Hancor, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 208 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hancor, Inc. and Milton D. Ward. Case 8-CA-
17842
23 January 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DENNIS, JOHANSEN, AND
BABSON
On 30 August 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Claude R. Wolfe issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed a brief in opposition
to the Respondent's exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Hancor,
Inc., Findlay, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.
' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wdll Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
Steven D. Wilson, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Donald F. Woodcock and William L. S. Ross, Esqs., of
Cleveland, Ohio, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLAUDE R. WOLFE, Administrative Law Judge. This
proceeding was litigated before me at Findlay, Ohio, on
7 and 8 May 1985 pursuant to charges timely filed and
served and complaint issued on 29 November 1984. The
complaint alleges that Milton Ward and Merle Shank
were discharged because they engaged in protected con-
certed activities, and in order to discourage employees
from engaging in protected concerted activities. Hancor,
Inc. (Respondent) contends that Ward and Shank were
discharged for lawful reasons.
Upon the entire record' and my observations of the
witnesses' demeanor as they testified before me, and after
considering the able posttrial briefs submitted by counsel
for the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a manufacturer of plastic drain tubing
with an office and place of business at Findlay, Ohio.
Respondent annually sells and ships products, goods, and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its
Findlay, Ohio facility to points outside the State of Ohio,
and is, and has been at all times material to this case, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Hancor has 14, facilities, including the one at Findlay,
Ohio, in the United States. Its corporate offices are locat-
ed at Findlay, Ohio. In 1983 it underwent a change in
management with Fred Kremer becoming its president,
Frits van der Klooster its vice president in charge of
manufacturing, and Wayne Gulley the vice president of
sales and marketing. Commencing in early 1984,2 at
Kremer's direction, Respondent implemented a participa-
tive management (quality circle) program at its facilities
which involved, inter alia, securing volunteers from
among its employees to meet with management and
work cooperatively to solve existing problems or any
that might arise affecting Respondent's operations and
the employees.
Respondent had 11 full-time drivers when it com-
menced its quality circle program. Of these, five owned
their own tractors, leased them to the Company, and
drove them as employees. Ward and Shank were two of
the five. The remaining drivers drove trucks leased from
other sources. Respondent solicited the participation of
the drivers in its quality circle program by memorandum
of 30 March directed to all Findlay drivers and reading,
in pertinent part, as follows:
In order to address the issues that are presently
unresolved, we would like to invite our volunteers
from the drivers to become part of a problem solv-
ing team.
If you are interested in collectively resolving the
issues to be identified and willing to volunteer your
time and efforts, please sign up on the list posted in
the drivers' room or call Larry Dunson [plant man-
ager].
The intent is that we work together, list, priori-
tise and search for a solution to the problems and
concerns we together have.
Six drivers volunteered. Jerry Voss, Dave Lauck, Merle
Shank, and Milton Ward became regular participants in
the quality circle meetings. Jerry Fletcher and Wilmer
Reese were alternates. Fletcher credibly testified that he
had talked to other drivers about having someone to rep-
' Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected 2 All dates hereafter are 1984 unless otherwise indicated
278 NLRB No. 30
HANCOR, INC.
resent them at these meetings, that they picked Shank
and Ward, and that he asked Shank and Ward to so
serve. According to Shank's uncontroverted testimony,
driver John Starr asked him and Ward to be a member
of the drivers' group at the meetings. Ward credibly tes-
tified that he and Shank were asked by drivers to attend.
There were three quality circle meetings attended by
Ward and Shank: 10 April, 9 May, and 23 July. The 10
April meeting was primarily devoted to identifying issues
to be discussed at future meetings. The issues so identi-
fied were zone pay, loading sequence, height, per diem,
splits, returns, mileage splits, down time, yard use of
over-the-road tractors, trailer maintenance, customer
complaints, paperwork, legal operation, casual drivers,
dispatching procedure, and drivers manual. All these
issues, with the possible exception of customer com-
plaints, were clearly related to the wages, hours, or
working conditions of the drivers. The four drivers at-
tended the next meeting on 9 May. West Virginia zone
pay was the main topic of discussion. Ward said little,
but Shank and Lauck were in strong disagreement with
each other over a proposed change in that zone pay.
Shank ultimately agreed with the proposal, which he
alone had adamantly opposed at the meeting, after dis-
cussing it with other drivers outside the meeting. Inas-
much as one of those who so persuaded him was Ward, I
conclude Ward did not oppose the change. The third
quality circle meeting on 23 July was mainly concerned
with a discussion of dispatch procedures. Voss strongly
disagreed with the position taken by Shank and Ward
because he felt it favored owner drivers over the other
drivers. It does not appear that either Shank or Ward
was any more heated in their remarks than was Voss.
Shank and Ward had been involved in driver meetings
with management regarding matters of importance to
drivers prior to the quality circle meetings . At an all-
driver meeting with Kremer, van der Klooster, and Plant
Manager Larry Dunson in November 1983, Kremer pro-
posed that Findlay drivers agree to a pay concession in-
volving the takeover of pipe hauling to Minnesota. Here,
as in other instances, there was disagreement between
the regular drivers and owner drivers. Voss, Lauck, and
Paugh favored the proposal. Ward, Shank, Starr, and
Fletcher spoke against it. Shank argued that it would be
foolish for drivers to accept the proposal because it
would be a first step in reducing pay across the board.
At a followup meeting of the drivers with Galvin, who
was then the office manager and supervised the drivers,
and Dunson on 19 December 1983, Ward stated that al-
though he opposed taking the Minnesota haul he would
utilize his seniority to take the work if it in fact was
hauled by Findlay drivers. On 18 January van der Kloos-
ter, Personnel Director Hauzie, Dunson, and Galvin met
with the drivers and discussed per diem pay. Ward was
not present. Shank opposed Respondent's request for
motel receipts, and proposed that Respondent give the
drivers a flat rate per diem amount to be spent by the
drivers at their own discretion. Hauzie testified that the
general attitude of the drivers was that they wanted
more money, and management should just go away.
David Hartranft, the Company's director of materials
until February 1985, was the official responsible for ne-
209
gotiating the tractor leases with the owner-drivers. He
did not take part in the quality circle meetings but did
meet with owner drivers on matters of particular con-
cern to them. At one such meeting in July-there was a
discussion of driver costs. Ward disputed the Company's
figures. At another July meeting, Shank objected that the
amount of per diem proffered was not enough and "if we
had to, we may have to get outside help." Hartranft re-
plied that the Company could give no more because
there was no more to give.
In addition to their participation in quality circle and
all driver and owner-driver meetings, Shank and Ward
have for several years taken an active role in presenting
employee concerns to Respondent, primarily the office
manager who directly supervised the drivers. These situ-
ations arose from informal gatherings , usually by chance,
of employees wherein pay and other employment-related
complaints were aired. At the request of concerned driv-
ers, Shank and/or Ward, occasionally accompanied by
Lauck or Starr, would report the complaints aired by
particular employees or the drivers in general to the
office manager.
There is no evidence either Ward or Shank had ever
been warned or disciplined in any way for their state-
ments or conduct during any of their various group
meetings with management representatives or their pres-
entation of employee concerns to their supervisors.
On 18 July there was a management meeting attended
by Kremer, van der Klooster, Hauzie , Hartranft,
Dunson , and Brunswick . After some discussion it was
decided to do away with the owner-driver system at
Findlay for economic reasons. The affected drivers were
then discussed, and it was tentatively decided to termi-
nate Shank and Ward completely rather than retain them
as regular drivers. The same group met again on 25 July
and agreed to terminate the leases of all owner drivers
and the employment of Merle Shank and Milton Ward.
There is no contention the economically motivated
change in driver operations was an unfair labor practice,
and I find it was not. The argument advanced is that the
selection of Shank and Ward for termination, while con-
verting the other three owner drivers to regular drivers
operating equipment leased from other companies, was
retaliation for their protected concerted activities and an
effort to discourage similar activity among the remaining
drivers. The participants in the 18 and 25 July meeting
variously testified regarding their reasons for recom-
mending or concurring in the termination of Shank and
Ward. This testimony is set forth below in substance
where possible and substantially verbatim where such
recitation is helpful to an understanding of the evidence.
A. Frederick Kremer Jr.
All five of the people, had been with Hancor for
a period of time. It was- obvious from the informa-
tion we had that the kinds of money they were
making was considerably in excess of what the av-
erage employee/driver would be making. And our
concern was the obvious one; that what would their
reaction be with the elimination of those favorable
agreements with them.
210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[I]t became clear that there was great concern
about Merle Shank and Milt Ward in terms of their
ability to make that transition and become produc-
tive, constructive Hancor employees.
I had my own perceptions . . . that Milt and
Merle tended to be negative; that no matter how we
tried, it was impossible to get a positive-kind of re-
action from them. I won't say that they ever said to
me, directly, "I don't believe you," but it was clear
that in the meetings, where numbers were presented
by others in the organization, that they disagreed
with the numbers. And it's pretty difficult to have a
positive-kind of discussion when there's just abso-
lute disagreement and no basis for it; that is, there
was no explanation as to why the numbers were
wrong.
And . . . in response to asking them to provide
their own numbers, or to review the numbers that
had been put on the board or passed out, there was
lack of response. So, you can't have a positive-kind
of discussion in that situation.
Their performance was discussed; in particular,
the comment which had been heard from one of
our sales people, from a customer, who commented
that, in specific, Merle Shank had made a negative
comment about Hancor , as being a reasonable place
to work.
Q. Did you have any personal relationships with
these individuals that caused you to have an opinion
of any kind?
A. Yes, to the extent that I observed them in
meetings.
What stood out with Milt and Merle is that, in
addition to speaking out, it was generally negative
.... There's generally a consensus that, "Hey,
were trying to improve"; whereas, the comments
generally from Milt and Merle were of the negative
kind.
The decision was reached to terminate both of
those gentlemen.
The reason was that it was our considered opin-
ion that, under the circumstances of our experience
with them over the past year and a half and the in-
creasing negative approach to the company, that
there was no way that they were going to turn
around having been divested of a very profitable
leasing situation. There was no way they were
going to turn around and all of a sudden become
good Hancor employees.
We concluded that, in interest of the business, in
terms of our customers and the rest of our people,
that we couldn't continue employment.
B. Frits R. A. van der Klooster-on direct
examination
[At the 18 July meeting] . . . the fact was brought
out that if we would terminate lease contracts, that
we would have five individuals . . . that would see
a livelihood, or at least a very significant additional
income disappear. And discussed, among all of us,
the fact whether these people, individually or col-
lectively, could stand that, and would be good
Hancor employees.
We discussed all five owner/operators. And, in
the end, concluded that especially two . . . would
not be able to do without the additional income
without severe repercussions as to their attitude.
Since their attitude in the past . . . had been very
negative, it was felt that this would be an extra
burden on top of that already negative attitude that
they would not be able to overcome.
I think Fred Kremer, at that time, stopped the
meeting. And then we asked some questions, specifi-
cally around the fact . . . that we have these two
owner/operators that continually say that manage-
ment has given them a bad deal.
Merle Shank and Milt Ward, specifically.
[Kremer] asked whether any of the people
present there could recall any time that Hancor
had, indeed . . . as was continually alleged by these
individuals, giv[en] the owner/operators a bad deal.
[W]e felt that, as a group, that, indeed, we had
not only not given reason for these allegations, but
had gone the extra step in safeguarding that they
would not have that as a reason.
I, at that meeting, then, proposed that we would,
indeed, terminate . . . all five owner/operator con-
tracts. I further proposed that we . . . terminate
Merle Shank and Milt Ward because we felt that
they could not overcome some kind of a drastic cut.
It was everybody's individual, in turn, recom-
mendation that we would sever . . . the contracts.
And, in addition, that we would terminate Merle
Shank and Milt Ward.
. .. We went around. And, in turn, people of-
fered their reasons as to why they felt that display
in the past of non-cooperation with management, of
very negative attitudes. And there were specific ex-
amples brought out at that time by individuals, and
we went through those.
I recall, from myself, the November '83 meeting
on Minnesota runs where there was a general, very
negative attitude from both Milt and Merle about
taking . . . the hauling of a large diameter pipe to
Minnesota, which had been given to outside truck
transportation firms.
They felt that . . . one of the solutions that we
were discussing there that was just the beginning of
the end. You were given one finger now, and that
would be the beginning of the end, is one of the
statements that I recall.
That was by Merle Shank.
I remember . . . the January meeting that on per
diems where we came was to try to find out ulti-
HANCOR, INC. 211
mate ways of paying per diems , and get input back,
that we were flat out told ..., just keep paying the
way it is. And we will , at that moment, decide our-
selves as to how to apply that money.
I took that directly as meaning that I'll take the
money and put it in my pocket, and I 'll sleep over
the wheel, rather than as the DOT requires to be
away from the cab for a period of time.
Q. Again, to whom do you attribute that-
A. Merle Shank.
I was present at two quality circle participa-
tive management meetings , one in April, and one in
May, where we tried to follow the structure of the
quality circle program that we had learned about in
January.
I felt that, during these meetings, Milt and Merle
tried to circumvent the meeting format several
tines . And were , in general , not willing to come up
with-or look at different solutions . When there
were opposing views , they would hold dogmatic to
their point , without trying to see the other side
and/or offer new solutions that were different.
Then we had . . . the second quality circle par-
ticipative management meeting in May, and . . . the
one and only' agenda item on that -was West Virgin-
ia and zone pay for extraordinary runs , runs with
more mileage than what zone pay would indicate.
[A]lthough all four drivers present at that time
were, again, vocal and had comments . I, again, re-
member very distinctly Merle Shank at the time
talking about, you know , having just a negative
effect and a holding out for his own point .. .
wanting to only look at his side, and not go, as we
had tried to discuss during these quality circle meet-
ings, try to look at ultimate waysof solving the
problems.
I then recall a meeting that I was present that
was July 7. That was a meeting that was held at my
request . We had this in subsequence to the DOT in-
spection, we had called an all hands driver meeting,
in which we had asked Ryder 's safety manager to
come in and explain about logging requirements, et
cetera.
I remember both Milt and Merle, during that
meeting , to be very unattentive, to the point of
being downright rude to the speaker , not paying at-
tention . And, in general ,- not believing what was
said, or not participating.
It's those things that I have personal recollection
of. I then, during that meeting , recall items such as
late '83 . We had a special report written by one of
our salesmen that came into the office , and that
spoke directly to situation where Merle Shank had
made a delivery . And the customer had asked .. .
"Boy, Hancor is a good company to work for, is it
not?"
Merle 's direct comments to that customer, al-
though I' do not recall the exact wording, were suf-
ficiently negative that the customer remarked about
it to the , salesman upon the salesman's subsequent
visit.
I had-directed, at the time, that Denny Galvin do
talk to Merle Shank about it . That conversation to
that effect, according to Denny Galvin, did take
place.
And Denny tells me that Merle neither denied it
or, you know, he had recollection of that going on.
And there were other things , like Rick Bruns-
wick 's, you know , I get-I, at the time , for a period
of about two and a half years, had either direct
dealings or indirect dealings with old drivers, and
had, through supervisory comments , etcetera, in
general, formed an opinion. And indirect comments
had, in general , formed an opinion that particular
these two people , Merle Shank and Milt Ward were
very distrustful , and stated so much to my face, of
management. Not only present management, past
management , any management that had been there.
And I wondered, you know, whether they would
ever find anybody in management that they could
trust.
They continuously , throughout that period of
time, when exhibits were offered, would question
the exhibits , would totally not accept figures that
were proffered . As a matter of fact, but when asked
to produce their own figures on various items,
would not come forward with those-would not
come forward-was different.
So, in general , I had a very negative- impression
of those two , and felt, personally , and that was said
by all of the others in that group in July 18, felt
that they could not overcome the added burden of
having the contracts cancelled.
And we decided, then , to . . . get back together
... on July 25.
I, myself, during that time , did a lot of soul-
searching about the fact of whether if we could or
did not continue these individuals , maintain that po-
sition. I took into account the fact that for the last
year and a half our sales and shipments from, espe-
cially, the south plant, not only corporate overall,
but especially the south plant , had very drastically
reduced.
And that Dunson and myself, as well as Bob
Hauzie had been talk for the last half year about the
fact that there were too many full -time drivers look-
ing to us for full-time employment . And that we
needed to reduce drivers.
And I felt why not these two, as opposed to-we
had other full-time longer senior drivers that were
on the payroll, but at the bottom of the list. Why
take the bottom ones when [we] have, obviously,
two individuals that we're going to give an extra
burden to , that they probably will not be able to
overcome.
We had a meeting on July 25 , ... and we decid-
ed to go ahead, as had been tentatively decided on
July 18th.
Q. What, specifically, was the reason for the ter-
mination of Mr . Ward and Shank?
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. It was the consensus and my personal opinion
that they could not overcome the additional nega-
tive input to themselves of having the leases termi-
nated . And, therefore ... .
On cross-examination
Q. You testified that, in July '84, a meeting was
held with the drivers to discuss matters pertaining
to logs. And this meeting was conducted by repre-
sentative of Ryder, correct?
A. A Ryder representative was present.
Q. Okay. And what, specifically, did Milt Ward
and Merle Shank do at that meeting that led you to
state, as you did on direct, that they were unatten-
tive, and rude, and the rest of the things that you
used to describe their conduct there?
A. I happened to be sitting at the front end of the
room, looking at the drivers sideways. And I was
able to observe. all drivers.
Both Milt and Merle were not looking at the
slides being shown. Were, in general-never made
eye contact with the speaker. In general, I recall
that there was just a very non-attentive, non-will-
ingness to learn from the meeting attitude.
Q. They were the only two that you perceived as
not paying attention?
A. Yeah. I had looked at all individuals . . . . In
general, everybody paid attention.
Q. Did either Mr. Ward or Mr. Shank say any-
thing during this meeting?
A. I recall them both being very quiet, and not
asking for any questions.
Q. Turning, now, the incident where Merle
Shank said something derogatory about Hancor to a
customer that was reported back to Hancor man-
agement . Do you recall what customer it was?
A. I do not. We-I do not.
Q. Okay. Do you know what point in time this,
allegedly, happened?
A. Uh-huh. Late '83.
Q. Do you recall what Shank was alleged to
have said?
A. Not verbatim, no.
Q. Okay. On August the 6th, when you were ex-
plaining to Ward and Shank the reason for their ter-
mination, one of the things you said to them-one
of the reasons you gave them was that they had ad-
vised others not to believe statements presented to
them by Hancor management, right? Is that one of
the things you said to them?
A. I believe that that is true, yes.
Q. Okay. Was that just your opinion, or was that
... your perception? Or was it also the perception
of the others who had been involved in this deci-
sion?
A. That was not only-that was not my percep-
tion . That was from input from other people that
perception was there.
Q. Then what, specifically, did you, at least, have
in mind when you said to them that they had ad-
vised others not to believe -statements presented to
them by management?
A. What did I have specifically in mind?
Q. Right. You made your statement. I want to
know what you had in mind.
,A. I offered that as part of the reasons that were
brought up for their termination because-you
know, as a background to their termination.
Q. You didn't have any specific instance, other
than that, in mind then?
A. Nor at this moment can I recall any, nor do I
know whether, at that time, I had any specific in-
stances. I was not questioned on that at the time.
[Q.] There was some discussion at [the 18 July]
meeting about Mr. Ward and Mr. Shank's reaction
to the owner/operator leases being cancelled, cor-
rect?
A. Yes.
Q. And there was some discussion as to how that
might affect their future actions as employees if
they were retained, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And there was also some discussion about
how their future-how their reaction might impact
on the other drivers, correct?
A. I don't recall that I made that, no.
Q. You don't recall that being discussed at that
meeting?
A. I don't recall that I said that that was dis-
cussed, nor do I recall that that was discussed.
C. Robert G. Hauzie-on direct examination
Two people, in particularly, kept stemming up by
all of those people, or their names kept coming up
by all of those people present that they felt that
they just couldn't accept the cancellation of those
agreements.
Those two people were Milt Ward and Merle
Shank.
It was a consensus of the group that this cancel-
lation to them would be one more straw because of
past statements by them for distrust of management,
never favoring management's opinions, never look-
ing at any proposals that management had made in
the favorable way.
At the dismissal of the meeting, it was recom-
mended that the two individuals, Milt and Merle,
should possibly be terminated, and the other three
individuals, it was felt, could accept the termination
of the leases and could continue on and exemplify
the type of employee that Hancor would like,
working in the field, and in particular, meeting its
customers.
Our drivers have direct contact with the custom-
er, and if you don't have a team player, it could
create some poor relationships and also cost you
business, which we, at that time, just could not
afford to do. We could not afford to lose business.
I was asked to make recommendation re-
garding their termination, would I recommend that
HANCOR, INC.
they be terminated. I told them that from the infor-
mation that had been passed on to me from that
meeting or that I had received at the meeting, I, at
that point, certainly felt that these two individuals
did not exemplify or had not exemplified in the past
what we determined to be as a good employee, and
that, perhaps, termination should be in order.
1. On cross-examination
Q. I believe you testified just now that there had
been notes made to the file about problems-to the
personnel files of Mr. Ward and Mr. Shank in the
past about problems, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, were these in reference to this attitude
problem he had, or was it on other topics?
A. I want to say other topics. It all centers back
around to attitude.
Q. Okay. I have here what was provided pursu-
ant to a subpoena I issued for all personnel files.
This is identified, to me, as personnel file of Milt
Ward. . . . I wonder if you could review that,
show me in that file where there's anything along
the lines you've mentioned, some note about atti-
tude problem, or something of that nature?
THE WITNESS: The only thing I could find was a
auto liability accident claim on Mr. Ward. That was
it, other than another note to file, that was it.
Q. (By Mr. Wilson) was that actually the claim of
factor discussed in the decision to terminate Mr.
Ward.
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. ' I'm going to present with another per-
sonnel file. This is the one of Merle Shank. I
wonder if you might go through there and, as you
did with Mr. Ward, show me examples of write-ups,
and like that you stated reflected the attitude prob-
lem that he had?
A. The first document I have, dated March 16th,
19'83, is a memo, interoffice correspondence, to
Merle Shank from Dennis Galvin. It's a file copy
whereby discussion was presented to Mr. Shank on
his performance. In fact, one paragraph stating
Hancor will not tolerate this kind of performance in
the future.
JUDGE WOLFE: What did he do?
THE WITNESS: It says, It is apparent that you did
forget the special verbal instructions, but you also
failed to observe the obvious written instructions
and arrival time of 8:00 o'clock a.m. that was on
your delivery ticket.
Apparently, he did not arrive at the customer's at
the time he was supposed to arrive at.
It says, "Let this serve as a written warning to
make you aware that any similar poor performance
on your part will result in suspension without pay
disqualification and/or termination ." 3-21-83, Merle
Shank signed it.
213
Q. By Mr. Wilson: Was that incident discussed in
the decision you made to terminate him?
A. No.
JUDGE WOLFE:. . . Mr. Hauzie, you picked out
some stuff from Mr., Shank's file. You've just gone
through it, right?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE WOLFE: Was any of that material specifi-
cally referred to while you were making the deci-
sion-while the decision was being made, the dis-
cussion was being had to terminate Mr. Shank,
okay? -
THE WITNESS: loo, Sir.
JUDGE WOLFE: Now, is there any of those in
there that are apart from mechanical performance,
failure to get some place on a date, unless you con-
strue that as being an attitude thing. Just what in
there do you find that relates to his bad attitude, if
anything?
THE WITNESS: There' s a memo or an interoffice
correspondence, again excuse me, from Dennis
Galvin to Merle, dated October 11th, `83, whereby
Merle was throwing his personal trash and garbage
into the plant disposal unit. He had been warned
about it before, continued to do it.
Q. (By Mr. Wilson) Mr. Hauzie, I believe another
factor was mentioned by you that was involved in
the decision to terminate Shank and Ward. Was the
fact that you perceived that their relations with cus-
tomers would deteriorate if their owner operator
leases were cancelled , yet I believe you also testi-
fied earlier that the attitude problem that led to
their termination existed for quite some time, cor-
rect?
A. (Nodding head.)
Q. Had you had any customer complaints previ-
ously, with regard to Ward and Shank.
A. I was not aware of any.
Q. Okay. Did you see any when you were re-
viewing these two personnel files?
A., I believe there was some in there, yes. In fact,
the complaint about the customer not getting his
product on time.
Q. Are such complaints memorialized in a per-
sonnel file?
A. Yes.
2. Redirect examination
Q. Over the period of time prior to the termina-
tion of Mr. Ward and Mr. Shank, had any of the
supervisors talked to you, concerning their attitude?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what had you been told by supervisors
[of] Mr. Ward and Mr. Shank, concerning their atti-
tude?
A. Most recently, or going back?
Q. That which was in your mind in July of 1983,
when you were asked your opinion.
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. Okay. In the incidents related to me by Mr.
Brunswick, which I had spoken to earlier, incidents
related to me by Mr. Hartranft, which I had spoken
to earlier, and also some incidents that he had while
trying to deal with them as the owner/operators
under the owner/operators lease agreements, inci-
dents related to me by Mr. Fritz van der Klooster
and his workings with the people, and meeting with
them, and trying to talk with them, or explain, or
bring up different problems or presentations to
them, or in conducting the meetings.
Q. Did anybody generate any specific memoran-
da concerning each of these incidents of bad atti-
tude?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it typical that people would generate some
memoranda concerning an incident involving bad
attitude?
A. Not typical. It may get to the point where
enough is enough, and then it is put down, or some-
thing is done about it.
Q. But it's not standard practice.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you, in fact, generate any memoranda
concerning the incident that you participated in, in
which you've described as evidence of bad attitude?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was that in your mind in July of 1984, when
this matter was fully discussed?
A. Yes, sir.
Hauzie prepared minutes of the 18 July meeting in
which he related the following with respect to the dis-
cussion of Shank and Ward:
A situation arises, however, in terminating the
owner-operator contracts. Two of the employees,
specifically Merle Shank and Milt Ward, have con-
tinually been very outspoken in the past concerning
the Company's treatment of the owner-operator, or
at least their perceived notions on how the Compa-
ny is treating the owner-operators.
After several minutes of discussion , Fred Kramer
asked each of those present' if at any time they
could recall or if they could find in past records
any time Hancor actually did perhaps "screw our
drivers." After discussion on complaints that had
been raised by the drivers, it was verified that we
could not really account for any such instances. It
was the consensus of the group that the entire prob-
lem came down to an attitude problem on the part
of Merle Shank and Milt Ward-that they were
two individuals who were not willing to accept or
believe any statements made by the Company with
regard to operating efficiencies or costs of oper-
ation.
After some discussion it was agreed that we must
terminate the owner-operator contracts strictly from
point of pure economics. In reviewing past history
situations , it was also further agreed that the two in-
dividuals, being Merle Shank and Milt Ward, would
not accept this discontinuance of the owner-opera-
tor contracts very well. Past involvement with
these two individuals shows a continuous "poison-
ing of-the well" effect by their attitudes, statements
they have made, and also open statements of dis-
trust and not believing in management or any pres-
entation that management brings forth.
With regard to the fact that -our drivers have an
extensive amount of exposure to our customers and
also employees within our own Findlay facility, as
well as outside the Findlay facility, we cannot
afford to risk a situation which could- cause these
two individuals' attitudes to kindle an air of distrust
and disfavor toward the Company. At this point in
time, there was no one at the meeting who had any
reason to believe or suspect that Milt and Merle's
actions would change in the future. It was also a
strong feeling that the remaining three owner-oper-
ators went along with the actions of Merle and
Milt, both from a point of trying to "keep the
peace" and also from the fact that-'they sometimes
too had some advantages to gain from Merle and
Milt's actions. Consensus was that terminations for
these two individuals would coincide with the ter-
mination of the owner-operator contracts.
D. Larry E. Dunson
Dunson related that he recommended the termination
of Shank and Ward because he felt both were selfish,
self-serving individuals who mistrusted management;
whose attitude toward management would further dete-
riorate because the leases were being cancelled; and,this
deterioration would affect their relationship with man-
agement. He conceded that he knew of no customer
complaints about Shank or Ward. When asked if part of
his concern about the reaction of Shank and, Ward to the
lease cancellation was a belief they might lead other
drivers to, adopt similar attitudes, he responded that he
thought negative attitudes toward any situation, if one is
exposed to it long enough, can erode the people around
one.
As evidence of their behavior, Dunson pointed to the
opposition of Shank and Ward in late 1983,to Kremer's
proposal that Findlay drivers haul pipe to Minnesota;
Shank's exception to the proposal, made at the 18 Janu-
ary meeting of drivers that motel receipts be required for
per diem reimbursement; Shank's outspoken behavior at
the 9 May quality circle meeting during a discussion of
zone pay; and Ward's opposition to the dispatch proce-
dures at the quality circle meeting of 25 July.
Dunson also recounted an incident in June, after an
audit by a Department of Transportation (DOT) inspec-
tor, wherein the inspector determined that Shank had de-
liberately falsified his logbook because a toll, ticket Shank
had turned in indicated he was driving when his log
showed he was not. Dunson spoke to Shank about this,
but Shank refused to believe it was, an official DOT
audit.
E. David L. Hartranft
Hartranft testified that he was in favor of terminating
Shank and Ward because they - distrusted the figures he
presented to the group of owner-drivers during lease ne-
HANCOR , INC. 215
gotiations . He further asserted that no other driver did,
specifically denying that Jerry Fletcher voiced any
doubt of his numbers.
In this connection , although Fletcher was not specifi-
cally asked and did not speak specifically about _ Har-
tranft's figures , he credibly testified that he, as well as
Shank and Ward , voiced disbelief of the figures on costs
presented by the company at meetings with owner-driv-
ers.
F. Ricky P. Brunswick
Brunswick, who came to Findlay as office manager on
1 June , avers that while Brunswick was still at Respond-
ent's New York facility, Shank made a delivery there
and said something which led Brunswick to believe
Shank had little confidence in Hancor management.
Brunswick does not recall what Shank said.
Brunswick credibly testified that after the DOT in-
spector, on 8 June, pointed out the conflict of Shank's
toll ticket with his log, he called Shank , advised him of
the violation , and told him that Brunswick needed to
speak with him about it when Shank returned from his
trip the following Monday. On Monday , Brunswick was
advised by the dispatcher that Shank had said when he
came in that he had no time to talk to Brunswick . Bruns-
wick then arranged Shank's assignment to accommodate
a meeting on Tuesday . At this meeting, Shank refused to
accept that there had been a bona fide DOT inspection
and demanded to see the report on an official letterhead.
Brunswick said he could see it when Brunswick received
it. Shank said they were making too big a deal out of the
matter and abruptly walked out of the office . Shank and
Ward testified and Brunswick agreed that there was a
mock DOT inspection to be conducted during that time-
frame. Brunswick states, and I credit him, that Shank did
not mention the mock inspection but just refused to
accept the DOT inspection as bona fide . Shank concedes
that Brunswick told him the inspection was genuine, but
says he just did not believe him. This incident, in my
view , reflects insubordination , regardless of what Shank
had been told about the possibility of a mock inspection.
The mere fact Shank had been told of this possibility
provides no valid reason for him to flatly reject Bruns-
wick's information . There was no ascertainable reason
for Shank to believe Brunswick was not truthful or was
trying in some way to entrap or mislead him, and Shank
was most certainly not warranted , in walking out of the
meeting , without permission , before its conclusion.
The per diem policy changed after the DOT inspec-
tion . Ward did not understand all the changes and came
to Brunswick for explanation . When Brunswick told him
that the logbooks and toll tickets were kept for 6
months, Ward asked what would happen if he turned toll
tickets in 6 months late. This is all Brunswick relied on
in stating a conclusion that this evidenced 'to him a mis-
trust of management, that Ward was looking for loop-
holes in the system, and that Ward was thinking of turn-
ing toll tickets in 6 months late. Brunswick concedes he
was not aware of any problem with Ward turning in sup-
porting documents in a timely fashion.
According to Brunswick, he recommended terminating
Shank and Ward at the 18 July management meeting,
based on past history and dealings with them , their con-
tinued distrust of management , their never believing
what management said , and because he seemed to feel
that they were trying to get "the almighty dollar." I note
that Brunswick only arrived at Findlay on 1 June and re-
lates only one experience (the one with Shank concern-
ing the DOT) that furnishes any reasonable basis for his
conclusions and his testimony , with the single exception
noted with Shank. This testimony is entitled to little
weight because it largely consists of speculative conclu-
sions without rational basis in objective fact.
G. Termination Day
As decided on 23 July, the leases of all owner -drivers
were canceled on 6 August . On that date , Shank and
Ward were called into a meeting with Kremer , van der
Klooster, Hauzie, and Dunson . They were first advised
that owner-driver contracts were being discontinued.
Both were asked to sign an acknowledgement that they
had received notification of the discontinuance . Neither
did. They were then informed by van der Klooster that
their employment was terminated . Shank asked why they
were terminated . Van der Klooster told them they did
not trust management, advised others not to believe man-
agements ' statements , and had been insubordinate and
disrespectful of management . Shank requested the rea-
sons be put in writing , and van der Klooster responded
that would be done and forwarded to them . Kremer,
after an expression by Shank that he was disappointed in
him, replied that he was also disappointed because Shank
and Ward did not trust management and had not re-
sponded positively to it . According to Shank and Ward,
Kremer remarked that they appeared to be the leaders,
and if he got rid of them , the other drivers would fall in
line. Kremer denies making such a statement. The others
present did not recall it.
Hauzie, Kremer and van der Klooster proceeded from
their meeting with Shank and Ward to another room
where they met with Hartranft , Brunswick , and the re-
maining three owner-drivers who had already been ad-
vised and signed an acknowledgement of notice of the
lease cancellations. The minutes' of this meeting, pre-
pared by Hauzie and acknowledged by Kremer to be ac-
curate recite and I find that Kremer told the three em-
ployees that he supported termination of Shank and
Ward, and:
[E]xplained to the three individuals that he most
certainly welcomed any constructive criticism of
the way in which he or any other member of man-
agement managed the Hancor operations . However,
he said he did expect the criticism to be just that-
constructive. He cannot and would not tolerate any
criticism of Hancor 's management, management's
decisions or management 's facts and figures as pre-
sented if the criticism was directed in a manner that
would defame or cause situations of distrust and dis-
respect for Hancor 's management . He explained to
the three individuals what his position was with
regard to such actions and informed them he had
expressed these same words to both Milt and Merle.
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He explained it was his opinion Milt and Merle con-
trolled the drivers group for their own best inter-
ests.
Kremer 's statement to the three that he believed Shank
and Ward controlled the drivers' group, together with
the 18 July minutes reflecting that management had "a
strong feeling that the remaining three owner-operators
went along with the actions of Merle and Milt," per-
suade me that Kremer and others in Respondent's man-
agement did consider Shank and Ward to be the leaders
among the drivers, and that this was one of the reasons
for terminating them. I consider it quite likely, given this
perception by management, that Kremer did tell Shank
and Ward he so considered them and their absence
would render the remaining drivers 'more amenable to
Respondent's desires. Accordingly, Shank and Ward are
credited that Kremer so told them.
Subsequent to their termination, Shank and Ward were
forwarded identical letters from Hauzie on behalf of
Hancor, Inc. stating as follows:
Per your request. I am reducing to writing the
exact reason for your termination. Reason for sepa-
ration of employment from Hancor is as follows:
Unsatisfactory job performance.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
They were also sent letters of reference from Dunson,
on behalf of Hancor, Inc., stating their driver experience
and concluding that each is "a very capable individual
with skill levels that fully qualify him for the work de-
scribed above."
The applicable standard in cases of this nature has
been set down by the Board in the following terms:
In general , to find an employee's activity to be
"concerted," we shall require that it be engaged in
with or on the authority of other employees, and
not solely by and on behalf of the employee him-
self. Once the activity is found to be concerted, an
8(a)(1) violation will be found if, in addition, the
employer knew of the concerted nature of the em-
ployees' activity, the concerted activity was pro-
tected by the Act, and the adverse employment
action at issue (e.g., discharge) was motivated by
the employee's protected concerted activity.3
The Board noted, however, that its general definition
of concerted activity was by no means exhaustive, and
that the fate of a particular case depended on the facts of
that case. Both parties ackowledged the foregoing guide-
lines set forth by the Board but, as might be expected,
came to different conclusions with respect to whether
the evidence in this case warrants the finding of an
unfair labor practice. I am persuaded, for the reasons set
forth below, that the General Counsel has proven a vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by a preponderance
of the credible evidence.
3 Meyers Industries, 268 NLRB 493, 497 (1984)
Shank and Ward were solicited by fellow drivers to
volunteer as participants in the quality circle meetings.
This, combined with the fact that Shank, Ward, Voss,
and Lauck reported what transpired at the meetings to
the'drivers and solicited their suggestions on what mat-
ters to raise at the meetings, is more than sufficient evi-
dence to establish that Shank and Ward, as well as Voss
and Lauck, were acting as representatives of the drivers
when they attended the meetings. The four were certain-
ly acting "with" each other as driver delegates, even
though they may have differed at times, and they were
clearly acting "on the authority" of other employees.
The very fact that Respondent solicited, by a memo to
"All Findlay Drivers," members of the drivers' group to
participate in "collectively resolving the issues" illus-
trates that Respondent was seeking representatives of
group interests. In short, the drivers participating in the
quality circle meetings were engaged in concerted activi-
ty, and Respondent knew that to be the case. Moreover,
that activity was protected because the issues the drivers'
representatives discussed in these meetings were related
to wages, hours, and working conditions of all the driv-
ers.
Although Shank's expressed reasons at the November
1983 meeting between management and drivers for op-
posing the assumption of the Minnesota haul may or may
not have been identical to those held by other drivers
opposing it, the fact he was acting with at least Ward
and at least two other drivers in opposing the Respond-
ent's proposal is sufficient to establish concerted activity
plainly obvious to Respondent's officials in attendance at
the meeting and clearly protected because the proposal
amounted to a, request for a pay concession potentially
affecting the earnings of all drivers. Furthermore,
Shank's argument can reasonably be construed as an
appeal to the other drivers in attendance to join him in
opposing the proposal. Appeals to others to join in con-
certed activity for their mutual aid and protection with
respect to a matter of common concern are themselves
protected concerted activity, for, as the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in enforcing a
Board order, has observed, "The activity of a single em-
ployee in enlisting the support of his fellow employees
for their mutual aid and protection is as much `concerted
activity' as is ordinary group activity. The one seldom
exists without the other."4
Shank's ,proposal to management during the drivers'
meeting of 18 January, that Respondent should pay a flat
rate per diem to be spent at the individual driver's dis-
cretion, reflected the driver's expressed position, as testi-
fied to by Hauzie, that Respondent should just give them
more money and go away. Accordingly, I conclude
Shank was engaging in concerted activity with other em-
ployees of 'dike mind at the meeting, and that activity was
protected because it concerned the rate of per diem pay,
a working condition applicable to all drivers.
During Hartranft's meetings with the owner-drivers on
matters of common concern to, them, Ward and Shank
4 Owens-Corning Fibreglas Corp. v. NLRB, 407 F 2d 1357, 1365 (4th
Cir 1969), enfg 172 NLRB 148 (1968)
HANCOR, INC. 217
variously questioned the Company's calculations and op-
posed various of its proposals. That they were engaged
in activity with and on behalf of other owner-drivers is
illustrated by Shank's comment, when - he advised Har-
tranft during a July meeting, that the per diem proffered
the drivers was not enough and "if we had to, we may
have to get outside help," and by Ward's dispute of Re-
spondent's figures of drivers' costs at another July meet-
ing during a discussion of such costs with owner drivers.
The record shows that Ward and/or Shank had for sev-
eral years been selected by drivers on both an individual
and group basis to represent,them on matters of individ-
ual concern, and had been selected as their representa-
tives to quality circle meetings on matters of common
concern to these drivers. Similarly, it was made clear to
Respondent during the Hartranft meetings that Ward and
Shank were themselves acting together.
Kremer's statement to Shank and Ward that they ap-
peared to be the leaders, and their termination would
cause the other drivers to fall in line; the 18 July minutes
of Respondent reflecting "a strong feeling that the re-
maining three owner-operators went along with the ac-
tions of Merle and Milt"; and Kremer's 6 August state-
ment to the other three, as recorded in minutes he deems
accurate, that "it was his opinion Milt and Merle con-
trolled the drivers group for their own best interests" all
confirm what other record evidence shows to be the
case, which is that Respondent 's management knew or
believed that the conduct of Shank and Ward was indeed
supported by other drivers. Thus, as far as management
was concerned, Shank and Ward were acting both with
each other and with the support of the other three driv-
ers when it contested Respondent's proposals affecting
all five.
The foregoing is more than ample to establish that
Shank and Ward were, and Respondent believed they
were, engaged in concerted activity. Much of that activi-
ty was protected because it was on behalf of or in,oppo-
sition to propositions affecting the drivers' wages, hours,
and working conditions. The statements of Kremer, to
Ward and Shank on their termination, and to the others
on the reasons therefore, together with the above excerpt
from Respondent's 18 July minutes, further establish that
this protected concerted activity, as well as, a desire to
forestall any further such activity, were the real reasons
for the termination of the two. Accordingly, I conclude
that the General Counsel has established a strong prima
facie case that the terminations were motivated by their
protected concerted activities.
Respondent's defense that Shank and Ward displayed
such uncooperative and divisive attitudes that their ter-
minations were warranted cannot prevail because some
of the events on which it relies will not stand up under
close scrutiny, and most of the other conduct relied on
has been shown above to be protected concerted activi-
ty. As examples of the former, the citation of customer
complaints, the fear of future bad relations with custom-
ers, and the fear that Shank and Ward' could not over-
come the negative ' impact of the lease terminations are
not supported by any reasonable modicum of probative
evidence, but rely on unsubstantiated hearsay and specu-
lation. As another example, Brunswick's broad conclu-
sion that Ward's simple question about the disposition of
toll tickets turned in late evidences a mistrust of manage-
ment and a plan by Ward to circumvent the per diem
system is so farfetched that it requires no comment other
than a note that :Brunswick's concession that he was
aware of no problem with Ward not timely submitting
supporting documents indicates he was tailoring his testi-
mony to support Respondent's defense. Likewise, van
der Klooster's pointing to what he perceived as inatten-
tion by Shank and Ward during a meeting on 7 July,,
wherein the employees were addressed on DOT require-
ments-by a guest speaker, is pure makeweight. It is inter-
esting to note that in this instance van der Klooster com-
plains Shank and Ward did not participate, in contrast to
his overall complaint that they usually participated too
forcefully. His observation that what he saw persuaded
him the two did not believe what was said is clearly a
conclusion based on nothing objective, and betrays an
eagerness to portray Shank and Ward in a bad,light for
the most trivial of reasons. In at least one instance, the
testimony of Hartranft that no one but Shank and Ward
contested his figures, there is evidence to the contrary,
which I have credited.
Respondent does not question that the actual work
performance of both. men was satisfactory, and there is
no showing of any deterioration of that performance.
Notwithstanding the claim of bad attitude for many
years, Respondent had never reprimanded or disciplined
Shank and Ward, employees of 15 and 12 years respec-
tively, for such conduct, and there is no persuasive evi-
dence their attitude or conduct had recently undergone
any significant changes for the worse or that their atti-
tude had particularly bothered management in the past. I
agree with Respondent that during the meeting with
Brunswick, about 12 June, Shank's conduct was unwar-
ranted and insubordinate, but he was neither reprimand-
ed nor disciplined for this conduct and it was not relied
on as the major reason for Shank 's termination.
What has happened here is that management has now
determined that opposition to its plans and proposals by
employees evidences a noncooperative attitude that
cannot be tolerated and warrants termination of the em-,
ployee. This might be all right, however draconian, if
the employees involved are not engaged in protected ac-
tivity, but that is not the case here. Management saw
that Shank and Ward were leaders among the drivers
who would vigorously, and even obstinately, oppose
management efforts they perceived not to be in the best
interests of the drivers. Of course they were also self-in-
terested, but the fact is they were, as Respondent be-
lieved, speaking on behalf not only of themselves but as
representatives of the other drivers on matters of
common interests. Respondent was upset by the refusal
of the two to agree with its, proposals and their propensi-
ty to view with, suspicion and even -mistrust its figures. I
know of no requirement in the law that employees either
agree with or believe their employer's representations or
unfailingly display an attitude which their employers
deem acceptable when they engage in concerted activity
for mutual aid or protection. If it were otherwise, an em-
ployer could effectively write protected concerted activi-
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ty out of the Act by simply stifling such activity-with
oppressive rules of conduct. Nothing that Shank and/or
Ward did when one or both were engaged in protected
activity rises to the level of unacceptable conduct while
engaged in that endeavor. When Respondent points to
their conduct or attitude while engaged in protected con-
certed activity as reasons for their termination, Respond-
ent admits such activity was a reason they were termi-
nated. I have found that the General Counsel has set
forth a strong prima facie case. I further find that Re-
spondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case. The
General Counsel has, therefore, proved by a preponder-
ance of the credible evidence that Shank and Ward were
terminated in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Hancor, Inc. is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
2. By terminating Merle Shank and Milton Ward be-
cause they had engaged in concerted activity protected
by the Act, and because it wished to discourage other
employees from engaging in such activities, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed5
ORDER
The Respondent, Hancor, Inc., Findlay, Ohio, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Terminating the employment of employees because
they have engaged in concerted activities protected
under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, or
in order to discourage other employees from engaging in
such activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Merle Shank and Milton D. Ward immediate
and full reinstatement to the positions as truckdrivers or,
if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them
whole for any loss of earnings sustained as a result of
Respondent's unlawful conduct, the backpay and interest
thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in F.
W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).6
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the termina-
tions of Merle Shank and Milton D. Ward of 6 August
1984, and notify them' in writing that this has been done
5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
6 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
and that evidence or their unlawful terminations will not
be used as a basis for future personnel actions against
them.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Findlay, Ohio office and facilities copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 8, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT terminate you because you have en-
gaged in activities protected in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, or in order to discourage you from
engaging in such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer employees Merle Shank and Milton D.
Ward immediate and full reinstatement to truckdriver
positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their se-
niority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings
they may have suffered due to the discrimination prac-
ticed against them, with interest.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the
termination of Merle Shank and Milton D. Ward on 6
August 1984, and notify them in writing that this has
been done and that evidence of their unlawful termina-
HANCOR, INC.
ticn will not be used as a basis for future personnel ac-
tions against them.
219
HANCOR, INC.