Ingersoll-Rand Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1977

230 N.L.R.B. 455 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

INGERSOLL-RAND CO.
Ingersoll-Rand Company and International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Dis-
trict Lodge 53, AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-10160
June 24, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND WALTER
On February 24, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions containing a supporting argument.
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 has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu-
sions 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, Ingersoll-Rand
Company, Campbellsville, Kentucky, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the recommended Order.
t The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Campbellsville, Kentucky, on October 19
to 20, 1976.' The charge was filed by the Union on March
17 and the complaint was issued on July 30. The primary
issues are whether the Company, the Respondent, (a)
unlawfully interrogated and threatened employees during
the Union's organizing drive, and (b) discriminatorily
discharged one of the Union's organizers, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs and letters filed by the General Counsel and the
Company, I make the following:
FINDiNos OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Company, a New Jersey corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture of air compressors at its plant in
Campbellsville, Kentucky, where it annually ships goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located
outside the State. The Company admits, and I find, that it
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
I. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Threats and Interrogation
The Union began its organizational drive at the plant in
January, filed a petition for an election in a production and
maintenance unit on February 6, and withdrew the petition
on February 23 for lack of a sufficient showing of interest,
after the Company included laid-off employees in its list of
employees. Thereafter, Union Organizer Bernard Mings
and other employee organizers continued the organizing
drive among the employees, including those on laid-off
status.
Some of the alleged threats and interrogation involved
employee Mings, who was discharged on March 3. (All of
the evidence of this alleged coercion remained undenied.)
On February 10 or 11, Foreman Tom Darcangelo went
to Mings' work area and started talking about what would
happen if the Union came in. Darcangelo stated that "we'd
have to bargain [from] minimum wage, bargain from
scratch, we'd lose our insurance, we'd lose our salary
program." In response, Mings indicated his support of the
Union by arguing back. Mings told Darcangelo "the law
doesn't say that," and showed him a posted copy of the
"Wright Patman letter." (This letter, written on July 22,
1964, by the then chairman of the board to Congressman
Patman, stated that "an employer cannot reduce wages or
take away any insurance or other benefits ... because the
union has established its majority status ... Neither can
he threaten to do so if the union wins an election.")
Darcangelo responded, "That letter is wrong. Look at the
date on it. It's dated July 1964." The next day, Darcangelo
returned with General Foreman Harvey Miller, who asked
Mings, "What are those union boys trying to do? Take my
benefits away from me?" Not getting any response, Miller
asked, "Where is the union meeting going to be held?"-
further prying into Mings' knowledge of, or participation
in, the union activity. (The Union's strategy meetings were
moved from one meeting place to another because of the
belief that union organizers were being followed.) Mings
answered, "I don't know. I haven't been invited." After
I All dates are in 1976 unless otherwise stated.
230 NLRB No. 66
455
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Miller left, Darcangelo "hung around to tell me what good
benefits we had here, insurance, and wages," stating that
they "had the best benefits in this geographical area."
Mings again disagreed, telling his foreman, "I didn't think
we did." Finally on March 2 (the day before Mings'
discharge, as discussed later), Miller made a remark about
wanting to discharge employees in the shipping department
(where most of the union organizers worked). Miller stated,
"I'd fire all those guys back there in shipping if it wasn't for
the National Labor Relations Board protecting them." As
alleged in the complaint, I find that Foreman Darcangelo
unlawfully threatened employee Mings on February 10 or
11 with a loss of existing benefits if the Union's organizing
activities were successful, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act. I also find, as further alleged, that General
Foreman Miller's statement on March 2 that he would
discharge union supporters (in the absence of NLRB
protection) was coercive and constituted an unlawful
threat, and that Miller's questioning of Mings on February
11 or 12 about his and other employees' union activities-
particularly in the context of the threats-constituted
coercive interrogation, in violation of Section 8(aX1) of the
Act.
Robert Coomer was another foreman who engaged in
such unlawful conduct. (As discussed later, Coomer joined
Foreman Darcangelo on March 2 in insisting that
employee Mings not be given merely a 1- or 2-day
suspension for assaulting the leading antiunion employee,
Thomas Barr.) The evidence is undisputed that, early in
February, Foreman Coomer told employee Wayne Coom-
er "that I would be losing the benefits that I had if I voted
in a union; that we would lose all of our insurance. All they
could guarantee us was minimum wage, and that we'd have
to start all over again." As alleged in the complaint, I find
that Foreman Coomer thereby threatened the employee
with a loss of existing benefits, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
In view of these findings of unlawful threats and coercive
interrogation, I find it unnecessary to rule on other
allegations of unlawful threats and interrogation by these
and other supervisors.
B. Discriminatory Discharge
1. Special status of Thomas Barr
The evidence shows that antiunion employee Thomas
Barr, who provoked the March 2 assault by Union
Organizer Mings and who was neither suspended nor
discharged for doing so, had a special status in the plant
during the Union's organizing drive. He was permitted to
leave his work for considerable periods of time each day,
when he carried on a campaign against the Union and the
employee organizers.
Barr's absences from his work area became so frequent
that several of the employees kept a record of his absences
on 3 separate days in February. The written record, in
evidence, shows that, in addition to breaktime, he was
absent from his work area from 65 to 75 minutes each of
the days. (None of the known union supporters was
permitted to leave his work area in this manner.)
Much of Barr's time was spent talking to Foremen
Coomer and Roots, both of whom campaigned against the
Union. (I discredit the testimony by these two supervisors
that Barr had previously talked to them as frequently and
as long at a time.) Initially, on direct examination, Coomer
testified that he could not recall any time when Barr had
conversations with him involving the union organizing
campaign, and claimed that, in these conversations, Barr
"might be talking about hunting, fishing, work. Just
whatever comes on his mind." Later Foreman Coomer
testified that what was learned about the identity of the in-
house union organizers came "Just from what he could get
through the grapevine," and that yes, Barr was one of the
employees who was part of the "grapevine." Coomer
finally testified that, on probably two or three occasions, he
talked with Barr about the Union, but denied remembering
such a discussion in any of their conversations outside
Barr's work area or in Coomer's office. Foreman Roots, in
turn, testified that he and Barr talked about hunting, family
matters, and work, and positively denied that he ever had
any conversations with Barr during the January-March
period regarding the union organizing campaign. On the
other hand, employee James Pelly, a credible witness,
testified that he overheard Barr talking to Foreman
Coomer and to Roots "frequently" about the Union. (Both
Foreman Coomer and Roots impressed me as being less
than candid witnesses on the stand.)
Much of employee Barr's remaining time away from his
work was spent talking to other employees at work. In
early February, Barr began approaching Union Organizer
Wayne Coomer, "calling me mangy head or mangy headed
union boy or mangy headed cock sucker or just any kind of
dirty filthy language he could think of to get me angry ...
then right after harassing me, he would either talk to
[Foreman] Coomer or [Foreman] Roots" and "on several
occasions, Lawrence Roots would kind of grin or laugh."
On one occasion after first Barr, and then two others, asked
employee Coomer at work about having a union meeting at
his home, employee Wayne Coomer complained to
Foreman Coomer about beingjumped on and talked about
all the time. Foreman Coomer "told me that several people
didn't like what I was trying to do" and "maybe you ought
to change your politics, and speak out against the Union."
(Wayne Coomer's testimony is undenied.) Foreman Coom-
er was already aware of the untrue rumor, which employee
Barr was spreading, about a union meeting at employee
Coomer's home. Foreman Coomer admitted to Wayne
Coomer that he had heard it. When asked on cross-
examination if he told Foreman Coomer the names of
those who were harassing him, Wayne Coomer credibly
answered, "I didn't have to. He could see it."
Employee Barr acted as if he were a spokesman for
management. He asked employee Donnie Buchanan, who
was at work about 150 or 200 feet from Barr's work area,
"if I was for or against the Union" (as Buchanan credibly
testified). Barr then "asked me if [employee] Roger
Beningfield was for or against the Union." Barr told Union
Organizer Pelly that "we probably would lose" the
insurance benefits and "if I didn't believe him, that I could
go to [Foreman] Coomer's office, and he could write it up
on paper to show me exactly what we would lose."
456
INGERSOLL-RAND CO.
(Foreman Coomer finally admitted on the stand that
"maybe" Barr would ask him "would we keep our benefits
if the Union came in.") Barr told Union Organizer Mings
"we got these insurance benefits ... and we'll lose it if we
get this union in. I got it straight from [Foreman] Roots."
After the Union withdrew its election petition, Barr told
Union Organizer Wayne Coomer that the Company was
"going to fire three of you, and then the rest of you would
tow the line." Barr told him that this "came from high up."
(Emphasis supplied.) Barr told Union Organizer Pelly that
the employees who had been supporting the Union "were
telling."
It was during this time, as employee Mings testified, that
Barr "got the name of Brat from the Shipping Depart-
ment," because employees there believed that he "goes and
rats on everybody. It means Barr Runs and Tells."
The Company contends that there is "not even a scintilla
of evidence" that employee Barr was acting as its "agent." I
find, however, that the Company did have knowledge of
Barr's antiunion activity, and that the Company ac-
quiesced in his engaging in this activity by permitting him
to leave his work and engage in it.
2. Mings' union activity
Bernard Mings was an air compressor assembler who
was hired in April 1973 at $2.39 an hour. In January 1976
when he and other employees received a blanket raise of 20
cents an hour, he was given an additional raise of I I cents
an hour (totaling $4.20) and told by his immediate
supervisor, Foreman Darcangelo, that "I was doing a good
job, my attendance was good, and to keep up the good
work." He had never received any oral or written warnings.
During the union campaign, Mings attended two or three
meetings and became one of the union organizers,
soliciting signatures at the plant on union authorization
cards and talking in favor of the Union. He asked several
antiunion employees, including Barr, to sign union cards
and they refused. He succeeded in getting two cards signed,
and continued to solicit signatures after the Union
withdrew the election petition on February 23. On March
1, he asked Barr again to sign a card. Barr (who had been
engaging in the above-described antiunion campaign and
spending much worktime talking to Foremen Coomer and
Roots) refused and asked Mings, "What are you all going
to try to do? Get the petition up again?" Mings said that
they were.
Even if Barr did not reveal Mings' union organizing to
the company supervisors, the evidence is clear that the
Company was aware of Mings' support of the Union.
Mings revealed this support to Foreman Darcangelo on
February 10 or 11, as discussed above, when he argued
with the foreman and showed him the Wright Patman
letter. The next day, General Foreman Miller indicated his
knowledge of Mings' union activities by asking Mings (in
Darcangelo's presence) what "those union boys" were
trying to do, and where the union meeting was going to be
held. Later, after the Union withdrew its petition, Miller
announced this withdrawal at a safety meeting, and "every
pro-company man clapped their hands." Mings saw
Foreman Darcangelo "looking at me" when Mings failed
to clap. Finally on March 2, after the assault, General
Foreman Miller admitted his knowledge of Mings' union
activity by telling him, as discussed below, "See, what
trying to organize a union does." I discredit the denials by
Miller and Foreman Coomer at the hearing that they knew
Mings was working on behalf of the Union. (Darcangelo
and Barr did not testify.)
3. Mings' discharge
On March 2 (1 day after Union Organizer Mings
admitted to antiunion employee Barr that the union
supporters were trying to bring up the election petition
again), Mings was sitting in the cafeteria, drinking coffee,
before going to work at 7 o'clock. Barr entered and said to
Mings, "Good morning windy britches." Mings responded,
"Good morning, Brat." (As previously indicated, "Brat"-
meaning "Barr Runs and Tells"-was the name which
shipping department employees were calling Barr.)
Barr left the cafeteria and complained to his immediate
supervisor, Foreman Coomer, one of the two supervisors
with whom Barr frequently talked to during the union
campaign while away from his work. (Coomer testified that
Barr complained to him before the upcoming assault.
Coomer did not indicate what, if anything, he told Barr in
response to the complaint.)
About 7:15 a.m., shortly after complaining to Foreman
Coomer, Barr went to Mings' work area (about 75 feet
from where Barr worked), approached Mings who was in a
stooped position to pick up some parts, and grabbed
Mings' shoulder, stating, "You asshole son-of-a-bitch, why
are you telling on me?" Getting up, Mings asked what he
was talking about. Barr said, "You asshole son-of-a-bitch,
you know what I'm talking about." Mings repeatedly asked
him to leave, and Barr responded, "You asshole, you son-
of-a-bitch, you put me out." At that point (as credibly
testified by Mings, who appeared to be an honest witness,
with a good recollection of what happened), "He come
toward me with his fists rolled and had me backed up
against the wall, and the next thing I knew, I had made
contact with him," hitting him with an open hand on the
side of the neck "to stop him," and as a reflex (from Mings'
karate training in the Army), "I brought my knee up" ("to
defend your groin area"), hitting Barr in the stomach. "I
didn't want to hurt him. I just wanted to stop him because I
was scared. You got to realize that that man is a big man
[weighing about 220 pounds]. I'm just a 165 pound guy."
(Mings recalled that Barr fell to the floor, but company
witness Vincent Rogers, an employee working nearby,
positively testified that Barr did not fall down, but fell back
against a rack.) Apparently, Barr was not injured. (As
indicated, he did not testify.)
Getting up, Barr told Mings, "I got you now, union boy."
Foreman Darcangelo took Mings to the general fore-
man's office, refusing Mings' request that a council
member be present. (The council members are selected by
the employees to handle grievances with the Company in
the nonunion shop.) General Foreman Miller, in the
presence of Foremen Darcangelo and Coomer, questioned
Barr and Mings about what happened. Near the beginning
of the meeting, Miller said to Mings, "See, what trying to
organize a union does" (thereby revealing Miller's knowl-
edge of Mings' union organizing). Mings said that he, and
457
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
perhaps two others, were the only ones for a union in the
bare assembly area, and that a majority of the union
supporters were in the shipping department. Miller then
stated (as previously found), "I'd fire all those guys back
there in shipping if it wasn't for the National Labor
Relations Board protecting them."
Barr told Miller that the reason he was back in Mings'
work area was that he had "something to straighten out"
with Mings and that Mings had called him "Brat." Miller
asked what that meant, and Mings said that it meant that
"Barr Runs and Tells." Miller commented that he liked for
people to come and tell him things. Barr also stated that
Mings had been in Barr's work area and picking on him,
and Mings denied it.
Miller asked if Mings had hit Barr first, and Mings
answered that it was in "self-defense, it was a reaction. I
couldn't help myself," that Barr had "called me a asshole
son-of-a-bitch, and I told him to leave several times. He
repeated this again and made a step towards me, and asked
me to put him out." Mings further explained that when
Barr did this, "he had me backed up against a wall. I had
nowhere to go."
After hearing Mings' side of the story, General Foreman
Miller stated, "I don't know what's going to become of this,
possibly a day or two off" (Emphasis supplied.) As Miller
was telling Mings to go back to his line and go to work,
Foreman Tom Darcangelo (in Mings' words) "was sitting
to my right and I didn't see him, shaking his head and Mr.
Miller said, 'Tom, why are you shaking your head?' " Then
both Darcangelo and Foreman Coomer spoke up, saying,
"We can't let him get away with this," and that if he did,
"others would be trying it." (At this point, I note that both
Darcangelo and Coomer had been actively opposing the
Union and had unlawfully threatened employees with the
loss of benefits if the Union was voted in. When Union
Organizer Wayne Coomer had complained to Foreman
Coomer about being "jumped on" by antiunion employees,
as previously discussed, Foreman Coomer told him that
"several people didn't like what [he] was trying to do" and
"maybe you ought to change your politics, and speak out
against the Union." Foreman Coomer also had been in the
cafeteria and had ignored antiunion language written on
the blackboard, despite a company rule that every posting
or writing on the blackboard must be cleared in advance
with the personnel manage. Also, Darcangelo-acting as
general foreman at the time-merely commented, "Boy,
you got a lot of enemies" and "Don't do anything you'll get
put in jail for" when Union Organizer Mitchell Seaborne
complained about antiunion notes being hung in his work
area or on the hoist he used.) Miller sent Mings back to
work, but permitted Barr to remain in his office with
Foremen Coomer and Darcangelo. A few minutes later,
Miller called in and questioned two of Mings' coworkers,
who confirmed that Barr provoked the assault, saying to
Mings, "Are you man enough to put me out?" (Although
Miller and Coomer failed to give trustworthy accounts of
what transpired in Miller's office, Miller admitted in his
pretrial affidavit that "Mings said that he had told Barr to
leave his work area, but Barr asked if Mings was man
enough to put him out." I discredit their denials of Mings'
testimony, and find that Mings' account was the most
detailed and accurate.)
About 10:30 that same morning, March 2, Foreman
Darcangelo told Mings to go home and come back the next
morning. Between then and the time Mings returned the
next morning, the Company had decided to discharge
Mings, and to take no action against Barr for provoking
the assault. (General Foreman Miller testified on cross-
examination that Mings was fired because of the fight.
However, on redirect examination, he answered "Yes" to a
leading question by company counsel, whether the dis-
charge decision was based on the fight and Mings' conduct
the next morning. Finally on recross-examination, Miller
testified that he felt by the start of the next day that he had
no choice but to fire Mings.) Mings returned to work at 7
a.m., on March 3, and got into a dispute with Foreman
Darcangelo about whether he was told to return at 10
o'clock. When Darcangelo invited him to go to Miller's
office, Mings again asked for a council member to be
present. Darcangelo refused, saying, "Hell, no, Barnie.
Don't have to give you anything. You're not running the
Company." Miller also refused to allow Mings to have a
counsel member present, and Mings refused to enter the
office without a witness. Miller then asked Mings to leave
the plant. Mings asked if he was fired, if his check was
ready, and if Barr was having to leave. Upon receiving
negative answers, Mings stated, "Well, if Mr. Barr is not
leaving, and I haven't had my pay check, and I haven't
been fired, I see no reason for me to leave because you'll
just say I walked off the job." (Mings believed that his
brother-in-law had previously been unjustly accused of
walking off the job and discharged.) Miller said he would
call the police, and Mings said he would leave peacefully
with the police, "because that would prove that I didn't
walk off my job." Mings went to the restroom and then
waited for the police to arrive. He was charged with
disorderly conduct, and he paid the fine after telling the
judge that he was not guilty, but would pay the fine just to
prove the point that he had not walked off the job. Upon
returning to the plant, Mings was given his paycheck, and
was told by Foreman Darcangelo, "We cannot condone
fighting."
4. Concluding findings
Shortly after the assault, General Foreman Miller
learned through the investigation in his office that the
incident would not have occurred if employee Barr had not
left his job and provoked the assault. Mings had a good
work record at the Company, and there had been no prior
problems of fighting in the plant. There was no company
rule requiring discharge for fighting (the written rules
providing that employees engaging in "Fighting, wrestling,
throwing anything, or 'Horse Play' " may be subject to
disciplinary action).
Under these circumstances, General Foreman Miller
indicated that Mings' assault on Barr possibly would merit
a I- or 2-day suspension.
It was not until Foreman Darcangelo and Coomer
vigorously protested a mere suspension for Mings that the
Company decided to discharge him. Both foremen had
engaged in an active antiunion campaign, including
458
INGERSOLL-RAND CO.
unlawful coercion. Barr had been given a special status
during the union campaign, being permitted to spend much
company time away from the job while he joined in the
antiunion campaign. Mings, on the other hand, was known
to be campaigning for the Union. After Darcangelo and
Coomer protested a mere suspension for Mings, they
demonstrated their favoritism toward Barr by conferring
with him privately after Mings was sent back to work, and
by failing to punish Barr in any way for provoking the
assault.
Although the Company now contends that it discharged
Mings both because of the March 2 assault and Mings'
March 3 conduct (refusing to meet again in General
Foreman Miller's office without a council member present,
and refusing to leave the plant until arrested, as discussed
above), I find that the latter purported reason is merely a
belated afterthought. The referee decision shows that at the
time of the hearing in Mings' unemployment proceeding,
the Company took the position that Mings was discharged
on March 3 "for fighting on company property." (The
Company's antiunion motivation was not litigated in that
proceeding.) Moreover, Miller's testimony and Foreman
Darcangelo's treatment of Mings the next morning both
indicate that the discharge decision was made on March 2.
After weighing all the evidence and circumstances, I find
that Mings was not discharged because of his provoked
assault upon Barr, but in reprisal for his union organizing. I
therefore find that Mings' discharge was discriminatorily
motivated to discourage membership in the Union and
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. By discharging Bernard Mings on March 3, 1976,
because of his activity on behalf of the Union, the
Company engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(aX3) and (1)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By threatening employees with the loss of benefits if
they vote for a union, by making a threatening statement
about discharging employees for supporting a union, and
by engaging in coercive interrogation, the Company
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order
the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged an
employee I find it necessary to order it to offer him full
reinstatement, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis
plus interest at 6 percent per annum in accordance with F.
W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), from date
2 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 waived for all purposes.
of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement.
Inasmuch as Respondent's unlawful conduct goes to the
heart of the Act, I find that a broad order against infringing
on the employees' Section 7 rights in any other manner is
necessary.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER2
The Respondent, Ingersoll-Rand Company, Campbells-
ville, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee for supporting International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 53,
AFL-CIO, or any other union.
(b) Threatening to withdraw benefits if employees vote
for union representation.
(c) Threatening to discharge any employee for support-
ing a union.
(d) Coercively interrogating any employee for union
support or union activity.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Bernard Mings immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if his job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for any loss of pay or other benefits in the manner
set forth in the Remedy section.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination or copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Campbellsville, Kentucky, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respon-
dent has taken to comply herewith.
3 In the event this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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."
459
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for supporting
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, District Lodge 53, AFL-CIO, or any other
union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with the loss of benefits if
you vote for a union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge any of you for
supporting a union.
WE WILL NOT coercively question any of you about
union support or union activities.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with your union
activities in any other manner.
WE WILL offer full reinstatement to Bernard Mings,
with backpay plus 6-percent interest.
INOERSOLL-RAND COMPANY
460