Firestone Steel Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 549 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

FIRESTONE STEEL PRODUCTS CO. 549
Firestone Steel Products Company, a Division of
Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica (UAW). Case 25-CA-9706
March 18, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On November 8, 1979, Administrative Law
Judge Thomas E. Bracken issued the attached De-
cision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,'
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Firestone Steel
Products Company, a Division of Firestone Tire
and Rubber Company, Henderson, Kentucky, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the said recommended
Order.
The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently referred to "Walker" as
"Wallace" in two instances in his Decision. We correct this error.
The Administrative Law Judge credited the testimony of, inter alia,
dischargee Todd and Production Foreman Townsend. There is a conflict
in the testimony of these two men, however, over whether Todd request-
ed to see the personnel director during the initial conversation that took
place at the machines on March 3. Todd testified that he asked for a
meeting with the personnel director. Townsend testified that Todd did
not say anything during the conversation at the machines. The only other
person present was Walker, whose testimony was discredited by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. Although the Administrative Law Judge did not
address directly this conflict in testimony, he found in the "Analysis and
Conclusions" section of his Decision that "when Walker and Todd stood
besides [sic) the machines, and at the locker room door, and requested to
see the personnel manager or the plant manager, they were engaging in
protected concerted activity." (Emphasis supplied.) We have relied on
the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions as to the relevant events in
adopting his findings and conclusions here.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS E. BRACKEN, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard at Evansville, Indiana, on October
248 NLRB No. 69
30, 1978.1 The charge was filed by the Union on March
10, and the complaint was issued on April 28. The prima-
ry issue is whether the Company, the Respondent, discri-
minatorily discharged two union supporters, Ernest
Walker, Jr., and Charles Todd, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. Re-
spondent denies the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consider-
ation of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the
Company, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of truck wheels and
rims at its plant in Henderson, Kentucky, where, during
the past year, a representaive period, it shipped products
valued in excess of $50,000 to States other than Ken-
tucky and, during the same year, it received goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were trans-
ported to the plant, directly from States other than Ken-
tucky. The Company admits and I find that it is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111 THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In 1974, the Respondent opened the plant to manufac-
ture truck rims and wheels of various sizes. One of its
earliest employees was Terry Gibson, who was hired on
May 1, 1974, to serve as its personnel manager. Gibson
had previously beem employed as the personnel manager
of another local company, Gamco Products. Gibson
hired Ernest Walker, Jr., as a machine operator 3 months
later. Walker had also worked for Gamco as a machinist,
and Gibson knew that he had been active in union cam-
paigns at that company.
In years following the opening of the Henderson plant,
there were three union organizing campaigns conducted
at the plant. The first was by the Aluminum Workers 2
and the IUE, the second by the Steel Workers, and the
third by the UAW.
James R. Wiseman, an organizer for the UAW, testi-
fied credibly that in May 1977 the UAW commenced an
organizing campaign at Respondent's plant. Walker was
one of the initiators of the campaign and served on the
in-plant organizing committee. By letter dated May 18,
1977, Wiseman had sent to Respondent a list of the
names of 1023 employees as serving on this committee
All dates are in 1978, unless otherwise stated.
' Walker served as an observer for this union in an election.
a At the time of the hearing the Company had 560 employees.
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the UAW. The names of Walker and Charles Todd,
the other alleged discriminatee, appeared on this list.
In July 1977, Walker was one of the 23 employees sus-
pended after placing UAW stickers on their hard hats.
The Company attributed the suspension to a violation of
its policy not to put any type of decal on a hard hat be-
cause it was unsafe. This discipline became the subject of
a charge filed with the Board, which was settled with
payment of moneys to the suspended individuals, includ-
ing Walker, and the posting of a notice with a nonadmis-
sion of liability clause. On July 28, the UAW completed
its organizing campaign with a Board-conducted elec-
tion, in which the Union received a majority of the
votes. As of the date of this hearing the election results
were being contested.
As each employee is hired he receives a booklet enti-
tled "Handbook for Firestone Steel Products Employ-
ees." This highly professional booklet consists of 80
printed pages containing very detailed information about
the Respondent's policies, rules, and procedures. On
page 7 is stated its plant policy toward unionization. One
paragraph thereof candidly reads: "We do not believe
that union representation of our employees would be in
the best interests of either the employees or the compa-
ny."
While the booklet has no section entitled "Griev-
ances," it does have one section wherein the language
and format is vaguely similar to the grievance proce-
dures found in collective-bargaining agreements. This
section, entitled "Let's Get It Out in the Open," allows
an employee to take his complaint through a four-step
procedure, in which at each step he deals with a higher-
rated company official. There is no appeal beyond the
plant manager. It reads as follows:
If there's something about your job that's bother-
ing you, "Let's Get It Out in the Open." Discuss it
frankly with the people in Firestone who can and
will help you "iron out" your problem.
You can be sure that your complaint will handled
in a "fair and square manner."
There are four steps you may take. It's your right
and privilege to keep right on going-"to the top,"
if necessary.
(1) As a starter, take up the problem that's bothering
you with your supervisor. He works with you
each day and is personally interested in your wel-
fare. He knows you and your job better than
anyone else and knows how to solve your prob-
lems promptly and fairly.
(2) Talk your problem over with your department
manager. Talk to him honestly and sincerely. He
has authority to settle the problem.
(3) If you want further consideration of your prob-
lem, then take it to the Personnel Department.
Personnel is specially trained in handling "human
relations" problems and will guide and aid you.
(4) As a final step, the door to the plant manager's
office is open to your problem. If you have not
been satisfied with the treatment of your problem
up to this step, you may request that he give con-
sideration to it.
While Gibson testified that this section was not intend-
ed as a grievance procedure, he admitted that there was
no limit as to the type of problem that an employee
could present under its steps, and that an employee with
a dispute over a job assignment could process it through
the steps set forth in the handbook. Gibson also de-
scribed a review board that was instituted in January
1979. The board will hold a hearing for an employee
with at least 60 days' service, who has been discharged,
and review that employee's case. An employee must
make the request for such a hearing in writing, and em-
ployees who quit are not eligible to have a hearing.
Since its institution, there have been eight cases heard by
the review board, with six discharges being upheld. Only
the plant manager, Ken Roman, and Gibson have the au-
thority to discharge an employee.
The personnel manager also testified that it was plant
policy that no employee may walk off a job if he has a
problem, but that he must perform the job and grieve
later. It is also company policy to treat anyone who has
left the plant without permission as a voluntary quit.
This policy is not contained in the handbook, but is told
to each new employee on his or her first day of orienta-
tion. The handbook on page 52 does refer to a voluntary
quit as follows: "When an employee is absent three (3)
consecutive working days without an acceptable excuse,
such absence shall be considered a voluntary quit."
Walker had been hired as a machine operator, and
worked at that classification for 1 year. He was then
moved up to the classification of setup man, which paid
$5.25 an hour, 50 cents per hour more than his prior
classification. Setup men make sure that all machines on
the line properly, change blades and other parts, and re-
pairs any machines that break down. Todd also started as
a machine operator in November 1974, and, 4 to 6
months later, moved up to the setup man classification.
Todd wore a UAW button during the 1977 campaign,
and helped to hand out handbills "up on the hill." As
Organizer Wiseman admitted, Todd did not play any
particular role in the union campaign, and many employ-
ees were more active than he was. After the election, he
again wore a union button. During the month prior to
March 3, Todd had been working a 7-day week, and
Walker also had been working a considerable amount of
overtime.
B. The Events of March 3
1. Preliminary events
On the morning of March 3, Walker and Todd had
been scheduled to work on their regular jobs as setup
men on line 425, a line on which light truck rims are fab-
ricated right from flat steel. The line is operated by 12
machine operators who work under Production Foreman
Larry Ray Townsend. In addition, the line has two setup
men, Walker and Todd, who take orders from the setup
supervisor, Zack Womack. Between 6:30 and 6:45 a.m.,
Townsend and Womack attended the daily supervisors'
production meeting. Their supervisor, Jim Rutledge, was
also present. On the night before there had been a snow
and ice storm, and the officials were particularly con-
cerned about possible absenteeism, and its effect on pro-
FIRESTONE STEEL PRODUCTS CO. 551
duction. Line 436 was designated as the priority line that
day, and was to be manned in all events.
At 7 a.m., Townsend determined that he was short
two men on his line, and transferred three of his opera-
tors over to line 436. About 7:05 a.m. Rutledge discussed
the absenteeism situation with Production Manager Ron
Terry, reporting that 11 of the 44 employees in his de-
partment were absent. Following this telephone conver-
sation, Rutledge then instructed Townsend and Womack
to use setup employees on the production lines, so as to
keep production going. Rutledge's reason for production
having priority over setup work was "Production pays
the bills. If we don't run rims we don't survive."
2. Subsequent events
a. According to General Counsel's witnesses
Walker testified that he arrived after 7 a.m., checked
the burr shear, and found that its blades were dull. 4 He
went back to his toolbox, where Todd walked up and in-
formed him that he had changed the machine stamp.
Walker then told Todd that he was going to change the
blades in the burr shear. At this time, Townsend walked
up and said, "Ernie, I think you're going to have to
either stack rims or run a burr shear." Walker then pro-
tested, stating that Womack was the supervisor of setup,
and that he would have to tell "us" what to do.
Townsend left and returned with Womack about 7:25
a.m. The setup supervisor then said to Walker, "Damn it
to hell. Are you refusing to run the burr shear." Walker
replied "No, I'm not refusing to run no burr shear."
Womack then asked for Walker's and Todd's timecards,
punched them out, and said, "Come on." 5 The three
then walked to the locker room, where Walker and
Todd changed their clothes.
When the two setup men came out of the locker room,
they were met by Rutledge and Womack. Rutledge then
said, "Walker, get your hard hat on and your safety
shoes and get your ass out there and run that machine."
Walker replied by telling Rutledge that he wanted to see
Gibson, the personnel manager, or Terry, the production
manager. Rutledge responded by telling him four or five
times to get out there and run the machine, as he was
not going to see anybody. Walker did, at one time, tell
Rutledge, "I'll try to run that machine until 9:00 o'clock
if I can see somebody in Personnel," but was told that he
would not be promised anything. Finally, after about 15
to 20 minutes, Rutledge told Womack, "Get them out to
the guard shack and get them off Company property."
Womack then took Walker by the arm and led him to
the guard shack. During this walk Womack commented
to the two setup men that "I feel like about all you boys
are going to do is get the weekend off." Later that day,
Walker telephoned Gibson about coming back, and was
told that he and Todd had voluntarily quit.
Todd's testimony corroborated Walker's with the fol-
lowing exceptions. Todd testified that when Townsend
A burr shear is a machine that trims excess weld off of an incomplete
rim, so that it will fit into the flare die.
5 Two setup men, Clarence Calhoun and Frank Hamilton, testified
without contradiction that they asked Walker what was up, and that he
replied that he did not know, but guessed that they were being fired
first came to them, he stated, "One of you are going to
have to run the burr shear and the other one is going to
have to stack parts." Then, when Womack came to the
line and asked if they were refusing to run the machine
and stack parts, he (Todd) replied, "No, we're not refus-
ing." When Rutledge met them outside the locker room,
and asked him if he was refusing to run a job, Todd an-
swered, "No sir. All we wanted was just to see some-
body in Personnel, somebody higher." Todd estimated
this conversation as taking 2 or 3 minutes, at the end of
which Rutledge said, "Okay, you're fired," and told
Womack to take them out to the guard house.
Todd telephoned Gibson later that day, asked if he
and Walker could come out and talk it over, and was
told there was nothing to talk over as they had quit. He
was also told that he could not go before the review
board. On the following day, Todd wrote a letter to the
plant manager, Ken Roman, stating that "I am writing
this letter" because "I was fired unjustly," and then re-
viewed the events of March 3, without ever mentioning
Walker. Todd closed by stating, "I have at no time quit
my job and am requesting to be heard by the revue [sic]
board." 6 (G.C. Exh. 4.)
b. According to Respondent's witnesses
Townsend testified that he went to Walker and Todd
about 7:15 or 7:20 a.m. and told them he was not going
to be able to run the line, that he needed their help, and
asked Walker to run the flare operation. Walker replied
that he had been working 7 days a week, that it was not
his job, and he was not going to run the machine. Town-
send then left and returned with Womack, after inform-
ing him that Walker and Todd had refused to operate a
machine. Womack then asked them if they would run
any machine on the line, the circle, the burr shear, or the
flare. Walker replied, "No, I'm not going to run a ma-
chine but I'm not refusing." When Womack asked Todd
if he would run one of the machines, Todd shook his
head "No." At this point Womack asked for their time-
cards and punched them out. His stated reason was that,
if they were not going to work, they should not be paid
for such time. The two men then locked their tool boxes,
and proceeded to the locker room, with Womack follow-
ing them.
At this point Rutledge appeared on the scene. Rut-
ledge had been attending a 7:30 a.m. production meeting
in Terry's office, at which Personnel Director Gibson
was also present. Here, Rutledge learned that Womack
was having a problem with setup people, and he then left
the meeting and went to the shop. Rutledge met
Womack outside the locker room, and discussed the
problem with him. After several minutes, Walker and
Todd came out. Rutledge then testified as follows:
I asked them what their problem was and Ernie,
I think it was Ernie, said he thought it was unfair
6 Walker, when asked if he had requested a review board, testified,
"Well, we wrote, me and Charlie, wrote a letter to try to get our job
back one time." No evidence of such a letter was placed in the record,
and clearly Todd's letter to the Company was not a joint letter with
Walker. I do not find that Walker wrote or participated in writing a
letter to get his and Todd's job back.
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he had to work on the line that day so I told
Ernie, you know, the problem we had with people
being off. We needed their help bad to help get the
production out and he said that he didn't care he
felt that was still unfair.
So, I asked him, you know, if he was refusing to
do the job and he said, "No," but he just thought it
was ufair.
Walker then asked if he could have a meeting with the
production manager. Rutledge stated that it could not be
right at that time because Terry was at a meeting. He
also told them that if they would go back to work he
would set up a meeting for them to see management.
Rutledge then told them that they had 3 minutes to
report to work. 7 Walker said again that it was unfair,
and walked out the door with Todd following him. Rut-
ledge then told Womack to walk out behind them to the
guard shack, and he did so. The conference took no
more than 5 minutes. Rutledge proceeded to report the
event to the production supervisors and the personnel di-
rector.
Following the receipt of Todd's letter dated March 5,
Gibson replied to it on March 13, denying him any
relief. The personnel manager concluded his letter as fol-
lows:
The Review Board is available for employees with
over 60 days service with the company that have
been discharged by the Company. A quit is not eli-
gible for the Review Board.
3. Credibility
While this is not the type of case that turns solely on
the issue of credibility, the case is too replete with con-
flicts of credibility to allow such conflicts to go unre-
solved. Walker was an evasive, inconsistent, argumenta-
tive, and contradictory witness whose testimony had no
ring of truth, and I do not credit his testimony. Several
examples are set forth below. When testifying about his
conversation with Rutledge outside the locker room, he
was asked:
Q. And, what did Rutledge say?
A. Rutledge didn't say nothing. He said, "You
better get on out there and run that machine, that
we wasn't going to see nobody." He stated that
four or five times and I sort of leaned up against the
wall. I was just aiming to wait for Terry Gibson.
Terry Gibson comes through there quite a bit and I
was going to see him or Ron Terry and talk to
them about what was going on out there in the
Plant.
I felt like deep down.that they didn't know what
was going on out there in the Plant.
When asked why he reported to work late on the
morning of March 3, he answered, "On account of there
I Womack testified that Rutledge said, "I'll give you 3 minutes to get
back down on the line to go to work, and then we will set up an appoint-
ment." Unlike General Counsel's contention in his brief, I do not find
these statements of Rutledge and Womack to be inconsistent, but find
them to be consistent and corroborative.
was a truck across 41." When pressed, he stated that it
was the only reason he was late. Then, upon being
shown his prehearing affidavit in which he stated that he
was late "due to the bad weather," he finally admitted
that the truck blockage was caused by the bad weather,
and that there was ice on the highway.
Todd was a quiet, calm witness, and not the garrulous,
argumentative witness that Walker was. In the main, I
credit his testimony as a fair representation of the facts
as he remembered them. However, I do not credit his
testimony that Rutledge said, "Okay, you're fired."
While Rutledge was not asked if he said this, he did tes-
tify that he had no authority to discharge an employee, a
principle that was corroborated by Gibson. Also, Walker
did not claim that Rutledge at any time told them that
they were fired.
Rutledge, Womack, and Townsend, all of whom were
up from the ranks, impressed me as completely honest,
sincere witnesses who testified in a straightforward
manner, and I credit their testimony.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that Walker and Todd
were engaged in a concerted refusal to work in order to
secure a meeting with management, and that this was
protected, concerted, and union activity for which they
were illegally discharged. Respondent, in its brief, vigor-
ously denies that the employees were engaged in protect-
ed or concerted or union activity, and contends that they
were terminated for repeated refusals to work, supple-
mented by their unauthorized departure from the plant.
It is to be noted that Respondent in its brief does not
argue that Walker and Todd voluntarily quit their jobs
on March 3, as maintained by Terry during the hearing,
and as stated in his March 13 letter to Todd. This is a
realistic approach, as the record is clear that Walker and
Todd did not "quit" their employment, as that basic
word is understood by employees and employers in the
industrial shops of this nation. A quit occurs when an
employee, by his own act, terminates his employment. In
Robert's Dictionary of Industrial Relations, Bureau of
National Affairs, 1971 edition, a quit is defined as "The
voluntary termination or resignation from employment,
which is initiated by the employee." The record is clear
that neither Walker nor Todd voluntarily terminated or
resigned his employment on March 3, and they at all
times considered themselves employees and wanted their
jobs. When Walker called Gibson only several hours
after leaving the plant, it was Gibson who insisted that
he had quit, whereas Walker denied it. Todd, likewise,
was told by the personnel manager on the same day that
he had quit, despite his protestations. Todd, in his letter
to the Company also denied that he had quit, only to be
told in the personnel director's letter of March 13 that he
had quit.
Section 7 of the Act guarantees to employees the right
to "engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
.... " and Section 8(a)(l) forbids an employer "to inter-
fere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7." Thus, if Walker's
and Todd's activity is of the type comtemplated by Sec-
FIRESTONE STEEL PRODUCTS CO. 553
tion 7, and if they were discharged for having engaged
in it, then the Company thereby violated Section 8(a)(1).
The protestations of Walker and Todd that they did
not refuse to obey an order are as incorrect as the per-
sonnel manager's claim that they quit. It is true that they
told Womack that they were not refusing to run a ma-
chine, but this was doubletalk. Their action is standing
there and not starting up and running a machine spoke
clearer than their mere words in showing that they were
refusing an order.8 Then, when Rutledge asked Walker
outside the locker room if he were refusing to do the
job, Walker's denial that he was not was negated by his
action of standing there mute for several minutes.
However, when Walker and Todd stood beside the
machines and at the locker room door, and requested to
see the personnel manager or the plant manager, they
were engaging in protected concerted activity. The le-
gitimate interest of employees to seek such a meeting,
and the statutory protection against reprisals, where the
right is asserted, is firmly imbedded in Board and court
decisions. The principle was stated long ago in N.L.R.B.
v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co., 167 F.2d 983, 988
(7th Cir. 1948), "even though no union activity be in-
volved, or collective-bargaining contemplated . . . [em-
ployees have] . . . a legitimate interest in acting concer-
tedly in making known their views to management with-
out being discharged for that interest."
Walker and Todd had no union representation, and no
meaningful, enforceable grievance procedure to present
their complaint to management. In Masonic and Eastern
Star Home of the District of Columbia, 206 NLRB 127
(1973), the Board held that in the absence of an estab-
lished grievance procedure the conduct of a group of
employees in stopping work and concertedly presenting
a grievance concerning terms and conditions of employ-
ment is within the protection of the Act.
Walker's and Todd's conduct was clearly concerted in
nature as they shared the common complaint that they
did not want to work outside their classification of setup
men, and perform the duties of machine operators.
Whether this was reasonable or not is immaterial as em-
ployees' concerted activity need not be reasonable in
order to be protected. N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum
Company, Inc., 370 U.S. 9, (1962). Nor does the fact that
they voluntarily left the plant remove them from the
protection of the Act. By leaving the plant they assumed
the status of strikers, and nothing could be clearer in the
annals of the Act than an employer cannot discharge em-
ployees for striking in such a factual context.
Respondent points out in its brief, as a vindication of
its handling of the two setup men, the case of Jack Jen-
nings. Jennings was terminated in April 1977 for refusing
to perform a work assignment, and for leaving the plant
without permission. Jennings filed a charge with the
8 Wallace's contentions at the hearing that he was unable to run the
burr machine are without merit. He had first worked for Respondent as a
machine operator, and had been promoted to the more skilled classifica-
tion of setup man. He admitted that he had started the burr shear ma-
chine up, and changed its blades but claimed he had never "fully operat-
ed" one. Rutledge testified credibly that a setup man is required to know
how to run each machine, as well as how to set it up In an) event, nei-
ther Wallace sic] nor Todd told his supervisor on the morning of March
3, that he did not have the skill to operate the burr shear machine
Board claiming that his termination violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. However, after a Board inves-
tigation, the charge was withdrawn and no further action
was taken. What Respondent overlooks in its analogy is
that there is nothing in the record to show that Jennings
was acting in concert with any other employee. Jennings
was acting in his individual capacity, and, as such, was
not covered by the umbrella of Section 7 that gives em-
ployees the right to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of mutual aid and protection. Respondent also
points out that employees Leslie Butler, Robert Gillham,
and Tyrone McGuire were discharged for refusing to do
assigned work.9 All that the record shows is that these
employees were terminated on different days, and there
is nothing in the record to indicate that any two of them
ever acted jointly in a concerted manner, so that they
could assert their rights under the Act.
Upon the foregoing, and upon the record as a whole,
it is found that Respondent, by discharging Ernest
Walker, Jr., and Charles Todd because of their concerted
activity protected by the Act, violated Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act. Thermofil, Inc., 244 NLRB No. 171 (1979);
American Truck Stop, Inc., 218 NLRB 1038 (1975);
Crenlo, Division of GF Business Equipment, Inc., 215
NLRB 872 (1974). Inasmuch as the Order recommended
hereinafter would not be affected, I find it unnecessary
to pass upon General Counsel's further contention that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by dis-
charging Walker and Todd.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act.
3. By discharging Ernest Walker, Jr., and Charles
Todd on March 3, 1978, and thereafter refusing to rein-
state them, for engaging in protected concerted activi-
ties, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
4. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall
recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged Ernest Walker, Jr., and Charles Todd, I shall
9 Sec. II of Respndent's handbook provides certain rules, which, if vio-
lated, subject the violators to suspension and discharge Rule 5 states:
Refusal or failure to perform work assigned or refusal or failure to
follow the directions or instructions of management unless such as-
signment is later proven to have been such as to unreasonably endan-
ger life or health
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recommend that it be ordered to offer them immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and to make them whole for any resultant loss
of earnings and other benefits. Their loss of earnings
shall be computed as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as set forth
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962),
and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER ' 0
The Respondent, Firestone Steel Products Company, a
Division of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Hen-
derson, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Terminating or otherwise interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Ernest Walker, Jr., and Charles Todd rein-
statement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf-
fered in the manner set forth in the section of this Deci-
sion entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Henderson, Kentucky, plant copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
'O In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 10246 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.
II In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's rep-
resentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as
it alleges a violation of the Act not herein found, be, and
the same is, dismissed.
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the 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 terminate or otherwise interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Ernest Walker, Jr., and Charles
Todd immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and WE
WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as the result of their termina-
tion on March 3, 1978, with interest.
FIRESTONE STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, A
DIVISION OF FIRESTONE TIRE AND
RUBBER COMPANY