Garner Tool & Die Manufacturing Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 2, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 640 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Garner Tool & Die Manufacturing Inc. and Local
Lodge 31 , International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case
17-CA-4907
August 2, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On April 12, 1972, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose
issued the attached Decision 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
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders
that the Respondent, Garner Tool & Die Manufac-
turing Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
OwsLEY VosE, Trial Examiner: This case, tried before
me at Lincoln, Nebraska, on February 10, 1972, pursuant
to charges filed on November 11 and 15 and December 23,
1971, and a complaint issued on December 23, 1971,
presents the question whether the Respondent discharged
Paul Hill because of his suspected union activities.
Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses,
and after consideration of the beefs filed by the General
Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
The Respondent, a Nebraska corporation, is engaged at
Lincoln, Nebraska, in the manufacture of tools, dies, jigs,
fixtures, molds, and other items, and it also provides
1 Allen wrenches are hexagonal-shaped pieces, usually one-fourth inch
or less in diameter , bent in the shape of an L, which are used for loosening
product planning and engineering services. In the course of
its business the Respondent annually purchases materials
valued at more than $50,000 from sources outside of
Nebraska. Upon the foregoing facts, I find, as the
Respondent admits, that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Lodge 31, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discharge of Paul Hill in Violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
1. Background
Hill was hired by the Respondent in July, 1966, and
worked steadily for the Respondent until November 1,
1971, when he was suspended for 1 week. On Friday,
November 5, during the week's suspension, Hill was
discharged by Edward Garner, the Respondent's president.
There is no question raised in this case about Hill's
competency as a toolroom employee.
Early in 1970, at the request of President Garner, the
employees in the Respondent's toolroom elected a three-
man shop committee. Hill was elected chairman or
spokesman for the committee. At first the committee met
about once a month. But as time passed the meetings were
held less frequently.
At a meeting of the employees on October 13, 1971,
President Garner announced that henceforth the Company
would not order any tools for the employees costing less
than $10, explaining that the ordering of numerous small
items was too time-consuming for the two office employ-
ees. Previously the Respondent had ordered whatever tools
the employees wanted and allowed them to be paid for
later through payroll deductions, without any interest
charge. At the meeting Hill objected to this policy change
and questioned Garner as to what could be done about
tools which were constantly wearing out, such as Allen
wrenches. Garner's response was that he would buy a set of
Allen wrenches for anyone who could not afford to buy
them. As Hill's subsequent conduct disclosed, Garner's
response did not satisfy Hill, who was of the opinion that
the Company itself should furnish small tools which
regularly wore out, such as Allen wrenches.'
2. The events of October 27 to 30
At the time of the events involved in this case, most of
the Respondent's toolroom employees were working a 10-
hour day, starting at 6 a.m. and ending at 4:30 p.m. On
October 27 Garner announced that effective immediately
the workday was being reduced to a 9-hour day. While
Garner did not at this time specify the time the workday
was to commence, he did indicate his preference for a later
and tightening set screws . A set of Allen wrenches costs substantially less
than $1 at retail
198 NLRB No. 91
GARNER TOOL 641
starting hour, stating that it did not look well to customers
for them to see the shop empty.
At the afternoon coffee break on October 27 the
employees discussed their preferences concerning the
starting hour. The employees present during this discussion
voted in favor of continuing to start work at 6 a.m.
On the two following mornings, October 28 and 29,
apparently most of the toolroom employees reported for
work at 6 a.m. and left work at 3:30 p.m. Hill was one of
those who reported for work at 7 a.m., however.
At about 3:45 p.m. on Friday, October 29, Phil Mullin,
who is one of the Respondent's two office employees
(Garner's wife is the other office employee), approached
Hill as he was working on a lathe. Mullin is Garner's son-
in-law. According to Hill's credited and undenied2
testimony, the following conversation then ensued:
Phil come up to me and started talking to me and he
came up to me and stated that Ed Garner was so mad
that he couldn't hardly see straight and I says, "Why?"
and he says, "Everybody left an hour early. Most
everybody left an hour early." Well, I says, "They come
in at 6 o'clock. They had worked the nine hours like he
requested and they left." And he said that Ed didn't
want them coming in at 6 in the morning and he
proceeded on to say that we didn't realize how good we
had it and they were always bickering, you know, for
minor things.
-such as the previous two weeks I had complained
about the company policy on buying tools.
After Mullin reminded him about his earlier complaint
about the Company not furnishing Allen wrenches, Hill
replied as follows, as he testified:
I said, "When you take a man that will invest
$3,000 in tools3 to make another man money," and I
said, "Then some son-of-a-bitch wouldn't buy them an
Allen wrench," I said, "well, this is pretty chicken-shit."
At about 4 p.m. that day Garner went up to Hill as he
was working on the lathe and asked him what time he had
come to work that day. Hill said 7 o'clock. Garner then
asked Hill what time he was coming to work on Monday.
Hill inquired what time Garner wanted him to come in.
When Garner replied 7 o'clock, Hill said "O.K." Garner
then asked Hill what time the other employees were
coming in to work on Monday. Hill stated that he did not
know, that it probably depended on the hour that the
group leader told the men to report.
Garner spoke to Hill again that day as Hill was putting
away his tools at 4:35 p.m. As Hill testified,
Mr. Garner come out of the office and come over to
the bench to my tool box, and put his arm on my back
and patted me on the back and said that everything
was o.k., that it is good to blow off steam, it was
healthy to blow off steam, and everything was all right.
From the rapid sequence of events, Hill's conversation
with Mullin about 3:45 p.m. in which he alluded to Garner
as "some son-of-a-bitch," Mullin's return to the office, and
Garner's approaching him at 4:35 p.m. and telling him that
it was good to blow off steam and that everything was all
right, I infer that in the meantime Mullin had reported the
"son-of-a-bitch" remark to Garner, and that Garner was
referring 'to this remark in stating that it was good to blow
off steam. Although Garner had reason to take offense at
Hill's remark, Garner's conduct described in the above-
quoted testimony indicates that he did not take offense at
it and in fact condoned Hill's conduct in this regard.
The employees do not usually work on Saturday or
Sunday. On Saturday, October 30, Garner went to the shop
and posted a notice beside the timeclock which read as
follows:
MONDAY MORNING
Our work day starts at 7:00 A.M.
No one will clock in before 6:50
THIS IS AN ORDER
Too] room will start a 40-hour week
until further notice.
ED GARNER
3. The suspensions of November 1
On Monday morning, November 1, Garner arrived at
the shop at 6:50 a.m. and noticed that the employees had
obviously been working for some time. Garner went to
each man individually and asked him if he had read the
notice by the timeclock. As each man answered in the
affirmative, Garner notified him that he was being
suspended for the remainder of the day.
Hill arrived at the shop at 6:55 a.m., just as the other
men were leaving . Upon inquiring of one of the men, Hill
was informed that they had been sent home for the rest of
the day. Upon entering the shop, Hill was summoned by
Garner to the office. There the following occurred, as Hill
testified:
I asked him what was the matter or what
happened. And he said if there was one person that
should stand up for [him] it should be me, and he says,
pointing his finger at me, "I am laying you off for one
week. I don't want to see your face around here until
next Monday." And at this time I didn't understand
why and I said , "Why?" And he said, "You referred to
me as a son-of-a-bitch." And at that time I said, "Ed,
you told me yourself that you were a son-of-a-bitch to
work for."4
2 The Respondent did not call any witnesses or offer any evidence in its
behalf Consequently, all of the findings herein made are based on
unrefuted evidence
3 Hill later testified that he had about $3000 worth of tools at the shop.
4 The Respondent contends that Hill's testimony above-quoted about his
I-week suspension is "in direct contradiction with" the testimony of another
of the General Counsel's witnesses, John Morack, concerning what Garner
told Hill at the time of the action taken against him on November 1.
However, Morack was not present during the November I conversation
between Garner and Hill and was merely reporting what Garner told him
on November 10 as to the conversation between Garner and Hill on
November I As found below, as soon as the toolroom employees became
aware of Hill 's discharge on November 8, some of them walked out of the
shop in protest. Garner subsequently had the men called to the shop in an
(Continued)
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The men join the Union; the Union requests
recognition on November 2
After his suspension Hill joined five of the other
toolroom employees who were going to have a cup of
coffee. After discussions at the coffee shop, and later at the
unemployment office, the suggestion was made that
perhaps the men should contact a union representative for
information about organizing. This suggestion led to a
meeting that night, Monday, November 1, at the Labor
Temple with Dean Kocina, a representative of the Union,
which was attended by all of the toolroom employees. All
of the employees, including Hill, signed union cards that
night.
The next morning, November 2, Union Representative
Kocina communicated with Garner and Garner agreed to
meet with him on Friday, November 5, at 1:15 p.m. Later,
that same morning Kocina sent a confirmatory telegram to
the Respondent in which, after reciting the understanding
as to a meeting on November 5, he stated that a majority of
the employees had chosen representation by the Union,
offered to prove such majority status, and requested that
the Respondent enter into a recognition agreement.
In a letter dated November 4, 1971, to Union Represent-
ative Kocina, Garner, after stating that he did not believe
Kocina's "multiple claims and allegations," informed
Kocina that he had engaged Midwest Employers Council
to represent the Respondent, that all further communica-
tions regarding the Union's request for recognition should
be addressed to Mr. David Flebbe of the Council, and that
the meeting scheduled for November 5 at 1:15 p.m. was
cancelled. Garner's letter concluded with the following:
We are advised that any violations or irregular action
on the part of the union against our employees will be
severely dealt with by the government.
In contrast with the attitude shown by Garner's action in
promptly agreeing to Kocina's November 2 oral request for
a meeting, the tone of Garner's letter to Kocina of
November 4 as a whole is quite unfriendly.
5. Hill's discharge on November 5; the work
stoppage in protest against Hill's discharge;
subsequent events
On Friday, November 5, Garner called Hill at his home,
and being informed that Hill was not at home, left a
message for him to return the call. (A day or two after
Hill's suspension he had obtained another job.) Hill left his
interim employment early to return Garner's call. Hill
testified that the following conversation then took place:
Mr. Garner, over the phone he says, "Paul," he says,
"We are going to let you go." And I says, "For what
reason?" and he says, "anybody that thinks of me in
that manner," he says "We don't have any place for
them in the shop."
So I said, "Well, am I laid off or fired, or what?" He
said, "Yes," he just left it hanging. He said, "Yes," you
could tell by his voice that he was upset or something.
He said that I could pick up my tools that night if I
wanted to and I told him that I was leaving for a trip
out of town and I would not be able to pick them up
until early the following Monday morning.
About 8:30 a.m. on November 8, Hill returned to the
shop to pick up his tools. As soon as he had done so a
number of the toolroom employees walked off the job.
Commencing on Wednesday, Mrs. Garner called the
absent employees to come to the shop to talk to Garner.
After conversations with the men during which he told
some of the men to come back to work the next day or not
at all, the men started returning to work, some on
Wednesday, a few more on Thursday, and others on
Friday. By Monday, November 15, all of the toolroom
employees had returned to work.
In his conversations with the men Garner sought to
justify his treatment of Hill. Garner explained to John
Morack that he had hired Hill, despite the opinion of his
former employer who had discharged Hill that Hill was "a
troublemaker" and "an agitator" because he had a "lot of
faith toward mankind" and thought that he could handle
Hill. To Timothy Hester, Garner characterized Hill as
"outspoken" and a "rabble rouser." Garner stated to
Donald Knop that Hill "was always complaining about
little things." Garner asked Knop if he had heard what Hill
had called Garner. When Knop said yes, Garner asked
Knop what he would do if Hill called him that. Knop's
reply was, "Well, he has probably called me that before."
In his conversations with Morack, Hester, and Roger
Olson, Garner mentioned an incident of Hill's stealing
from the Company. Garner stated to Olson that Hill had
been fired "not only because of the problems of the week
prior, but also because of him stealing from the company
in the past." In his conversation with Hester, Garner
mentioned the stealing incident but added that Hill had
made restitution.
Hill testified that 2 or 3 years earlier he had taken some
materials and tools and made some projects that he had
not paid for, and that after he learned that Garner was
aware of his conduct in this regard, he went to the foreman
and asked what he could do to make things right. (About
this time another employee, Donald Hams, was discharged
by Garner for stealing.) This led to a discussion with
Garner in which Hill told him that he wanted to "make
amends" for his conduct. Garner said that he could have
the cost of the materials and tools deducted from his check.
Two days later, as Hill testified, Garner told the toolroom
employees at a shop meeting about the incident and said
effort to find out if they were going to return to work In the course of his
conversations with the men on these occasions Garner sought tojustify the
discharge of Hill Morack testified that during Garner's conversation with
him Garner stated, among other things, as follows
It was on a Monday and he said that he dismissed Paul for a
week and said that he told him that he could just keep right on going if
he wanted to because he didn't know if he could work for him or not
anymore,
Assuming that Garner was telling the truth to Morack about his
conversation with Hill on November 1, 1 do not perceive the "direct
contradiction" which the Respondent sees in Morack 's testimony. But in
any event , in view of Garner's failure to testify in this case I cannot accept
this self-serving account, given to Morack by Garner 10 days after the event
at time when Garner was seeking to justify the discharge of Hill, in
GARNER TOOL
that Hill had "made amends and he didn't want anybody
to mention it, and it was completely forgotten."5
6. Conclusions concerning the discharge
of Paul Hill
The determination of the Respondent's motivation in
first suspending and later discharging Hill presents a very
difficult problem for the reason, as the Respondent
correctly points out, that there is no direct evidence of the
Respondent's knowledge of Hill's involvement in the
concerted activities which preceded his discharge. Howev-
er, Hill, the chairman of the Shop Committee, was
regarded by Garner as a leader among the employees and
as their spokesman. Hill had but recently been very
outspoken in voicing his objections to Garner's new tool
purchasing policy and his refusal to furnish Allen wrench-
es. In the controversy over the starting hour during most of
the employees concertedly refused to start work at the 7
a.m. starting time indicated by the employer, Garner
sought to find out from Hill what the rest of the employees
planned to do on November 1. In the "Employer's
Response to Union's Unfair Labor Practice Charge" (G.C.
Exh. 2) which was submitted to the Regional Office before
the issuance of the complaint, the Respondent's represent-
ative, Midwest Employers Council, Inc., attributed to Hill
statements which show that Garner believed that Hill was
involved in the concerted refusal to report for work at 7
a.m. and regarded him as the spokesman for those who
were insisting on reporting for work at 6 a.m., even though
Hill himself was not participating.6 In addition, in
attempting to justify Hill's discharge in conversations with
employees after Hill's discharge, Garner characterized Hill
as a "troublemaker," an "agitator" and a "rabble-rouser."
These are terms normally applied by employers to
individuals who are attempting to instigate other employ-
ees into engaging in concerted or union activities.
Garner's explanation for Hill's suspension on November
I is false . While Garner could have taken offense at Hill's
"some son-of-a-bitch" remark which was made in connec-
tion with Garner's refusal to supply Allen wrenches and
other small expendable tools, Hill's undenied testimony
establishes that Garner did not take offense at this
language. Experience teaches that such language is not
uncommon in establishments such as the Respondent's
machine shop. Instead, as Garner told Hill shortly after the
incident, Garner treated Hill's remark as a healthy blowing
off of steam caused by Hill's irritation at Garner's refusal
to supply certain small tools. I conclude that Garner upon
discovering that most of the employees were persisting in
their refusal to start work at 7 a.m. despite Lis order to the
with him on November I Accordingly I find the facts concerning Garner's
conversation with Hill on November I to be as stated in the text above
S According to Hill's undenied testimony, Garner told him at the time he
acknowledged his misconduct , that he "loved" Hill for "owning up" to his
conduct , and that he "had forgiven" him
6 Thus, in the unsworn statement signed by David R. Flebbe of the
Midwest Employers Council , Inc it is stated as follows-
3. At about 4 P.M. on October 29th, Mr Garner walked into the
shop and noticed that almost everyone was gone He saw Mr . Paul Hill
standing by a machine and asked him, "Where are the employees9"
Hill replied, "They've gone home " Gamer said, "Why have they gone
home? It isn ' t quitting time yet " Hill said-"They came in at 6.00
643
contrary-concerted action which he suspected Hill had
had a part in instigating-seized upon Hill's unflattering
comment about him as a pretext to cover up the real reason
for suspending Hill, which was to retaliate against him for
his suspected leadership in bringing about the refusal of
most of the men to report for work at 7 a.m. Only in this
manner can I account for the disparity in the discipline
meted out to Hill who himself had not participated in the
refusal to start work at 7 a.m. Thus Hill was suspended for
I week whereas the other employees who had repeatedly
refused to report for work at 7 a.m. were only suspended
for 1 day.
The organization of the shop quickly followed the
suspension of the men. Garner was notified of the Union's
request for recognition the next day after the men were
suspended. While at first promptly acquiescing in the
Union's request for a meeting, later in the week, after
engaging the services of an employer consulting organiza-
tion , Garner adopted a harder line towards the Union in a
letter having a distinctly unfriendly tone.
The next day, Friday, November 5, Garner changed
Hill's temporary suspension into a permanent discharge
and gave as his only explanation that he did not have a
place in his shop for "anybody that thinks of me in that
manner." I can interpret this only as an allusion to Hill's
"some son-of-a-bitch" remark, which I have found that
Garner had seen fit to overlook and condone. Later, in his
conversations with the men who had walked out in protest
against Hill's discharge, Garner sought to justify Hill's
discharge partly on the grounds that he had been guilty of
stealing from him. But this incident had occurred more
than 2 years earlier, and Garner had forgiven Hill for his
misconduct and said that the incident should not be
mentioned again.
The fact that Garner gave spurious explanations for
Hill's discharge is of significance in appraising Garner's
motivation in changing Hill's suspension into a discharge.
As stated in Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. N.LR.B., 362
F.2d 466, 470 (C.A. 10):
... Nor is the trier of fact-here the trial; examiner
-required to be any more nail than is a judge.
[Footnote omitted.] If he finds that the stated motive
for a discharge is false, he certainly can infer that there
is another motive. More than that, he can infer that the
motive is one that the employer desires to conceal-an
unlawful motive-at least where, as in this case, the
surrounding facts tend to reinforce that inference.
As 'found above, Hill was the chairman of the shop
committee and an outspoken advocate of the rights of the
employees. Hill was regarded by Garner as a leader among
the men and dealt with as such by him. I have further
(A M) " Gamer-"Why 6 00-starting time is 7 .00 (A.M) " Hill
replied They are also going to come in at 6 00 A M Monday and you
won't have anything to say about it."
Garner asked, "Are you coming in at 6 00 (A M )9" To which Hill
replied YES
Garner then told Hill , "You had better not come in at 6 00. 1 am
not authorizing anyone to come in at 6:00 We are supposed to start at
7.00 (A M ) and everyone knows it
The above-quoted statement is cited only for the light which it casts on the
attitude of Garner towards Hill in connection with the concerted refusal to
report for work at 7 a in in view of Garner's failure himself to testify, I
credit this unworn statement only to the extent that it is consistent with
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
found that the evidence justifies the inference that Garner,
despite Hill's nonparticipation in the concerted refusal to
report for work at 7 a.m., suspected that Hill's influence lay
behind the concerted action of the men. In these
circumstances it is logical to infer that when Gamer was
almost immediately confronted with a demand from the
Union for recognition as exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the men, Garner suspected that Hill, as a leader of
the men, was also engaged in the union activities along
with the other men. The record suggests no credible
explanation for Garner's change of heart towards Hill
between the time of Hill's suspension on November 1 and
his discharge on November 5 other than the fact the men
had chosen union representation.
Upon all of the facts, including particularly the fact that
Garner gave Hill false explanations both for his suspension
on November 1 and his discharge on November 5, I
conclude that Garner's motive in both suspending and
discharging Hill was one which he desired to conceal-an
unlawful motive-namely, a desire to nd himself of this
outspoken advocate of the rights of the employees whom
he suspected had led the employees not only in their
concerted refusal to report for work at 7 a.m. but also with
respect to their seeking union representation. Accordingly,
Hill's suspension on November 1 and his discharge on
November 5 were illegally motivated. However, in view of
the fact that the complaint did not put in issue the legality
of Hill's suspension on November 1, I make no findings in
this regard and conclude only that Hill's discharge on
November 5 violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Paul Hill on November 5, 1971,
because of his suspected concerted and union activities the
Respondent has discouraged membership in Local Lodge
31, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, by discrimination in regard to Hill's
tenure of employment, and has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
2. 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 unfair
labor practices, my recommended Order will direct that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
I have found that the Respondent discharged Paul Hill
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. To
remedy this unlawful conduct my recommended Order will
provide that the Respondent offer him immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job, or if this job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges. My
recommended Order will further direct that the Respon-
dent make him whole for his losses resulting from the
Respondent's discrimination against him by payment to
him of the sum of money he would have earned from the
date of his discharge until the date on which the
Respondent offers him reinstatement, less his net interim
earnings. Backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis
and shall include interest at 6 percent per annum, as
provided in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER?
The Respondent, Garner Tool & Die Manufacturing,
Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska, its officers, agents, successors and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Local Lodge 31,
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, 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 terms or conditions of employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Paul Hill reinstatement to his former job or if
this job no longer exists to a substantially equivalent job,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered
by reason of his discharge in the manner set forth in the
Section of this decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Paul Hill, if presently serving in the Armed
:Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstate-
ment upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, as well as all other records
necessary to analyze and compute the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this recommended Order.
(d) Post at its Lincoln, Nebraska, shop copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."8 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 17, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
Hill's sworn testimony set forth above and discredit it where it contradicts
Hill's sworn testimony
7 In the event no exceptions are filed to this recommended Order 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 10(c) of the Act and 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
a 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 be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
GARNER TOOL 645
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in
writing within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.9
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
9 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
against any employee because of his concerted or union
activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL reinstate Paul Hill, with backpay.
WE WILL notify Paul Hill, if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated
the law and we have been ordered to post this notice. We
intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by
the following:
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
Dated By
GARNER TOOL & DIE
MANUFACTURING, 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 directed to the Board's Office, 610
Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106, Telephone 816-374-5181.