George W. Kugler, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 122 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
George W. Kugler, Inc. and Robert Horvath. Case
8-CA- 13648
September 22, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On March 13, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Theodor P. von Brand issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Responent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administra-
tive Lw Judge's Decision and a motion to strike
portions of Respondent's exceptions.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge, to modify his remedy so that interest on
backpay and other monetary benefits is to be com-
puted in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977), 3 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, George W.
Kugler, Inc., Akron, Ohio, its officers, agents, suc-
I In its exceptions, Respondent moves the Board, in effect, to reopen
the record for admission of a transcript of what appears to be a conversa-
tion between Respondent's attorney and Charging Party Horvath. Al-
though this transcript was marked "Exhibit 16" at the hearing, Respond-
ent did not attempt to have it admitted into the record before the Admin-
istrative Law Judge. The General Counsel has filed a motion to strike
that portion of Respondent's exceptions referring to the transcript marked
"Exhibit 16." Respondent has not shown that it was precluded from in-
troducing this document into evidence previously and it has not shown
any good cause why it should be admitted to the record at this stage of
the proceeding. Accordingly, Respondent's motion is hereby denied. In
view of the foregoing, we find it unnecessary to pass on the General
Counsel's motion to strike portions of Respondent's exceptions.
2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
In this regard, we note that there is no evidence in the record to supp-
port Respondent's allegation that Charging Party Horvath tampered with
Respondent's witnesses.
" See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Hearing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Member Jenkins would award interest on backpay in accordance with his
dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 NLRB 146 (1980)
258 NLRB No. 7
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
THEODOR P. VON BRAND, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard in the period October I through 3,
1980, in Akron, Ohio, pursuant to a charge filed by
Robert Horvath on March 13, 1980, as amended on
April 4, and the complaint which subsequently issued on
April 28, 1980.
The complaint alleges essentially that Respondent
George W. Kugler, Inc., violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act by, on or about
February 5, 1980, threatening that Respondent would
close its Akron, Ohio, terminal if the Charging Party
were reinstated pursuant to a grievance procedure by
Joint Local No. 92 Area Employers Committee. The
complaint charges further that on February 5, 1980, Re-
spondent unlawfully laid off Robert Horvath and six
other employees in reprisal for the Charging Party's suc-
cessful prosecution of his grievance before the Joint
Committee. Respondent has denied the substantive alle-
gations of the complaint.
Upon the entire record, including observation of the
witnesses, and the briefs filed by the parties, I make the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent, George W. Kugler, Inc. (herein Kugler),
is now and has been at all times material herein a corpo-
ration organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the
State of Delaware. Kugler has places of business in
Akron, Ohio, Pottstown, Pennsylvania, and North Caro-
lina where it is engaged in the interstate transportation of
goods. Respondent receives annually in the course of its
business operations revenues in excess of $50,000 from
the interstate transportation of goods. Kugler is now, and
has been at all times material herein, an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and 2(7) of the Act.
General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 92,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica (herein the Union), has been at all times material
herein a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act. It represents the drivers at Kugler's
Akron, Ohio, terminal.
Robert Horvath, the Charging Party, is a member of
Local 92 and a truckdriver employed at Respondent's
Akron terminal since April 1978. He was discharged on
August 15, 1979, after becoming involved in an accident.
The following day, August 16, Horvath filed a grievance
seeking reinstatement without loss of seniority as well as
all pay due to the allegedly improper discharge including
health and welfare benefits. Horvath at the time of the
hearing in this proceeding was again working for Kugler
having been called back in July 1980.
On February 5, 1980, the Joint Local No. 92 Area
Employers Committee held a hearing in Dover, Ohio, on
122
GEORGE W. KUGLER, INC.
Horvath's grievance. Respondent Kugler was represent-
ed by its vice president, Joseph Morris, at that hearing.
The Union was represented by Jack McKean, and Hor-
vath was also present. Finding the penalty too severe the
Joint Committee ordered Horvath reinstated without
backpay. Another discharged Kugler driver, Melvin
Flory,' was also ordered reinstated on the same day by
the Joint Committee.
Upon his return to work the same day Horvath was
notified by Kugler's management that he was laid off.
All drivers in Kugler's Akron terminal who were junior
to Horvath, viz, Richard Walker, Melvin Flory, Delbert
Barrett, Jerrie Pepper, Charles Robert Day, and Bobby
Williams, were also laid off at the same time. To comply
with the union contract, layoffs had to be made accord-
ing to seniority.
Joseph Morris had the layoff letters typed and signed
after his return to Kugler's Akron terminal from the
Joint Committee meeting in Dover at which Horvath
had been ordered reinstated. Morris explained that he
took this action immediately following Horvath's and
Flory's reinstatement because the reinstatement "aggra-
vated my seniority list" giving Kugler more drivers than
needed.
Horvath testified that during a recess of the Joint
Committee's hearing on February 5, Joseph Morris,
Kugler's vice president, told him that if he, Horvath,
won the case then George Kugler would close the
Akron facility down. This allegation was not explicitly
contradicted by Morris who did generally deny discus-
sions concerning "some action that the Company would
take against Mr. Horvath if he won the grievance."
Charles McMath, then operations manager in Akron,
made a similar threat to Henry C. Schaeffer, a mechanic
and union steward in Kugler's Akron terminal. McMath
at some time in the 2-week period preceding the Febru-
ary 5 grievance hearing told Schaeffer and certain other
employees that "we might all be looking for a job, and
that if Bob [Horvath] won his case, George [Kugler] was
going to close the terminal down." McMath, who testi-
fied in this proceeding after Schaeffer, did not contradict
the latter's testimony on this point.
Horvath at the time he was laid off asked to be trans-
ferred to another of Kugler's terminals. Charles McMath,
the operations manager, responded that there was no
way that the laid-off personnel would be transferred. An-
other of the drivers laid off on February 5, Charles Day,
was also told there would be no "transfers." However,
Kugler's management permitted him to resign his Akron
job and seek employment at Respondent's Pottstown ter-
minal. Day followed this procedure. He resigned his po-
sition on February 13 and was hired at Pottstown on
February 15, 1980. The rig which Day had used in
Akron was transferred to the Pottstown terminal on Feb-
ruary 15. There is no indication in the record that Hor-
vath was afforded a similar opportunity.
The record shows that Horvath had previously in-
curred the animus of Kugler's management for his en-
gagement in union-related or protected activities. In June
1979, Horvath met two nonunion Kugler drivers at the
Flory, like Horvath, had been discharged after being involved in an
accident.
Pottstown, Pennsylvania, terminal, Bobby Hudson and
Charles Raymond Elliott.2 They expressed an interest in
the Union to Horvath, who told them he would find out
about the procedures for joining the Union and get back
to them. Kugler's management became aware of these
contacts when Joseph Morris, Respondent's vice presi-
dent, got a call from one of the North Carolina drivers
who had spoken to the Charging Party. Horvath, upon
his return to the Akron terminal some 2 days later, was
told by George Kugler that he had no business talking to
these individuals about the Union, that Horvath should
keep his nose out of it, and if he did not his employment
would be terminated. Kugler on this occasion also stated
that Horvath filed more grievances than any other em-
ployee. Horvath's testimony concerning this threat is un-
contradicted by George Kugler who testified later in the
proceeding.
Subsequently, on October 31, 1979, Horvath had a
conversation with two union officials, Jack McKean and
Dick Collison, who asked him to contact Kugler's North
Carolina drivers. Horvath, pursuant to that request, con-
tacted Messrs. Hudson and Elliott, sending them authori-
zation cards. In return he received a card back from El-
liott dated November 12, 1979. On November 14, 1979,
however, Elliott wrote a letter to Local 92 rescinding
the authorization. A copy of that letter showing Hor-
vath's involvement was sent to Joseph Morris, Kugler's
vice president.
Carl Iceman, terminal manager in Akron prior to June
1980, was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Bobby Williams testified that Iceman in the summer of
1979 advised him with respect to Horvath "to get an-
other buddy to chum around with here at the Akron ter-
minal because we are definitely getting rid of him and
Ed Berisko." When asked the reason, Iceman stated that
Horvath was a troublemaker. Iceman in his testimony
conceded that he may have told Bobby Williams that
Horvath was a troublemaker, although he does not spe-
cifically remember making such a remark. 3 Iceman also
stated that he did not remember telling Williams that
Kugler was going to get rid of Horvath. 3 In view of Ice-
man's inability to categorically deny or affirm the state-
ments attributed to him by Williams, the latter's testimo-
ny is accepted.
2 Dayton and Elliott at that time were controlled by the Pottstown
terminal although they worked out of North Carolina.
3 At another point in his testimony. Iceman conceded that Horvath
being a troublemaker may have come up in a conversation with Williams
or other drivers, and stated that Kugler had problems ith Horvath's on-
the-job performance for such matters as going off route.
4 Iceman testified:
Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Bobby Williams that Mr. Horvath was a
troublemaker?
A. I could have. yes.
Q. Do you remember it specifically?
A. No. sir.
Q. Do you remember saying anything to Mr. Williams about gel-
ting rid of Mr. Horvath'
A. No, sir.
Q. You do remember and can state for a fact that you don't ever
remember stating that to Mr. Williams?
A. Yes. sir
The failure to remember making a statement is clearly not the equivalent
of a categorical denial of making it.
123
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In any event, Iceman testified that he considered Hor-
vath to be a cause of trouble to Kugler's management,
because unless everything was right in connection with a
dispatch the latter would file a grievance.
As already noted George Kugler, Respondent's owner,
threatened to fire Horvath for contacting other drivers
with respect to union membership. Kugler coupled that
threat with the complaint that Horvath filed more griev-
ances than anyone else. Iceman, a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, considered that Horvath constituted
trouble because of his resort to the grievance procedure.
Considered together, the statements of Kugler and
Iceman demonstrate Respondent's animus toward the
Charging Party for activities protected by the Act.
Ill. DISCUSSION
The allegations of the complaint involve essentially
two charges. The first alleges that Respondent Kugler
threatened to close its Akron terminal if the Charging
Party were successful in pursuing his grievance for rein-
statement. The second charge alleges that Respondent
laid off Robert Horvath and six other drivers in retali-
ation for his success in winning reinstatement through
the grievance procedure.
The finding as to whether Joseph Morris, Respond-
ent's vice president, threatened to close the Akron termi-
nal in the event Horvath prevailed in the grievance pro-
cedure depends on resolving the conflict in the testimony
of Morris and Horvath. In this instance the testimony of
the Charging Party is more persuasive. As already noted
the alleged threat to close the the Akron terminal took
place during a recess of the Joint Committee hearing on
Horvath's grievance in Dover, Ohio. In this connection,
it is significant that Henry Schaeffer, a mechanic and
union steward in Kugler's Akron terminal, heard Re-
spondent's operations manager, Charles McMath, utter
almost the identical threat in the 2-week period before
that hearing. Schaeffer testified that McMath told him
"we might all be looking for a job, and if Bob [Horvath]
won his case George [Kugler] was going to close the ter-
minal down." Schaeffer's testimony is undisputed.
McMath, who testified after Schaeffer, did not contradict
the latter's testimony on this point. The failure to contra-
dict this testimony by the witness in the best position to
do so compels the inference that it is true. It is also per-
suasive that Schaeffer, as an employee of Respondent not
involved in the dispute, had nothing to gain by giving
this testimony. His appearance in the proceeding would
be unlikely to benefit him in his relationship with his em-
ployer.
The finding compelled by Schaeffer's testimony that a
similar threat to close the terminal had been made by Re-
spondent's then operations manager before the hearing
gives significant corroboration to Horvath's testimony
concerning the threat by Joseph Morris made during the
recess of the Joint Committee hearing. Under the cir-
cumstances, Horvath's testimony is more persuasive.
The evidence relied upon by Respondent to impeach
the credibility of Horvath has been considered. There is
evidence that he failed to list a prior accident on a job
application. He made a seemingly inconsistent statement
prior to the hearing in this case concerning Morris'
threat to close the terminal in an interview with Kugler's
representative taped without his knowledge. His explana-
tion of the apparent inconsistency on the ground that he
had not correctly understood the question is accepted. 5
The testimony by certain fellow drivers concerning his
reputation for truth and veracity has also been consid-
ered. On a review of the record on this point, it is evi-
dent that the testimony in question is based less on the
particular witness' knowledge of Horvath's reputation
for truth than on the basis of the witness' personal reac-
tion to Horvath. In any event, even if the impeaching
evidence were accepted at face value, it would not
compel a finding that Horvath's testimony in this hearing
is untrue. The circumstances surrounding the layoff al-
ready set forth amply corroborate Horvath's testimony
and outweigh the impeaching evidence on which Re-
spondent relies.
The record accordingly supports the finding that Re-
spondent through its corporate official, Joseph Morris,
threatened the Charging Party with discriminatory
action to deter him in the exercise of his rights protected
by the National Labor Relations Act. A threat of reprisal
against employees who use grievance procedures is con-
duct which has the tendency to interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights. Such action constitutes a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Division of Litton
Systems, Inc., 242 NLRB 417 (1979); D & B Commercial
Body Sales Inc., 223 NLRB 1048 (1976).
The question of whether the layoff of Horvath and six
employees junior to him was illegal presents a more diffi-
cult issue in light of the Board's recent decision in Wright
Line, a Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083
(1980). Kugler argues that the layoff was made because
of economic necessity, namely, the need to cut the pay-
roll and lessen overhead in the face of business losses.
The Employer argues further that the adverse action
would have been taken irrespective of Respondent's atti-
tude to the protected activity. Kugler, which relies on
Wright Line, urges accordingly that the challenged
action may not be found discriminatory under the Act.
The General Counsel contends that the circumstances
surrounding the layoff compel the inference that it was
precipitated by Horvath's successful reinstatement
through the grievance procedure and that valid business
considerations played no role in that decision. The Gen-
eral Counsel urges further that Respondent failed to
meet its burden of demonstrating that the layoffs would
have occurred even absent the protected conduct.
The question to be resolved in 8(a)(3) cases is "wheth-
er an employee's employment conditions were adversely
affected by his or her engaging in union or other protect-
ed activities and, if so, whether the employer's action
was motivated by such employee activities." Wright Line,
supra. In short, the question is one of "causality" namely,
the relationship between protected activities of employ-
5 Horvath explained that he denied hearing the threat concerning plant
closure during the taped interview because he understood the question to
relate to a threat concerning the NLRB proceeding rather than the griev-
ance hearing.
124
GEORGE W. KUGLER, INC.
ees and those employer actions which have an adverse
effect on their employment.
The Board in Wright Line recently restated the rule
for determining causality in so-called dual-motive cases
where the record indicates that both legitimate business
reasons and the desire to retaliate for protected activities
may have motivated the actions charged unlawful.
The test to be applied in 8(a)(3) cases turning on em-
ployer motivation is as follows. First, the General Coun-
sel has the burden of making a prima facie showing that
the protected activity was a motivating factor in the em-
ployer's decision. The burden then shifts to the employer
to demonstrate that the same action would have taken
place even in the absence of the protected conduct.
The General Counsel has met the burden of demon-
strating that the protected activity was a motivating
factor in the layoffs. The evidence of threats to close the
terminal if Horvath were reinstated and the animus dis-
played toward Horvath for engaging in protected activi-
ties, coupled with the fact that the layoff followed imme-
diately on his reinstatement, make the requisite showing.
The record shows that Respondent's operations were
losing money at the time of the layoffs in question, and
that business for the trucking industry as a whole was
down in the relevant period. The record also shows that
Kugler's management had discussed the need for layoffs
in the light of its lost business prior to February 5. Re-
spondent's rebuttal must, however, be considered in light
of the events surrounding the challenged layoff. The
timing of the events under consideration precludes the
finding that Kugler has established its burden under
Wright Line of demonstrating that the layoff of February
5 would have taken place irrespective of the Charging
Party's exercise of protected conduct.
The record, as already noted, shows that the layoff in
question was preceded by two threats on the part of
Kugler's officials to close the Akron terminal if Horvath
were reinstated. The first is the threat by Charles
McMath in the 2-week period preceding the grievance
hearing, the second by Joseph Morris in a recess of that
hearing. The record further shows that Joseph Morris
decided to put the layoff in effect immediately after the
grievance hearing upon his return to the Akron terminal.
Morris admitted that it was Horvath's reinstatement
which precipitated that decision since it "aggravated my
seniority list. It gave me more drivers than I needed." In
addition, the record shows that the layoff included all
those drivers junior to Horvath so that the Charging
Party could be reached on the seniority list. The evi-
dence moreover shows that Respondent's management
had previously expressed hostility against the Charging
Party for his exercise of protected activities. The forego-
ing circumstances compel the inference that Horvath's
successful exercise of the grievance procedure was caus-
ally related to the February 5 layoff. His reinstatement in
short "was enough to determine events" and the layoff,
therefore, "is enough to come within the proscription of
the Act" Wright Line, 251 NLRB at 1089, fn. 14.
The testimony by Kugler officials that the February 5
layoff would have taken place even absent the grievance
procedure is unconvincing for a number of other reasons.
According to their testimony, the need for layoffs had
been the subject of management discussions for some
time prior to February 5. Joseph Morris, however, ad-
mitted that Respondent's profit picture in mid-December
1979 and at the beginning of the following February was
essentially similar. The failure to initiate layoffs in the
slack period prior to February 5 is significant. Under the
circumstances, it is improbable that the layoff on Febru-
ary 5 precipitously following the grievance hearing was
motivated by the economics of the business. This factor
also compels the inference that the layoff was aimed at
the Charging Party. See Banks Engineering Company,
Inc., 231 NLRB 1281 (1977).
Finally, the attempt by Respondent's officials to estab-
lish that the layoff of Horvath and six junior drivers was
designed to establish specific cost savings is unpersua-
sive. Joseph Morris stated that to cut expenses it was
necessary to cut drivers and eliminate union benefits.
These benefits, according to Morris were approximately
$50 per driver per week. Morris at one point stated that
Mr. Kugler wanted to cut such expenses $2,000 a month
which would require a cut of 10 drivers. George Kugler
testified that on January 24 or 25, 1980, "Mr. Morris said
we discussed numerous times about $2,000, but I said I
wanted $5,000 not $2,000. $2,000 was just for the
fringes." Charles McMath also testified concerning
Kugler's discussions concerning layoffs before February
5. According to McMath, George Kugler stated ex-
penses had to be cut $3,000 to $5,000 through layoffs.
The confusion in the testimony as to the cost savings to
be obtained through layoffs supports the inference that
the layoff of February 5 was not economically motivat-
ed. It should be noted, moreover, that the mathematics
of the layoff are not in accord even with Mr. Kugler's
minimum objective of eliminating $2,000 in fringe bene-
fits. The layoff of the seven drivers, two of whom had
not been active drivers but had just been reinstated,
would save at best approximately $1,400 a month. Under
the circumstances, the probable explanation is that the
layoff of Horvath and every driver junior to him was
aimed at the Charging Party for successfully exercising
his rights under the grievance procedures.
Another circumstance, detracting from Respondent's
contention that the layoff on February 5 would have oc-
curred in any event is the treatment afforded Charles
Day, a driver junior to Horvath, also laid off on that
date. Day was afforded the opportunity to resign from
the Akron terminal and to obtain a job at Respondent's
Pottstown terminal on February 15, 1980. Significantly,
the February 1980 business volume of the Pottstown ter-
minal was lower than in any other month in the period
from January 1979 through January 1980. This circum-
stance also compels the inference that the intent behind
the layoff was discriminatory.
Section 7 of the Act protects the right of employees to
file and process grievances. Caterpillar Tractor Company,
242 NLRB 523 (1979). In this case, the record as a
whole shows that the layoff of Horvath in retaliation for
his exercise of the grievance procedure was discriminato-
ry within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act. The discharge of the six drivers junior to Horvath,
so he could be reached on the seniority list clearly relat-
125
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ed to that discrimination and therefore also within the
proscription of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i. 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 Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent on February 5, 1980, violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening the Charging Party,
Robert Horvath, with closure of its Akron, Ohio, termi-
nal, if he won reinstatement through a grievance pro-
ceeding.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by laying off seven employees on February 5, 1980,
in retaliation for Robert Horvath's reinstatement through
a grievance procedure.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and
(3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent laid off the em-
ployees named in the order on February 5, 1980, in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, the recom-
mended Order will provide that Respondent offer them
reinstatement to their jobs and make them whole for loss
of earnings or other benefits within the meaning and in
accord with the Board's decisions in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), except as specifically
modified by the wording of such recommended Order.
Upon the 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 6
The Respondent, George W. Kugler, Inc., Akron,
Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening plant closures or threatening to take
any other discriminatory action to discourage employee
exercise of grievance procedures or other rights protect-
ed under the National Labor Relations Act.
(b) Laying off or otherwise discriminating against any
employee in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any other condition of employment because of griev-
ances he files or has filed or grievances any other em-
ployee has filed.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act.
6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer employees Robert Horvath, Richard Walker,
Bobby Williams, Charles Day, Melvin Flory, Jerrie
Pepper, and Delbert Barrett immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions without preju-
dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by them as
a result of the discrimination practiced against them, in
the manner described above in the "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.
(c) Post at its Akron, Ohio; Pottstown, Pennsylvania;
and North Carolina facilities copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8,
after being duly signed by Respondent's representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
7 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
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
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to
present evidence and state their positions, the National
Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has or-
dered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten plant closures or threaten
to take other discriminatory actions against you be-
cause of grievances you file or have filed or griev-
ances any other employees files or has filed.
WE WIIL NOT lay you off or otherwise take dis-
criminatory action against you in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any other condition of em-
ployment because of grievances you file or any
other employee files or has filed.
WE WIL. NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
126
GEORGE W. KUGLER. INC.
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer Robert Horvath, Richard Walker,
Bobby Williams, Charles Day, Melvin Flory, Jerrie
Pepper, and Delbert Barrett immediate and full re-
instatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exists, to substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of
pay suffered by them as a result of the discrimina-
tion practiced against them with interest.
GEORGE W. KUGLER, INC.
127