E/M Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 627 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

E/M CORP. 627
E/M Corporation and United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 9-CA-22891
29 September 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 30 June 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed exceptions, a
supporting brief, an answering brief, and a motion
to strike Respondent's exceptions.'
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
if they continued their support for the Union, and violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging
Edgar Kirkendall because he joined, supported, or assist-
ed the Union and engaged in concerted activities3 for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
and protection and in order to discourage employees
from engaging in such activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
The Respondent in its answer served on 4 April denies
having violated the Act. It also asserts as a defense in its
answer that the complaint fails to state a claim on which
relief can be granted and therefore it should be dis-
missed.4
The issues involved are whether the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged by un-
lawfully interrogating and impliedly threatening employ-
ees with reprisals regarding their union sentiments or
support and discriminatorily discharging Edgar Kirken-
dall because of his union activities.
On the entire record5 in this case and from my obser-
vations of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the Respondent and the General Coun-
sel,6 I make the following'
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, E/M Cor-
poration, Dayton, Ohio, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Order.
1 In light of our disposition of the case , the General Counsel's motion
to strike is denied.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge 's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
Engrid Emerson Vaughan, Esq., for the General Counsel.
David L. Hall, Esq. (Slicer, Hall & Slicer), of Dayton,
Ohio, for the Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation with an
office and place of business located at Dayton, Ohio, is
engaged in the business of treating metal products.
During the 12-month period preceding 28 March, a rep-
resentative period, the Respondent in the course of its
operations sold and shipped products, goods, and materi-
als, valued in excess of $50,000, from its Dayton, Ohio
facility, directly to points located outside the State of
Ohio.
The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was heard at Dayton, Ohio, on 20 May 19861
pursuant to a charge filed by the United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC (the Union) on 18 February
and a complaint issued on 28 March.
The complaint as amended at the hearing alleges E/M
Corporation2 (the Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by coer-
cively interrogating employees about their union senti-
ments and impliedly threatened employees with reprisals
' All dates referred to are in 1986 unless otherwise stated.
2 The name of the corporation appears as corrected at the hearing.
a The concerted activities as defined by the General Counsel only re-
ferred to union activities.
4 Inasmuch as the allegations contained in the amended complaint on
their face allege conduct violative of the Act this defense is rejected.
5 The General Counsel filed a motion dated 18 June to correct the
transcript to substitute the word "none" for the word "one," which is
contained in a stipulation entered into by the parties at the hearing deal-
ing with whether certain information appears in the personnel files or em-
ployment records of the Respondent's employees While the Respondent
filed a memorandum opposing granting the motion counsel did not spe-
cifically dispute the actual wording of the stipulation entered into at the
hearing . Under these circumstances the General Counsel's motion is
granted.
6 The Union did not submit a brief.
7 Unless otherwise indicated the findings are based on the pleadings,
admissions, stipulations , and disputed evidence contained in the record,
which I credit.
281 NLRB No. 104
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent operates a facility located at Dayton,
Ohio, where it is engaged in the business of treating
metal products. Roger Parsley is the production superin-
tendent.8
On 17 January the Union filed a petition seeking to
represent the Respondent's employees. During a preelec-
tion hearing scheduled for 7 February the parties entered
into a stipulation for an election. The Union won the
election, which was held on 27 February. On 7 May the
Union was certified as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the Respondent's approximately 25 unit em-
ployees.
B. The Unlawful Interrogation and Implied Threat
Employee Lorenzo Edwards testified about a couple
of weeks before the election held on 27 February he was
sent to Production Superintendent Parsley's office for
acting up on the line. During his conversation with Pars-
ley on that occasion Parsley asked him what he thought
about the Union. Edwards indicated he had no feelings
toward the Union and would go either way. Parsley
asked Edwards about Edwards' son and told him they
had good benefits there and mentioned their insurance.
Edwards also testified Parsley said something about if
the Union came in Edwards might could lose his job.
While prior to this conversation Edwards had passed
out cards for employees to sign for a union meeting it
was not shown that the Respondent had knowledge of
Edwards' union activities.
Production Superintendent Parsley did not testify and,
based on Edwards' undisputed testimony, which I credit,
I find about the early part of February Production Su-
perintendent Parsley interrogated Lorenzo Edwards con-
cerning what he thought about the Union and impliedly
threatened Edwards with losing his job if the Union
came in.
C. The Discriminatory Discharge of Edgar Kirkendall
Edgar Kirkendall was employed by the Respondent
from 25 November 1985 until his discharge on 12 Febru-
ary. He worked on the first shift until about the latter
part of January when he was transferred to the second
shift. Kirkendall was still a probationary employee at the
time of his discharge.9 Prior to being hired Kirkendall
had worked a couple of months at the Respondent's fa-
cility as a temporary employee of Crown, which provid-
ed services to the Respondent. On applying for work at
the Respondent Kirkendall credibly stated without denial
that Production Superintendent Parsley, who hired him,
told him he was giving him a job because he was a good
worker.
Kirkendall's union activities included initially contact-
ing the Union with another employee on 13 January for
purposes of seeking to organize the Respondent's em-
ployees; signing a union authorization card on 13 Janu-
s Parsley is a supervisor under the Act
Newly hired employees serve a 90-day probationary period
ary; soliciting other employees to sign union authoriza-
tion cards; distributing union literature to other employ-
ees; and beginning about 29 January openly wearing two
or three union buttons on his clothes while at work.' 0
These buttons included the captions, "Volunteer,"
"Union Organizer," "Vote for the Union," and "Steel-
workers." Kirkendall also attended the preelection hear-
ing held on 7 February along with another employee and
Union Staff Representative Marvin Elder. Production
Superintendent Parsley was also present at that hearing.
Elder described Kirkendall as being one of the two key-
organizing employees for the Union at the Respondent's
facility.
On 11 February Kirkendall, whose work shift began at
3:30 p.m., arrived at the facility at his usual time about 3
or 3:15 p.m. According to Kirkendall all of the second-
shift employees come in early each day before the first
shift ends. Kirkendall stated as he entered the door
where the timeclock is located he observed several first-
shift employees sitting on or standing around a desk lo-
cated near the door. This area is about 10 feet from the
lines where the employees work. Included among those
employees, none of whom were performing any work at
the time, were Alice Boyd, Lorenzo Edwards, Gary
Meikle, and Kevin Peavey. Kirkendall also saw Richard
McLemore, who operates the painting machine, cleaning
his machine. Kirkendall said after walking past them he
put his helmet down and after getting a drink of water
he walked backed over to where they were sitting or
standing and started talking to them. When Kirkendall
asked them what was going on and whether there was
any work that day or if they had run out of shafts, they
either mentioned the line was down or they were wait-
ing for parts to be painted a second time and said they
did not have anything to do. However, a couple of min-
utes later while Kirkendall was talking to them, Produc-
tion Superintendent Parsley came out of the office door,
which was located about 15 feet from the desk where
they were, and asked the employees if they did not have
anything to do. When the employees explained to Pars-
ley the line was down, Parsley told them to grab a
broom. The employees then went to look for brooms.
Kirkendall stated he then walked outside to smoke a cig-
arette. This was before his own shift started at 3:30 p.m.
Kirkendall denied any words were exchanged between
him and Parsley on that occasion. Kirkendall then
worked his shift that afternoon without anything being
said to him about this incident.
Kirkendall denied on that occasion going onto the pro-
duction floor or that any work was being performed at
the time and said the line was not running.
Kirkendall's testimony concerning this incident was
corroborated by Alice Boyd, Richard McLemore, Lor-
enzo Edwards, and Gary Meikle." They acknowledged
when Kirkendall came in and talked to them on that oc-
casion they were sitting on or standing around the desk
talking and, except for McLemore, who was on the line
cleaning some machine parts, they were not doing any
10 Several other employees also wore union buttons on their clothing
or union stickers attached to their hardhats
[ i Kevin Peavey did not testify
E/M CORP. 629
work . The reasons they gave for not working at the time
were because they were waiting for parts on the line to
receive their second coat of paint, which took about 45
minutes, and for the janitor to bring them brooms so
they could sweep up.
According to these employees and Kirkendall when
there is no work on the line they are supposed to sweep
up or work on the other line. However , the other line
was also not operating at the time.
Boyd, Edwards, and Meikle all denied Kirkendall
interfered with employees ' work on that occasion. They
also denied they were warned or reprimanded by the Re-
spondent for not working on that occasion and the Re-
spondent's records do not contain any such warnings.
According to Kirkendall several days after he began
wearing a union button about 29 January a supervisor,
whose first name was Jerry , 12 told him to stay away
from workers on the line and not to talk to them while
they were on the line . Before this Kirkendall stated he
had talked to those employees he worked beside al-
though he denied talking to them about the union during
worktime.
Boyd , Edwards, and Meikle acknowledged that
second-shift employees do come out and talk to first-shift
employees while they are working on the line.
On 12 February, on reporting to work, Kirkendall tes-
tified he was informed by Supervisor Jerry to report to
Production Superintendent Parsley 's office because Pars-
ley wanted to talk to him. Both Jerry and Kirkendall
went to Parsley's office. After they arrived, Parsley told
Kirkendall to sit down and he wanted to talk to him
about the day before . Kirkendall asked Parsley what he
meant whereupon Parsley accused him of interrupting
his workers . Kirkendall denied interrupting the employ-
ees and explained when he came in the previous day the
line was down and the employees were all standing or
sitting there . Parsley again accused him of interrupting
them and informed Kirkendall he had to terminate him.
Kirkendall repeated his denial that he had done anything
except talk to them a couple of minutes and then asked
Parsley whether he was doing this on account of the
Union. Parsley's response was, "Yes, the union and other
things going around." 13 Although Kirkendall again tried
to tell Parsley he had not done anything , Parsley said he
was terminated . Kirkendall left the office after telling
Parsley he would see him in court.
Kirkendall denied ever being given any other reasons
for his discharge and the Respondent 's records do not
contain any reference to his discharge or the reasons.
Neither Production Superintendent Parsley nor Super-
visor Jerry testified and I credit Kirkendall 's undisputed
testimony regarding this conversation.
Kirkendall stated about a month after he was hired
Production Superintendent Parsley and Supervisor Jerry
told him the reason they always asked him to do some-
thing was because he was a good worker . Under cross-
12 The record does not establish Jerry's last name.
19 Under cross-examination , Kirkendall acknowledged he did not men-
tion the statement about the Union in his affidavit given to a Board
agent . His explanation given at the hearing for not including it was be-
cause he did not think it would do any good because he thought Parsley
and Jerry would deny it.
examination, Kirkendall acknowledged on one occasion
while working for the Respondent he had been talked to
by Production Superintendent Parsley about throwing
steel shafts into a steel tub . This incident, as explained by
Kirkendall , occurred a couple of days after he started
wearing union buttons . On that occasion Kirkendall said
he threw the steel shafts into a tub after being ap-
proached by a forklift operator named Chris14 who was
opposed to the Union. After approaching Kirkendall,
Chris asked him if he had a problem and remarked they
were going to settle this once and for all. Chris and Kir-
kendall then went towards the office where Chris went
inside and reported the incident about the shafts to Pars-
ley. Parsley and Supervisor Jerry then came out of the
office and asked Kirkendall if he was throwing shafts
and told him he was not supposed to be throwing them.
Kirkendall 's response was he was tired of being harassed
and, after Parsley, Jerry, and he went into the office,
Kirkendall told them it was on account of those union
buttons . Parsley's response was they did not need a
union and said they could work it out. Parsley also said
his door was open and for Kirkendall to just come to
him and if he did not want to talk there they would talk
somewhere else.
Parsley then had Kirkendall and Chris shake hands,
which they did, and Kirkendall went back to work.
While Kirkendall stated he also left work early that day,
his undisputed testimony , which was corroborated by
Alice Boyd , shows he was given permission to do so by
Production Superintendent Parsley . Kirkendall denied re-
ceiving anything in writing about the incident and the
Respondent 's records do not show that any warning or
reprimand was given to Kirkendall for throwing the
shafts . While Kirkendall denied knowing that throwing
the shafts, which are about a foot long and made of hard
steel, could damage them, several other employees in-
cluding Alice Boyd , Lorenzo Edwards, and Gary Meikle
testified the employees had been instructed not to throw
the shafts into the tubs or crates . This could cause dents
in the groves on the shafts . Instead they were supposed
to lay them down into the tubs or crates . Before receiv-
ing such instructions both Edwards and Meikle also said
employees would throw the shafts into the tubs.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends the Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged by un-
lawfully interrogating and impliedly threatening its em-
ployees concerning the Union and discriminatorily dis-
charging Edgar Kirkendall because of union activities.
The Respondent denies having violated the Act as al-
leged and argues in its brief that no evidence was prof-
fered to show the Respondent either interrogated or im-
pliedly threatened its employees and asserts Kirkendall
was discharged for reasons totally unrelated to his union
activity.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from
interfering with , restraining , or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
14 Chris did not testify.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Act. Section 8(a)(3) of the Act provides in perti-
nent part: "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an em-
ployer . . . by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment
to encourage or discourage membership in any labor or-
ganization."
The test applied in determining whether a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act has occurred is "whether the
employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably
be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of em-
ployee rights under the Act." Electrical Fittings Corp.,
216 NLRB 1076 (1985).
The interrogation of employees about a union is not
unlawful per se. The test for determining whether such
interrogation violates the Act is whether under all the
circumstances the interrogation reasonably tends to re-
strain, coerce, or interfere with rights guaranteed in the
Act. Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), enfd. sub
nom. Hotel & Restaurant Employees Local 11 v. NLRB,
760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). The test is not limited to
only open and active union adherents but applies to
other employees as well. Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, 277
NLRB 1217 ( 1985).
The findings, supra, establish that about the early part
of February Production Superintendent Parsley interro-
gated Lorenzo Edwards concerning what he thought
about the Union and impliedly threatened Edwards with
losing his job if the Union came in.
I fmd both the interrogation of Edwards, which oc-
curred in Production Superintendent Parsley's office to
which Edwards had been summoned for misconduct, and
the accompanying implied threat to discharge Edwards if
the Union came in interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced Edwards in the exercise of his rights under the
Act and the Respondent by engaging in such conduct
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The remaining issue is whether Kirkendall was discri-
minatorily discharged.
The law is well settled that to discriminate against em-
ployees in their employment because of union activities
violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Where moti-
vation of a discharge is at issue in cases alleging viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, the General
Counsel must make a prima facie showing sufficient to
support the inference that protected activity by the em-
ployees was a motivating factor in an employer's deci-
sion to discharge them and the employer then has the
burden of showing the employees would have been dis-
charged absent the protected activity. Wright Line., 251
NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2 899 (1st Cir.
1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in
NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393
(1983). Direct evidence of discriminatory motivation is
not necessary to support a finding of discrimination and
such intent may be inferred from the record as a whole.
Heath International, 196 NLRB 318 (1972).
The above findings establish that Edgar Kirkendall
was an active union adherent who was one of the two
principal leaders in organizing the Respondent's employ-
ees. His union activities were well known to the Re-
spondent as evidenced by his openly wearing union but-
tons on his clothing while at work and statements made
to him by Production Superintendent Parsley about the
employees not needing a union, and Parsley's admission
to Kirkendall that the Union was a reason for his termi-
nation. Not only did Parsley admit to Kirkendall pursu-
ant to his inquiry that the Union was a reason for his dis-
charge, but also the only other specific reason Parsley
gave for discharging him, namely, he had interrupted
employees the previously day, was completely refuted
by the evidence. Those other employees, by their own
admissions and consistent with Kirkendall's testimony,
were sitting on or standing around a desk talking and not
working when Kirkendall arrived at the facility and
talked to them for a few minutes on that occasion. Al-
though about a week or two prior to Kirkendall's dis-
charge, he had been admonished by Parsley not to throw
steel shafts into the tubs, Parsley did not give this as a
reason for discharging Kirkendall and the Respondent's
records do not reflect Kirkendall had ever been given
any warnings, reprimands, or discipline during his em-
ployment.
Under these circumstances, including Kirkendall's
union activities of which the Respondent had knowledge,
Production Superintendent Parsley's admission made to
Kirkendall that the Union was a reason for his discharge,
and the rejection of the only other specific reason given
to Kirkendall for his discharge that was contrary to and
refuted by the evidence, coupled with the Respondent's
union animus as established by its other unlawful con-
duct herein found including the threat made to discharge
an employee should the employees select the Union to
represent them, I am persuaded and find the Respondent
on 12 February 1986 discriminatorily discharged Edgar
Kirkendall because of his union activities and thereby
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The fact Kir-
kendall was a probationary employee at the time of his
discharge does not detract from fmding his discharge un-
lawful.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above, found to constitute unfair labor practices oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the Re-
spondent described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. E/M Corporation is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO-CLC is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By interrogating an employee concerning what he
thought about the Union , and by impliedly threatening
an employee with discharge if the Union came in, the
Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
E/M CORP.
them by Section 7 of the Act and has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminatorily discharging Edgar Kirkendall
on 12 February 1986 because of his union activities, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, the Respondent shall be ordered to offer
immediate and full reinstatement to Edgar Kirkendall to
his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent job without prejudice to his seniori-
ty and other rights and privileges and make him whole
for any loss of earnings and other compensation he may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him
in his employment herein found by discriminatorily dis-
charging him on 12 February 1986 . Backpay shall be
computed in accordance with the manner prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as
prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
The Respondent shall be ordered to remove from its
records any reference to the discriminatory discharge of
Edgar Kirkendall herein found and to notify him in writ-
ing this has been done and evidence of its unlawful con-
duct will not be used as a basis for future personnel
action against him.
The General Counsel' s request that the remedial order
include a visitatorial clause authorizing the Board to
engage in discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to enable it to monitor compliance with the
Board 's Order as enforced by the court of appeals is re-
jected on the grounds the Board does not provide for
discovery procedures in its proceedings and there is no
showing that under the circumstances presented here
such a clause is necessary.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed'5
ORDER
The Respondent , E/M Corporation Dayton , Ohio, by
its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning
what they think about the Union.
(b) Impliedly threatening employees with discharge if
they select the Union as their collective-bargaining rep-
resentative.
16 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 pur-
poses.
631
(c) Discouraging membership and activities in United
Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO-CLC or any other
labor organization by discharging or in any other manner
discriminating against employees in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Edgar
Kirkendall to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent job without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges and make
him whole for any loss of earnings and other compensa-
tion he may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him by discriminatorily discharging him on
12 February 1986, in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of this decision.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the dis-
charge of Edgar Kirkendall herein found to be unlawful
and notify him in writing this has been done and evi-
dence of its unlawful conduct will not be used as a basis
for future personnel action against him.
(c) Preserve and , on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying , all pay-
roll records, social security payment records , timecards,
personnel records and reports , and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Dayton , Ohio facility copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." t a Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9 , after being signed by the Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu-
tive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint
is dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not
specifically found herein.
1e 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 Nation-
al 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."
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
concerning what they think about the Union.
WE WILL NOT impliedly threaten our employees with
discharge if they select the Union as their collective-bar-
gaining representative
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in and activities
on behalf of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO-CLC or any other labor organization by discharg-
ing or in any other manner discriminating against em-
ployees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Edgar Kirkendall immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position , without prej-
udice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against him, in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of the decision.
WE WILL, remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful discharges and notify the employees in writing
that this has been done and that the discharges will not
be used against them , in any way.
E/M CORPORATION