Gray-Grimes Tool Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 736 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Gray-Grimes Tool Company, Inc. and Local 155,
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, (UAW). Case 7-CA-11657
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
November 24, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
On August 1, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Melvin J. Welles issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief and the General Counsel
filed cross-exceptions, a supporting brief, and an
answering 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
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions 1 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
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, .Gray-Grimes
Tool Company, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in said recommended Order.
I For the reasons set forth in fn 3 of Summit Tooling Company, et al., 195
NLRB 4797 480 ( 1972), Member Fanning dissents from the failure of his
colleagues to find that Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(5) of the Act by
refusing to bargain with the Union over its decision partially to close down
its operation.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELVIN J. WELLES, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard at Detroit, Michigan, on May 6 and 7, 1975,
based on charges filed December 18, 1974, and a complaint
issued February 11, 1974, alleging that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. The
General Counsel and Respondent have filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case,' including my
observation of the witnesses, and upon consideration of the
briefs, I make the following:
221 NLRB No. 132
Respondent, a Michigan corporation with its office and
place of business in Detroit, Michigan, has been engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of tools and related
products for the automobile and associated , industries.
During the year ending May 31, 1974, it shipped products
directly to points located outside the State of Michigan
valued in excess of $50,000, and during the same period it
distributed products valued in excess of $50,000 to Ford
Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, and
Chrysler Corporation. I find, as Respondent admits, that it
is an, employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Charging Party, herein
called the Union, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
A threshold issue in this case is whether Respondent,
Gray-Grimes Tool Company, Inc., together with Last
Word Sales Co., herein called Last Word, constituted a
single enterprise. The unfair labor practices alleged are that
Respondent (1) discriminatonly closed its Gray-Grimes
plant, (2) refused to bargain with the Union, admittedly the
employees' Statutory representative at all pertinent times,
by closing Gray-Grimes without notice to, or bargaining
with, the Union, (3) unilaterally discontinued certain
employee benefits, and (4) restrained and coerced its
employees in various ways because of their union represen-
tation.
B. The Facts and Discussion
1. Relationship between Gray-Grimes and Last
Word
Gray-Grimes is located at 18500 Mt. Elliot in Detroit,
with Last Word at 18520 Mt. Elliot; an alley runs between
the two buildings. Elway Gray is president of Gray-Grimes
and the sole stockholder therein, Gray is also the sole
proprietor of Last Word. Gray-Grimes is engaged in two
kinds of work, "detail work," which it performs for
automotive customers, principally Ford, General Motors,
and Chrysler, and product work, for which Last Word
receives the orders, but Gray-Grimes produces the prod-
uct. When Gray-Grimes finishes work on the products,
they are taken to Last Word for distribution, packaging,
and shipping. The detail work performed at Gray-Grimes
is also taken to Last Word, where it is repacked and
shipped. Between 75 and 80 percent of Gray-Grimes'
business has been detail work. The dollar volume of
business between Gray-Grimes and Last Word, consisting
of the products manufactured at the former and sold and
distributed by the latter, has ranged in recent years from
about $12,000 to about $30,000 monthly-
1 In view of Respondent's opposition, I deny the General Counsel's
motion to correct the transcript
GRAY-GRIMES TOOL COMPANY
The Gray-Grimes employees number about 17; there are
approximately 6 employees at Last Word.2 Although for
some time prior to 1974, Gray had been withdrawing from
the active day-to-day supervision of Gray-Grimes, with
George Chalmers acting as shop supervisor there, the
record is clear that Gray remained in overall charge of
Gray-Grimes. It was Gray who engaged in bargaining with
the Union; it was Gray who took all personnel actions;
and it was Gray alone who determined to close Gray-
Grimes (of which more later).
On these facts, I am satisfied that Gray-Grimes and Last
Word did, at all material times , constitute a single
employer. Essentially, as noted above, Gray-Grimes
performs product and detail work, but does not distribute
or package its work. Last Word performs these functions
for Gray-Grimes, and also acts as Gray-Grimes' sales
representative for its product line. The product and detail
work are carried across an alley from Gray-Grimes to Last
Word, sometimes by Gray-Grimes and sometimes by Last
Word employees. And, significantly, Elway Gray is the
sole determinant of labor relations policy for both Gray-
Grimes and Last Word , as well as being the sole owner of
Last Word and the only stockholder of Gray-Grimes. On
all these facts , including their contiguous location, it is
clear that the two companies are, for practical purposes, a
single enterprise . Respondent relies, in arguing that no
joint employer relationship exists here, on the Board's
decision in Milo Express, Inc., 212 NLRB 313 (1974). The
facts of , that case, and of Poole's Warehousing, Inc., 158
NLRB 1281 ( 1966), upon which Milo relies, are substan-
tially different from those in the instant case . In both 'the
cited cases , the only significant evidence to support a,joint
employer or single enterprise conclusion was their common
ownership. Here, however, we have in addition the exercise
of ' control over labor relations by the "common owner,"
Gray, the integration of operations described above; and
the fact that the two companies are adjacent to each other.
I therefore regard those cases as inapposite here.
2. The preclosing events
The Union filed a petition for an election on June 18,
1974, and on July 18, 1974, won the Board-conducted
election . The Board certified the Union on July 26, 1974.
Before the election was held, Gray asked a group of
employees, "When do you want me to close the place,
today or Saturday?" and "when do you want me to turn
the key in the door, today or tomorrow." The employees
were discussing the Union at the time. Gray also told the
employees , as he himself testified that he "had too much
experience with the Union and I think you will be really
making a big mistake if you do it because, if I do have a
union, it will not be for very long because there is no way
in God's green acres lam ever going to come back and run
this company at sixty-two, almost sixty-three years old."
Gray also testified that the employees "told the truth about
me saying I was not going to have a union." And he
admitted posting a sign outside his office door right after
the election results were in saying "Thanks a lot fellows,
the beginning of the end. July 18, 1974."
737
About August 15, the Company and the Union began
negotiations , meeting some six to eight times. The "biggest
stumbling block" to reaching agreement was apparently
Gray's refusal to agree to a union shop. On a number of
occasions , he said he "would close the doors before he
would have a union shop ," and "if we voted for a union
shop he would close the plant." James Reeder , who was on
the Union's bargaining committee , testified that Gray's
opposition to a union shop was because "he did not want it
where you had to go to the union hall to hire or bring an
employee over ." Gray did, however , eventually agree to a
union , shop, apparently about October 30, and on Novem-
ber 13, he initialed a memorandum of agreement.
On November 27, in the morning, George Chalmers
called a meeting of Gray-Grimes employees . He asked
them whether, if an election were to be held in 1975, they
would vote for the Union or against it. Chalmers also
mentioned that business was good , that , the company had
come from $ 180,000 in debt to something like $30,000 or
$40,000, that orders were coming in and "things were like
rosy." At the end of the work shift that same day, Gray
called the Gray-Grimes employees over to Last Word,
saying "I will buy you a Thanksgiving drink." At Last
Word, Gray had the "beginning of the end" sign that he
had displayed on the day of the election . He told the
employees "As of today, the shop is closed ," and "This is
it, there is no more Gray-Grimes ." Gray also said "I
understand you fellows are not going to vote the Union out
in June so, I'm gonna close right now." He gave the
employees their paychecks , including their pay right up
through November 27. When he gave employee Gerald
Brown his check, the last one to receive it, he "thanked"
Brown for bringing the Union in and for putting all his
men out of work . Gray also stated at one point during this
November 27 meeting that "since George was leaving and
since we voted the, Union in, he didn 't want to run the shop
by himself." Gray did not pay the employees "vacation
pay" for the Thanksgiving period , although he had
previously announced a 4-day holiday for them for that
period.
Gray did not deny any of the foregoing statements
attributed to him by the various employee witnesses, and
Chalmers was not called to testify by Respondent. The
threats' to close the plant if the Union got in, the similar
threats with respect to Gray's opposition to a union shop,
and telling Brown that he was responsible for the plant
closing because he had in effect brought the Union into the
plant, are all clear' violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
as is Shop Supervisor Chalmers' questioning the employees
whether they would vote the Union out if an election were
held in 1975. Contrary to Respondent's contention in its
brief, I do not find the testimony of the employees to have
been "riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions." On
the contrary , I 'found their testimony credible, and,
particularly in the absence of any denials by Respondent,
to have established the facts as reported above. I do not
regard the fact that the Union won the election' as
militating against a finding of a violation of Section 8(a)(1)
prior thereto , nor do I regard the fact that Gray seemed to
have misunderstood the Union 's union shop request as a
2 These figures relate to the period prior to November 27, 1974
738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"closed shop" request as negating the threat to close before
agreeing to the Union's demand. Finally, I reject Respon-
dent's argument that the context in which Gray's various
remarks were made kept them from "attaining the level of
threats [or] coercion."
-3. The postclosing events
Following the November 27 closing of Gray-Grimes,
Gray arranged to have the product work produced by
Twin Bay Industries, near Traverse City, Michigan, selling
some of its equipment to Twin Bay. Last Word continues
to sell the products, now produced by Twin Bay rather
than by Gray-Grimes. With respect to the detail work,
Gray took no new orders from any of his customers, but
arranged that orders already on hand be completed by
other companies, at least 15 in number. According to Gray,
pursuant to a verbal agreement between Twin -Bay and
Last Word, Twin Bay produces the various items formerly
produced by Gray-Grimes, and bills these items for
distribution to Last Word to fill customer orders. Gray
indicated that although a few customers that buy these
items know that Twin Bay now produces them, it is not
necessary that they know, for "80 percent of the bidders I
have around United States figured Last Word made them
all, they did not know that."
4. Discussion - The plant closing
a. The contentions
Based on the foregoing largely uncontroverted facts, the
General,Counsel alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) by closing the plant, and thereafter subcontracting
its work to other companies, without notice to the Union,
and that by the same closing and subcontracting, Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by virtue of the
fact that the closing was motivated by the employees
having selected the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative.
Respondent, in addition to contending that Gray-Grimes
and Last Word are separate and distinct from one another,
and do- not constitute a joint employer or integrated
enterprise, contends that the closing of Gray-Grimes was
not discriminatorily motivated, but was rather caused by
the desire of Elway Gray "to free himself from the burdens
of managing a business which demanded more time than
he was willing to give and devote the resulting free time to
his long awaited retirement," a decision brought'to a head
by certain other events, which will be set forth below.
Respondent also contends that it was not obligated to
bargain with the Union over the decision to close Gray-
Grimes, and that it did bargain with the Union over the
effects on the employees of the Gray-Grimes' closing, with
the Union, having received notification of Respondent's
intent, not having requested further bargaining on this
matter.
b. The 8(a)(3) allegation
It is plain, on the facts found above, that Elway Gray
resented the Union. He had resisted it prior to the election,'
telling employees that he would close the plant if the
Union came in, and posting the sign reading "Thanks a lot
fellows, the beginning of the end. July 18, 1974," when the
Union's election victory became known. He continued,
after the election, to mention plant closing, in the context
of resisting the Union's demand for a union shop. Finally,
on the day of the closing, November 27, Chalmers asked
the assembled Gray-Grimes' employees whether they
would vote the Union out if an election were held in 1975,
and the employees' response to Chalmers that they would
not was referred to by, Gray when he announced the plant
closing at the end of that day. Gray also displayed the
"beginning of the end" sign at the meeting announcing the
closing; he sarcastically thanked one of the employees for
bringing the Union in and putting the men out of work. He
also stated that "since George was leaving and since we
voted the Union in, he didn't want to run the shop by
himself."
Undoubtedly, there were "economic" factors involved in
Gray's decision. Some months before, one of his supervi-
sors, Jaster, had been discharged, apparently for profiting
from his position without informing Gray. And shortly
before, Shop Supervisor Chalmers decided to leave the
Company. Finally, Gray had long since formulated 'semi-
retirement plans, involving withdrawing from active
management of the business. It is crystal clear, however,
that the retirement plans, and all the other factors, would
not have been enough to impel Gray to close the plant on
November 27 but for the fact that the Union was, "in," and
that the employees had indicated to Chalmers that they
would not vote the Union "out." In short, Gray's statement
to the employees shows that he was willing to "run the shop
by myself," if he did not also have to cope with a union
that was not about to be ousted by the employees as their
bargaining representative. Because this plant closing
involved only a part of a single integrated enterprise, albeit
that one "part" was a corporation and the other a sole
proprietorship, the "closing" of Gray-Grimes' therefore
constituted a violation by Gray-Grimes of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
c. The 8(a)(5) allegation
The facts of this case show, contrary to Respondent's
contention, that it did not notify the Union in any
meaningful manner of its intent to close the plant.
Respondent asserts as support for its contention that it did
notify the Union of various statements made by Gray to
the effect that the plant would close if the Union came in,
or that the plant would be closed before he would grant a
union shop to the Union. This kind of statement, entailing
in itself violations of Section 8(a)(1), is hardly notification
of a decision to close, let alone of a decision to close at any
GRAY-GRIMES TOOL COMPANY 739
particular time. Nor was a casual remark by Gray to UAW
agent McDevitt3 to the effect that he had been planning
for some time to "move up north," with McDevitt replying
to Gray's "What would you do?" with "Mr. Gray, I would
move up north," and Gray then saying, "Mr. McDevitt,
that's what I am going to do," even close to an appropriate
notification to the Union. That Gray planned ultimately to
"retire," which was apparently well known to all, again is
not a basis for finding that the Union "knew," or should
have known, of any decision to close. Indeed, Gray tried
up to the last day to find a purchaser - so it is obvious
that a "closing" decision was not made, and could not have
been told to the Union, prior thereto.
However, the Board has in recent years, as I read the
cases, receded from its earlier position that bargaining
about the decision to close a plant, or a functional portion
of a plant or business, is required in all circumstances. The
case most closely resembling the instant case is Summit
Tooling Co., 195 NLRB 479 (1972). There, as here, the
company that shut down its operations, Summit, was
found to be a "single employer" together with the company
that remained open, Ace Tool Engineering Co. There, as I
have found here, the Board found that the closing of
Summit was a "partial plant closing," and that the closing
was discriminatorily motivated, and a violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. However, the Board, reversing
the Administrative Law Judge, concluded (id. at 480),
that the Company did not violate Section 8(a)(5) by,closing
without giving the Union an opportunity to bargain about
the decision to close. The Board stated, "Such decision
involved a major change in the nature of the Respondent's
business, and, although the closing of the Summit
operation could be characterized as a partial plant closing,
its practical effect was to take the Respondent out of the
business of manufacturing tool and tooling, products. The
part of the business that remained, Ace Tool Engineering
Co., Inc., is not engaged in tool-and-die making, manufac-
tures nothing, and has little relationship to the work which
was performed by Summit nor does it utilize the skills of
the employees employed by Summit. In these circum-
stances, to require Respondent to bargain about its
decision to close out ,its manufacturing, operation would
significantly abridge Respondent's freedom to manage its
own affairs. We do not believe.-that the Act contemplated
eliminating the prerogative of an employer as here, to
eliminate itself as an employer." In my opinion, one could
substitute -"Gray-Grimes"- for "Respondent" or "Summit,"
and "Last Word" for "Ace," in the above-quoted portion
of the Summit decision with virtually complete accuracy.
The General Counsel, in its beef, seeks to distinguish
Summit on the ground that following the closing, Gray-
Grimes subcontracted the detail work that was already on
order, and subcontracted the product line work to Twin
Bay. I do not regard the admitted subcontracting of the
detail work as in the Fibreboard category (Fibreboard Paper
Products v. N.L.R.B., 379 U.S. 203). It was rather an aspect
to closing down Gray-Grimes altogether. As the entire
3 I assume for purposes of this contention that Gray correctly identified
McDevitt as'a UAW agent, although his testimony was only "I believe he
was their agent and an organizer "
4 The instant case, indeed, may be a fornon to Summit in this respect, as
closing was discriminatorily motivated, the subcontracting
of this work which remained to be done will be taken into
account in fashioning an appropriate remedy. Nor do I
regard the continued manufacturing of the product line
formerly done by Gray-Grimes by a wholly separate
unrelated company, Twin Bay, which purchased some of
Respondent's equipment, as a "subcontracting" requiring
bargaining with the Union. Even though Last Word still
sells the products now manufactured by Twin Bay, the
evidence shows that Last Word also sells products
manufactured by many other corporations. And the
product line at Gray-Grimes amounted only to some 15
percent to 20 percent of Gray-Grimes business; the detail
work represented the bulk of its, work. For all these
reasons, I regard Summit as controlling here and find that
the cases cited by the General Counsel are distinguish-
able.'
As in Summit, of course, the failure of Respondent here
to discuss, the effects of the shutdown on the terminated
employees violated its bargaining obligations under the
Act. As already concluded above, I do not regard any of
Gray's statements from prior to the election to the eve of
the closing as constituting adequate notice to the Union of
an intent to close. By the failure to give the Union an
opportunity to bargaining about the effect of the closing,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
A final question raised by the complaint concerns
Respondent's failure to pay the employees holiday pay for
November 28, 1974, which was Thanksgiving day, and is
alleged to have been violative of both Section 8(a)(3) and
(5) of the Act., In view of the closing of Gray-Grimes the
preceding day, I find no violation with respect to this
failure to pay, either on the basis of its "unilateral" ' nature,
or on the basis of it having been discriminatorily
motivated. Of course, the remedy for the violations found
here, including, as shown below, backpay, will cover any
holiday pay that the' employees normally would have
earned, the computation itself being, naturally, a matter for
compliance.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Gray-Grimes and Last Word Sales Co.,
constitute a single employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By closing the Gray-Grimes plant for discriminatory
reasons, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing to bargain with the Union
concerning the effects on the employees of the closing of
Gray-Grimes, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
4. By threatening to close its plant if the Union got in,
by threatening to close its plant rather than accede to the
Union's demand for a union shop provision, and by
accusing an employee of being responsible for the plant's
closing by bringing in the Union, Respondent has engaged
here there are at least some considerations other than Gray's resentment of
the Union in the picture, whereas there,' the Board found "little or no
objective record evidence" to support the company's contention that the
closing was economic rather than discriminatory
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent has not violated the Act in any other
respect.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom, and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Because the violations of Section 8(a)(3) with respect to
the plant closing and Section 8(a)(5) with respect to the
failure to bargain about the effects of the closing are
substantially similar in nature to those found by the Board
in Summit Tooling Co., supra, I shall follow the Board's
example in Summit Tooling Co., and shall not recommend
that Respondent be required to reestablish its Gray-Grimes
manufacturing operations. 'However, `as in Summit, it is
essential to require that Respondent bargain, upon request,
about the effects of the closing on the Gray-Grimes
employees, and that, to ensure that such bargaining be
meaningful , to recreate as nearly as possible the economic
situation that would have prevailed if Respondent had not
refused to perform its bargaining obligations and had not
discriminatorily closed the plant, short of reestablishing-the
plant. Accordingly, I shall recommend that Respondent
pay the Gray-Grimes employees backpay, at the rate ' of
their normal wages when last in Respondent's employ,
from the November 27, 1974, date of Gray-Grimes' plant
closing until the occurrence of the earliest of the following
conditions: (1) the date the Respondent bargains to
agreement with the Union on those subjects pertaining to
the effects of the plant closing on its employees; (2) a bona
fide impasse in bargaining; (3) the failure of the Union to
request bargaining within 5 days of this Decision, or to
commence negotiations within 5 days of Respondent's
notice of its desire to bargain with the Union; or (4) the
subsequent failure of the Union to bargain in good faith.
Of course, if Respondent decides to resume its Gray-
Grimes operation and offers to reinstate the above
employees to their same or substantially equivalent
positions, its liability will cease, as of that date. Backpay
will be based on the earnings including fringe benefits
which the employees would normally have received during
the applicable period less any net interim earnings and
shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest thereon, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962).
Additionally, as in Summit, it is necessary in view of the
fact that Gray-Grimes is closed, that Respondent mail to
each of the employees as well as-post at its Last Word and
5 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waned for all purposes
Gray-Grimes (if the latter is still open) business locations,
copies of the notice to be provided.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDERS
Respondent, Gray-Grimes Tool Company, Inc., Detroit,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening its employees with plant closing if they
should select a union to represent them.
(b) Threatening its employees with plant, closing if their
-bargaining representative continued to demand a union
shop provision
(c) Accusing its employees of bringing in the Union, and
thereby being responsible for the closing of, the plant.
(d) Discouraging membership in Local 155, UAW, or in
any other, labor organization by closing its plant or in any
other manner discriminating against employees in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
(e) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with
Local 155, UAW, concerning the effects of the discontin-
uance of the Gray-Grimes operations on such employees.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights as
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
that such right is affected by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union
concerning the effects of the discontinuance of its Gray-
Grimes operation on the employees thereof.
(b) Make whole the Gray-Grimes employees terminated
as a result of closing that plant in the manner set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(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, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.,
(d) Mail a copy of the attached notice marked
"Appendix"6 to each employee who was employed by
Respondent- at its Gray-Grimes operation immediately
prior to the discontinuance thereof on November 27, 1974.
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for, Region 7, shall be signed by Respondent's
duly authorized representative. Thereafter, a copy shall be
mailed by Respondent to each of the aforesaid employees,
and additional copies shall be posted by it and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
6 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
GRAY-GRIMES TOOL COMPANY
ous places at its remaining place or places of business,
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 covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it
hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations not
found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Local 155, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, (UAW) about the-effects of our decision to
741
close down Gray-Grimes Tool Company, Inc., on the
employees who were affected by such termination.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the above-
named labor organization, or in any other labor
organization, by closing our plant or in any other
manner discriminating against our employees in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with plant
closing, or any reprisals, for selecting a union as their
bargaining representative or for demands made by a
union for a union shop.
WE WILL make our employees whole for any loss of
earnings they suffered by reason of our termination of
their employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to join or assist any union, or otherwise to engage
in union activities.
GRAY-GRIMES TOOL
COMPANY, INC.