling up or falling
off-
The basic difficulty with Respondent's position is that the
totality of its own evidence, as adduced through the testimo-
ny of Booth, Murray, and Blair Rodney, noted above, dem-
onstrates that on June 28 Dubuque did either ring the bell
or otherwise properly signal for relief. The only evidence
possibly looking the other way is the one equivocal state-
ment by Booth (supra, fn. 16). It is quite unlikely, however,
that such uncertainty on his part could constitute a rational
basis for the firm belief expressed by James Rodney whose
knowledge of the incident could only have emanated from
Booth, particularly in view of Rodney's testimony that "the
foremen that we have really bend over backwards to be fair
to the individuals [and] would almost rather say nothing
than to condemn an employee."
Further militating against Rodney's credibility in this
connection is his admission that notwithstanding the impor-
tance of the alleged failure to ring the bell he never tried to
ascertain either from Dubuque or from the foremen whether
the failure was attributable to Dubuque or to her coworker
on the machine. Nor had Dubuque ever been warned that
she was in danger of dismissal or other discipline for this or
any other reason.
In these circumstances , and noting that Rodney could
recall only one prior discharge in the 10-12 year history of
the Company, I find the alleged final straw here too weak
a reed to support Respondent's purported principal reason
for the discharge a day before the end of the workweek, and
that the real reason therefor was Dubuque 's "chronic com-
plaining" and "troublemaking" which had culminated in
the visit of the health inspector the previous day and caused
Rodney considerable concern.19 Cf. Signal Oil and Gas
Company, 160 NLRB 644, enfd. 390 F.2d 338 (C.A. 9, 1968).
b. Mixed motive
At the very least, what I have found to be the real reason
for the discharge was, by James Rodney's own admission,
a partial reason therefor. Although he termed Dubuque's
calling the inspector a "very minor" factor, it was sufficient-
ly substantial to provide the only occasion for his talking to
Dubuque about her leaving the machine, the sine qua non
for the discharge, according to him. And while he purported
to view the incident as "only ... confirm[ing his] belief that
she was neurotic," 20 it "would . . . have made [a] difference
... certainly" if she had done "the normal thing that we
expect," i.e., raising the ventilation matter at the monthly
Friday forum provided by Respondent, "rather than trying
to call in an outside authority that really couldn't benefit her
19 As had the anticipation of it, according to Blair Rodney, when he noti-
fied James of Dubuque 's efforts in soliciting employee support for her peti-
tion to the board of health
20 It had been her various complaints that `led [him ] to believe that [she]
was neurotic
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in any way . It was just intended as a harassment of some
kind for us to create a problem for us." The "problem,"
according to James Rodney , was that Dubuque's com-
plaints were "bad for morale" because "[a] neurotic person
can upset others that they are working with,"
I didn't want her to get any of the other employees to
join her in her complaints . I was concerned because in
the summer it's hot and rather uncomfortable at times,
and I didn 't want her getting the other girls , for exam-
ple, to join her in helping to shut the plant down for a
couple of days because it was too hot to work.
As Rodney further admitted,
No one wants an organization with one person contin-
ually complaining , or sowing seeds of unhappiness, or
putting the thought in people's minds , that , you know,
that the conditions are intolerable and so on.
And this "certainly " constituted "part of [his] consideration
in making [his] decision to discharge her." 21
Since even a discharge unlawfully motivated only in part
would violate the Act (NL. R.B. v. West Side Carpet Clean-
ing Co., 329 F.2d 758, 761 (C.A. 6, 1964); N.L.R.B. v. Whit-
fin Machine Works, 204 F .2d 883 , 885 (C.A. 1, 1953), the
issue thus reduces to whether the activity of Dubuque , vis-a-
vis the working conditions at Respondent's plant, that
caused her discharge was protected by Section 7 of the Act.
2. The protected nature of Dubuque's activity
We start with the premise that an individual employee's
complaints to his employer or even to his fellows do not
alone constitute concerted activity within the protection of
Section 7 even if they relate to the working conditions of all
the employees. At the same time, an attempt to enlist fellow
employees in common action to better their conditions, as
by soliciting their signatures to a petition seeking such im-
provement, is the plainest form of protected concerted ac-
tivity. And it is settled that a petition to a government
agency having jurisdiction in the premises enjoys such pro-
tection unless it is made in bad faith , with knowledge of its
falsity or with intent to harass the employer. The evidence
here falls far short of establishing any such improper motive
on Dubuque's part. It follows that if Dubuque had been
discharged for her conduct in requesting certain employees
to subscribe to her petition to the board of health during the
second or third week of her employment, that discharge
would have violated Section 8(a)(1) regardless of the merit
or lack of merit to the underlying complaints or the persis-
tence with which they were registered. Mason-Rust, 179
NLRB 434, 439-440, enforcement denied on other grounds
449 F.2d 425 (C.A. 8, 1971); Thurston Motor Lines, Inc., 159
NLRB 1265, 1306-07.
Certainly the protected character of the activity would
not have suffered from the failure to raise the issue at the
2i This case is thus totally different from Hado-Tiffin, A Division of A-T-O,
Inc, 198 NLRB No 102, cited by Respondent The Board there found that
the employer's admonition to the employee against "bending fellow employ-
ees' ears or guardhouse tactics" was merely a warning to follow customary
grievance procedures in use during a 10-year bargaining relationship rather
than "to disrupt the work of others ." Moreover , although the employer there
admitted the admonition , it did not, unlike the instant case , admit that that
had been a motivating factor in the discharge.
forum established by Respondent (the Friday end-of-month
meeting). Cf. St. Regis Paper Co., 192 NLRB 1610. Nor
would the protection have been lost because the effort failed
to obtain the support of the employees solicited. Given "the
object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action
... preliminary discussions are [not] disqualified as con-
certed activities merely because they have not resulted in
organized action," for "inasmuch as almost any concerted
activity for mutual aid and protection has to start with some
kind of communication between individuals, it would come
very near to nullifying the rights of organization and collec-
tive bargaining guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act if such
communications are denied protection because of lack of
fruition." Mushroom Transportation Company, Inc. v. N.L.R.
B., 330 F.2d 683, 685 (C.A. 3, 1964); cf. Signal Oil and Gas
Co., 160 NLRB 644, enfd. 390 F.2d 338 (C.A. 9, 1968). And
this principle obtains even where the employees refusing
their support do so because they feel "disturbed" by the
solicitor or deem him a "troublemaker." Salt River Valley
Water Users' Association, 99 NLRB 849, 853-854, enfd. 206
F.2d 325, 328-329 (C.A. 9, 1953); George E. Light Boat
Storage, Inc., 153 NLRB 1209, 1215-16, enfd. 373 F.2d 762
(C.A. 5, 1967); Poloron Products of Indiana, Inc., 177 NLRB
435, 436, 437, fn. 4.
But Dubuque was not discharged just for her solicitation
of signatures to her petition to the board of health. This is
evident from her retention despite Respondent's knowledge
of the incident and the subsequent emergence of valid
grounds for discharge in the form of her poor work.22 Nei-
ther, however, was the discharge attributable solely to her
calling in the inspector. As shown above, Rodney admitted
that the discharge was at least partially motivated by his
unwillingness to maintain in his employ an employee whose
complaints might "[put] the thought in people's minds .. .
that the conditions are intolerable," and "get-the other
employees to join her" in action for their improvement. The
case may thus be analogized, even apart from the early
protected solicitation, to the line of authority according
protection to an employee discharged by an employer under
the erroneous belief that the employee engaged in protected
activity. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Ritchie Manufacturing Company,
354 F.2d 90,98 (C.A. 8, 1965); N.L.R.B. v. Fredrica Clausen,
d/b/a/ Luzerne Hide & Tallow, 188 F.2d 439, 443 (C.A. 1,
1951), cert. denied 342 U.S. 868; System Analyzer Corp., 171
NLRB 45, 50.
A fortiori, when the original protected solicitation is taken
into -account, because notwithstanding the absence of au-
thorization or ratification by other employees of Dubuque's
ultimate communication to the board of health, that act
partook of and related back to the solicitation. In so con-
cluding, however, I am not finding the calling in of the
inspector simply an extension of the initial protected activi-
ty in the usual sense . The difficulty with finding such an
extension inheres in the fact that it offers too facile a means
of converting individual conduct to concerted, for the basis
of concert in the solicitation, as stated by the Third Circuit
in the Mushroom Transportation case, supra, is the need for
22 Nevertheless the incident had not been forgotton. Blair Rodney men-
tioned it to Dubuque only a week or two before her discharge; and of course
it was James Rodney's memory of the incident that underlay his assumption
that she had brought about the inspector 's visit
DETROIT FORMING, INC.
a beginning on an individual level, and this reasoning may
no longer be applicable to the solicitor 's individual ap-
proach to a third party (other than a labor organization)
after having been rebuffed in his search for cooperation
from his fellows 23
The situation here , however, is different . It is not the
employee but the employer whose conduct establishes the
need for protection , on the theory of the Ritchie and related
cases cited supra . As we have seen , Respondent 's initial
tolerance of the solicitation vanished when that clearly pro-
tected activity bore fruit with the visit of the health inspector
on June 28 . That the inspector's visit turned Rodney's mind
back to the solicitation is manifest from Rodney 's admis-
sion that upon learning of the visit he assumed Dubuque
had been responsible for it , and that he immediately sought
her out and called her into his office where he quizzed her
about her ventilation problems . That he was also concerned
about additional complaints of hers is evidenced by his
admission that he used the same occasion to question her
about "various health problems and [other] matters" of
which she "was continually complaining ." And that his con-
cern engaged the realm of Section 7 protection generally
finds expression in his admissions that he "didn't want her
to get any of the other employees to join her in her com-
plaints" or "putting the thoughts in people's minds . . . that
the conditions are intolerable , and so on."
For the foregoing reasons I find no merit to Respondent's
contention that Dubuque 's complaints were of purely per-
sonal concern and hence not concerted within the meaning
of Section 7. Even as to the ventilation alone she sought to
enlist the aid of other employees in effecting changes affect-
ing all in the plant.
Respondent's reliance on Continental Manufacturing
Corp., 155 NLRB 255, is misplaced . The employee there was
discharged for handing the employer a letter 24 which,
among other things , criticized the employer for failing to
remedy filthy conditions in the restroom. The planning.
preparation , signing , and delivery of the letter, the Board
found , were entirely the individual action of the dischargee,
as was Dubuque's act here in ultimately calling in the in-
spector . Unlike the instant case , however, the letter was
found not to be an extension of earlier concerted efforts by
the dischargee and another to ascertain , by spying on all the
employees , which of them were responsible for creating the
filth . As the Board found , "the two women's spying activi-
ties were directed at their fellow employees and did not
constitute a complaint against [the employer] for the rest-
room incident." 155 NLRB at 258. Closer to the present
case is Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated, 156 NLRB
7; see also Evans Packing Company, 190 NLRB 401, enfd.
403 F.2d 193 (C.A. 6, 1972).
Similarly inapplicable are the remaining cases cited by
Respondent which involve either ( 1) the absence of concert-
ed activity through the lack of a direct relationship between
the individual act constituting a cause for the discharge and
23 For this reason the case is not analogous to an individual attempt to
enforce a union contract which constitutes an "extension of the concerted
activity giving rise to that agreement ." Merlyn Bunney, d/b/a/ Bunney Bros.
Construction Co., 139 NLRB 1516, 1519.
24 Respondent 's brief incorrectly states this was done by " two employees "
213
some prior concerted activity; or (2) the absence of knowl-
edge of the concerted nature of the activity in question.
Here , as has been shown, the admitted partial motivation
supplies the element of knowledge, and there was a relation
back.
Respondent's final contention in its brief is that even if
the conduct was concerted it was not sufficiently "reason-
able" to merit the Act's protection.25 The "full freedom of
association" it is the policy of the Act to foster (Section 1)
can hardly be reconciled with the imposition, as a condition
to its enjoyment, of the limitation that employees guarantee
with their jobs the reasonableness of their demands. I sup-
pose that a demand for a wage increase so great that grant-
ing it would force the employer out of business is clearly
unreasonable; but equally clearly it is protected assuming it
is otherwise so. Neither "[t]he wisdom [ n]or unwisdom" of
the employees nor the "justification or lack of it" of their
demands affects the protected character of their activity.
N.L.R.B. v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333,
344-345, (1938). To exorcise the specter Respondent raises
of an employee "preoccupied with black magic" who seeks
to persuade his fellows that the plant is haunted and that the
general manager is the devil's disciple who means to sacri-
fice one of them (br. 4-5), it suffices to say that the point
here expounded takes full account of the basic principle that
Section 7 is not to be read literally and that just as the
employees may not resort to an improper means (e.g., vio-
lence) to achieve their object the object sought must be
within the area of their proper concern; but once, as here,
the activity falls within the normal range, it is neither for the
Respondent employer nor for the Board to deny it protec-
tion as "unreasonable."
Contrary to Respondent, Anaconda Aluminum Co., 197
NLRB 336, fails to support its position. That case simply
involved an application of the Board's objective test laid
down in Redwing Carriers, Inc., 130 NLRB 1208, 1209, as
to whether certain work was abnormally dangerous within
the meaning of Section 502 of the Labor Management Rela-
tions Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C., Sec. 143) 26 However, the prob-
lem under Section 502 is a special one. The justification for
an objective standard to measure the validity of a partial
refusal to perform work or a total refusal to work in the face
of a no-strike clause does not obtain in a determination only
of whether particular conduct is within the general protec-
tion of Section 7.
In view of all of the foregoing, I find that Respondent
discharged Dubuque to prevent her further engagement in
protected, concerted activity, and thereby interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights.
3. Respondent's entitlement to
the Charging Party's affidavit
Although Respondent states in its brief that it does not
wish "to belabor the point" before me, since it has indicated
25 As indicated above , there is some question whether Rodney resented the
"unreasonableness" of the complaints as much as Dubuque's bypassing the
end-of-month forum for their resolution.
26 Respondent 's brief erroneously states that the Board in Anaconda re-
versed the Trial Examiner 's finding of a violation.
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its intention to argue the matter to the Board, I believe the
Board is entitled to a fuller statement of the reasons for my
refusal to order production of the Charging Party's affidavit
than appears in the transcript of the hearing.
Given the Board's general rule precluding discovery (29
C.F.R. 102.118 (a) ), based on the sound reasoning ex-
pressed, e.g., in Texas Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 336 F.2d
128, 134 (C.A. 5, 1964),27 the exception provided by Section
102.118 (b){d), is not to be extended beyond the narrow
purpose for which it was intended, namely, to accommodate
the principle enunciated in Jencks v. U.S., 353 U.S. 657
(1957), and since embodied in statute. 180 U.S.C., Sec. 3500.
That principle is to prevent the imposition of a government
sanction on the basis of testimony adduced from a witness
without affording the defendant or respondent an opportu-
nity to see and use all other evidence from that witness
relevant to such testimony in the government 's possession.
Jencks did not change the law so as to grant free entry
into government files . Access to such files still requires a
foundation unless otherwise specifically provided by stat-
ute. One of the "necessary essentials of a foundation em-
phasized" in Gordon v. U.S., 344 U.S. 414, 419, and
"reaffirm[ed] and reemphasize[d]" in Jencks was that the
demand be "for statements taken from persons or infor-
mants . . . offered as witnesses." 353 U.S. at 666-667.
Moreover, in accordance with both the Jencks decision and
the statute, the Board's rule explicitly conditions exposure
of the statement on its relevance to the witness ' testimony,
a condition obviously impossible of application before the
witness has testified . See Sealtest Southern Dairies Division,
National Dairy Products Corporation, 126 NLRB 1223, 1225,
fn. 3, enfd. 287 F.2d 563 (C.A. 6, 1961); cf. Central Oklaho-
ma Milk Producers Assn., 125 NLRB 419, fn. 2, enfd. 285
F.2d 495, 498 (C.A. 10, 1960).
4. The alleged threat of discharge
Although the complaint alleged a threat of discharge with
the same motive as the discharge itself , there was no evi-
dence to support the allegation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging Dubuque to prevent her further en-
gagement in concerted activity protected by Section 7, Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not violated the Act by threatening to
discharge Dubuque.
REMEDY
In order to remedy the unfair labor practices found here-
in, my recommended Order will require Respondent to
cease and desist therefrom and, in view of the nature of the
27 See also N L R B v Clement Brothers Co , 407 F,2d 1027, 1030-31 (C.A.
5, 1969).
violation, to cease and desist from any like or related con-
duct. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act my rec-
ommended Order will also require Respondent to offer
Dubuque reinstatement with backpay. In accordance with
customary requirements, reinstatement shall be to her for-
mer job, or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or
other rights and privileges. She shall be made whole for any
loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of
money equal to that which she would have earned from the
date of discharge to the date of a valid offer of reinstate-
ment, less net earnings during such period, to be computed
in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716. I shall also recommend the usual posting of notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record herein, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend the following:
ORDER 28
Respondent, Detroit Forming, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing any of its
employees by discharging or otherwise discriminating
against them in order to prevent their exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Marianne Dubuque full reinstatement to her
former job, or, if this job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent job, without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay
suffered by reason of her discharge in the manner set forth
in the section of this Decision entitled "Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security records, timecards, personnel re-
cords, and reports, as well as all other records necessary to
analyze and compute the amount of backpay due under the
terms hereof.
(c) Post at its place of business at Southfield, Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 29 Copies
of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 7, after being duly signed by an authorized repre-
sentative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent
28 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.
29 In the event that the Board 's 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."
DETROIT FORMING, INC. 215
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing, within 20
days of the Order, what steps Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
APPENDIX
right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining , or other mutual aid or protec-
tion.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain or coerce any of our employees in the
exercise of such rights.
WE WILL offer Marianne Dubuque immediate and
full reinstatement with backpay.
Dated By
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce any of
our employees by discharging or otherwise discriminat-
ing against them in order to prevent their exercise of the
DETROIT FORMING, INC
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
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 direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washing-
ton Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone
313-226-3200.