IRI, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 330 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IRI, Incorporated and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum
and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case
9-CA-8958
September 16, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On June 16, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Wal-
ter H. Maloney, Jr., issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 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 Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, IRI, Incorporated,
Louisville, Kentucky, its officers , agents , successors,
and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board 's established policy not to over-
rule 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.
2 In finding that Respondent discharged employee James M. Harrod, Jr.,
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, we rely particularly on the evi-
dence that Respondent had previously set about laying the groundwork to
fire Harrod . This evidence consists of the credited testimony of employee
Walter Evans that Foreman Leslie Kirk told Evans he was receiving a writ-
ten reprimand to make it appear that Harrod was not the only employee
being disciplined , and employee Jeffery Toebbe's credited testimony that
Kirk told him in September that Respondent was going to fire Harrod. This
predetermination to terminate Harrod, combined with its union animus as
evidenced by Respondent's several 8(a)(l) violations , convinces us that Har-
rod was discharged because of his organizational activity and support for
the Union.
DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Statement of the Case
WALTER H. MALONEY, JR., Administrative Law Judge:
This case came on for hearing before me at Louisville,
Kentucky, on a complaint,' issued by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 9 of the National Labor Relations Board,
which alleges that the Respondent, IRI, Incorporated,2 dis-
criminatorily discharged James M. Harrod, Jr., on Novem-
ber 1, 1974, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The
complaint also alleges that the Respondent committed var-
ious independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
including unlawful interrogation of employees and threats
to employees that the plant would close in the event of
unionization . Respondent asserts that Harrod was dis-
charged along with 20 other employees who were laid off at
the same time for economic reasons , and that he was se-
lected to be among those laid off because of a poor work
record , excessive absenteeism , and lack of versatility. Re-
spondent denies the commission of the independent viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act or asserts that they were
de minimis . Upon these contentions the issues herein were
joined.3
B. Outline of Events in Question
Respondent operates a tire manufacturing plant in the
environs of Louisville, Kentucky. It opened its factory in
the spring of 1974 and hired about 50 production and
maintenance employees , whom it began to train in certain
new production techniques which it was inaugurating. The
Respondent produces a premium automobile tire and, at
its factory , is utilizing some processes which in some re-
spects might be described as experimental. The work force
which it hired during the spring and summer months was
largely unskilled and was hired , for the most part, as gener-
al labor at the same pay rate. While employees were nor-
mally utilized at a single operation, they were subject to
assignment to any operation in the plant, and, within the
limitation of their skills and experience, were in fact as-
signed to various different operations. These variations in
assignment took place especially when the Company expe-
i The principal docket entries in this case are as follows : Charge filed by
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum , and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-
CIO (herein called Union) on November 18, 1974; complaint issued by
Regional Director on January 28, 1975; Respondent 's answer filed on Janu-
ary 31, 1975, hearing held in Louisville , Kentucky, on April 2 , 1975; briefs
filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent on May 5, 1975.
2 The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a Kentucky corporation
which maintains its principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky,
where it is engaged in the manufacture, distribution , and sale of automobile
tires. During the preceding 12 months, a representative period , it sold and
shipped from its Louisville , Kentucky, plant to points and places outside the
Commonwealth of Kentucky goods valued in excess of $50,000 According-
ly, the Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec 2 (2), (6), and
(7) of the Act. The United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5)
of the Act
7 The transcript in this case is hereby corrected in certain respects.
220 NLRB No. 45
IRI, INCORPORATED 331
rienced absenteeism which necessitated reassignments, and
took place more frequently on the afternoon and midnight
shifts because there were few employees on these shifts.
In the middle or late summer of 1974, an organizing
drive began at IRI . The drive was initiated by the discrimi-
natee herein , James M. Harrod , Jr., who contacted the
Union and obtained about 30 or 40 union cards. He ob-
tained signatures on 30 or 35 cards and returned them to
union officials . Harrod worked on the second shift as a
first-stage tire builder . He testified without contradiction
that he was able to sign up 100 percent of the employees on
the second shift , all of the employees on the midnight shift,
and about 80 percent of the first shift. Among those who
signed union designation cards were various employee wit-
nesses presented by the General Counsel, including Juan
D. Logsdon and Terrence Rupe.
Respondent admits knowing, or at least having good rea-
son to believe, that Harrod was the in-house leader of the
organizational drive. Throughout the months of August,
September, and October, Respondent made repeated in-
quiries as to the progress of the organizational drive. Its
vice president in charge of manufacturing , William E. Wal-
lace, III , admits making inquiries of supervisors from time
to time as to their own impressions of the vitality of the
organizational drive. I credit the testimony that he went
beyond merely asking supervisors about the status of the
campaign and directed repeated inquiries on this subject to
rank-and-file employees. Thus, in August, Foreman Leslie
Dale Kirk told Harrod to report to Wallace's office. When
he arrived, Wallace asked Harrod "What are you trying to
do to me?" When Harrod professed ignorance of what
Wallace was talking about, Wallace said, "Well, you know
these union cards you've been passing around trying to get
signed ." Wallace went on to tell Harrod that the Company
could not operate with a union, and asked Harrod why he
was engaged in organizing . Harrod replied that he was un-
happy about trying to get machinery repaired and com-
plained that some of it was unsafe.
On another occasion in September, when Harrod was at
work manning an extruder machine , Wallace came over to
him and again asked him how the union drive was going.
Harrod said he did not know. Wallace went on to repeat
the sentiments he had voiced earlier , namely that the
Union would harm the Company. On October 16, 1974,
Harrod appeared in conjunction with the Union at the
hearing held by a Board agent on the Union's representa-
tion petition.4 Sometime between the date of the hearing
and Harrod's layoff on November 1, Wallace came to Har-
rod while he was working at the dock and again asked him
how the organization drive was progressing. Harrod replied
that he did not know. Wallace asked Harrod, "Do you
know what you are doing to me?" Harrod replied in the
negative , at which point Wallace called him "a lying
s.o.b." s
4 In September or October 1974, the Union filed a representation petition
seeking an election at the IRI factory (Case 9-RC-10761) A hearing on the
petition was held on October 16. An election was held on November 27,
which the Union lost by a substantial majority.
s Harrod was uncertain whether this conversation took place in Septem-
ber or late October . However , he was certain that it occurred . While deny-
ing that he interrogated employees concerning union activities, Wallace
Wallace did not limit his inquiries to Harrod. Sometime
in September he spoke with Logsdon at Logsdon's work
station and asked him if he had signed a card. Logsdon
replied in the negative. Wallace then asked him if he fa-
vored the Union, and Logsdon again replied in the nega-
tive, whereupon Wallace told him that it was a good thing
he was not for the Union because, if the Union came into
the plant, whoever was for it would go out the door and the
doors would be locked behind them. At or about this same
point in time, Logsdon had occasion to visit the company
office at the end of a shift to check on work schedules and
encountered Wallace. Wallace again asked him if he was
for the Union, and he said no. Wallace and Third Shift
Foreman Marvin Meyerhofer, who was at his desk in the
office, told Logsdon that if the Union came into the plant
the Company would not be able to support it. Wallace then
asked Logsdon what the Union could do for him. Logsdon
then complained about the safety in the plant. Wallace also
told him that the reason the Rubber Workers wanted to
organize the plant was that it was a competitor of the large
tire companies, where the Rubber Workers was the bar-
gaining agent, and it was only interested in putting IRI out
of business. Early in September, Wallace spoke with em-
ployee Terrence Rupe at Rupe's work station. He asked
Rupe if Rupe had signed a card, and Rupe replied no. He
also asked Rupe who was circulating the cards, and Rupe
identified Harrod as the solicitor.
On September 18, some 5 weeks before his final termina-
tion, Harrod was discharged by his foreman, Leslie D.
Kirk, and immediately reinstated at the direction of Wal-
lace. Kirk discharged Harrod - the only employee he ever
discharged-midway in the late afternoon shift on that
day, assertedly for poor production. According to Kirk, an
average tire builder performing the function assigned to
Harrod should be able to produce between 25 and 35 tires
per shift. On the day in question, Harrod was averaging
between three and four tires per shift, and had completed
about six or eight tires by 6 p.m. About 9 p.m. Kirk called
Harrod to come upstairs and told him that he was being
discharged for failing to do his work. Kirk then reported
his action by phone to Wallace. Wallace told Kirk that his
action was too harsh and permitted Harrod to return to
work at the beginning of the afternoon shift on the next
day. Instead of discharge, Kirk gave Harrod a written
warning, dated September 19, in which he reprimanded
Harrod for inefficiency in failing to produce in excess of 25
tires per shift. The written reprimand recited that Harrod
had been verbally warned on several previous occasions,
and indicated that this was Harrod's final warning.
On the same day that he gave Harrod the above-noted
warning, Kirk also gave first-stage tire builder Walter Ev-
ans a written warning. When he gave Evans the notice,
Kirk explained to Evans that the warning would be torn up
in 6 months, and the the purpose of giving him a warning
at the same time Harrod received one was to make it ap-
pear that Harrod was not the only one who was being dis-
ciplined.6 On this same day, Wallace asked Evans if he had
signed a union card. Evans said no, to which Wallace re-
never denied using the above-quoted epithet to Harrod.
6 Kirk denies making this statement to Evans. I credit Evans.
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plied, "You see what happened to Jim [Harrod]?" At or
about this same time , Kirk gave another written warning to
Jeffery Toebbe, a first-stage tire builder. Kirk complained
to Toebbe that Toebbe was losing interest in his job. Either
on this or on another occasion, Kirk warned Toebbe that if
he did not straighten up he would be fired like Harrod-
"and we are going to fire him." Kirk added that the Com-
pany had papers providing it with "proof" to support the
prospective discharge of Harrod.?
On October 21, Harrod was given a second written
warning for being absent on October 18 without verifica-
tion. Like the September 19 warning this notification was
also termed a "final warning." It was given to him by Fore-
man Alton McElfresh. On October 24, Harrod was given a
third written warning for stopping work without justifica-
tion or excuse. With regard to the October 18 warning no-
tice, Harrod testified credibly that he had presented a
doctor's certificate either to Kirk or to Wallace, and that he
had told Kirk and McElfresh so. However, Kirk said that
Wallace told him to issue the written reprimand anyway.
As to the October 24 warning, Harrod also testified credi-
bly that he tried to explain to Kirk that his machine had
electrical failures and was repeatedly malfunctioning. Kirk
replied that he was merely doing his job.
As indicated previously, the Company and the Union
were parties to a representation hearing which was held on
October 16. At that time, Wallace was under the impres-
sion that a reduction in force might be forthcoming but
had no specific plans to make one. During the last week in
October, at a meeting between the company officials and a
representative of a New York banking institution which
had extended a line of credit, company officials were in-
formed that, because of a downturn in sales, the line of
credit would no longer be extended. About 3 days later, on
November 1, Respondent laid off 21 employees, including
Harrod. The layoff had the effect of eliminating the mid-
night shift and of combining it with a reduced second shift.
The termination was described to employees as an indefi-
nite layoff, but many, including Harrod, were advised to
seek other employment. On November 27, when laid-off
employees attempted to vote in the representation election,
their ballots were challenged by the Company, but the va-
lidity of the challenges was never resolved as these ballots
were not determinative of the election results. Harrod had
more seniority than 15 employees who were retained and
less seniority than 7 who were retained. Wallace testified
that he selected individuals for layoff after consultation
with his foreman, although their testimony does not bear
out his assertion. Late in March, three of the individuals
who were laid off on November 1 were recalled.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act
Based on credited evidence recited above, I conclude
that the Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by the following threats and coercive interrogation:
(a) In August 1974, in Wallace 's office and in an atmo-
sphere and context of hostility, Wallace coercively interro-
gated Harrod as to why he was soliciting signatures on
union designation cards.
(b) In September 1974, at the extruder machine, Wal-
lace coercively interrogated Harrod as to how the union
drive was going . The reply, namely , that Harrod did not
know , was a false reply since Harrod, the principal if not
only card solicitor , was in the best position of any person
to know how the drive was going . His false reply is an
element to be assessed in evaluating the coercive nature of
the interrogation.
(c) Again , while Harrod was working on the dock, Wal-
lace asked Harrod the same question and received the
same answer . It was at this time that Wallace referred to
Harrod as a "lying s .o.b.," a remark which clearly adds a
hostile note to the conversation.
(d) In September , Wallace spoke to Logsdon at his ma-
chine and asked him if he had signed a card , a question to
which Logsdon gave the reply that he had not. This ques-
tion was given a coercive setting when Wallace followed it
with a threat that if the Union came into the plant the
Company would fire employees who supported it and
would lock the doors of the plant behind them.
(e) Later, in the company office , Wallace further probed
into Logsdon 's union sentiments by asking him if he was
for the Union , asking him what the Union could do for
employees that the Company could not, and then telling
him that the Company could not support a union, an ob-
lique way of saying that the plant would close if the Union
were successful in its effort.
(f) Wallace also violated the Act by asking Rupe, at
Rupe's work station, if he was for the Union, and by asking
him who was circulating union cards. Rupe gave Wallace a
false reply.
The contexts of these interrogations clearly show their
coercive nature . They were made by the highest company
official associated in any way with production , not by a
line foreman . Some of the interrogations were made in the
company office . The interrogations were not isolated but
were repeated, and were often accompanied by threats or
pejorative remarks evidencing Wallace's hostility to union-
ization . In some instances , the employees responded to
Wallace untruthfully, indicating a desire on their part to
conceal their union activities for fear of reprisal. Such in-
terrogations not only offend a per se ban on interrogations
respecting union activities , but also run contrary to the
more flexible rule on interrogations on union matters ex-
pressed in such court decision as Bonnie Bourne d/b/a
Bourne Co. v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 47 (C.A. 2, 1964); St.
Louis Car Division v. N.L.R.B., 439 F.2d 1145 (C.A. 8,
1971); N. L. R.B. v. Consolidated Diesel Electric Co., 469
F.2d 1016 (C.A. 4, 1972); and Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and
Helpers Local No. 663 of New Hampshire v. N.L.R. B., 509
F.2d 490 (C.A.D.C., 1974). The threats carry with them
their own badge of coercive conduct.
2. The discharge of James M. Harrod, Jr.
7This statement by Kirk to Toebbe is largely unconiradicted The General Counsel does not challenge the legality of
IRI, INCORPORATED 333
the mass layoff (or discharge) which occurred on Novem-
ber 1. The timing of this layoff is suspicious, in that it fell
between the date of the representation case and the hold-
ing of the election, and was not specifically contemplated
by company officials even a brief 2 weeks before the event
occurred. On the other hand, the Respondent suffered the
loss of a line of credit 3 days before the layoff, and the
layoff of all but three of the employees in question has
lasted some 5 months as of the time of the instant hearing.
Such factors would bear out the belief that the mass layoff
itself was economic in its inception.
The nub of the General Counsel's position is that the
inclusion of Harrod among those laid off was discriminato-
ry and, as such, it should be remedied by reinstatement
and backpay. In this contention, he is met with the
Respondent's several defenses. Respondent established
that, in the 5-week period preceding the layoff, Harrod
received three written disciplinary warnings: one for un-
der-production, one for unexcused absence, and the third
for turning off his machine and interrupting production
without justification. On their face, these warnings suggest
that Harrod was something less than a satisfactory employ-
ee. Respondent further points out that, at the time of the
layoff, all of its production and maintenance employees-
both those who were sent home and those who were re-
tained-had been working for it only a few months and
that any variation in seniority which might exist between
any of its employees was minimal, amounting to a few days
or at most to a few months. Respondent also points out
certain deficiencies in Harrod's production record when
stacked up alongside the production record of eight other
first-stage tire assemblers.
In this operation, unlike some other facets of its produc-
tion process, the Respondent keeps certain daily records by
which it can measure the productivity of some of its em-
ployees. In total monthly production for October, the only
month for which statistics were provided, Harrod ranked
sixth out of nine among those engaged in first-stage tire
assembling.' In terms of daily production, Harrod ranked
also sixth out of nine in first-stage tire assembling.9 At the
time of the layoff, assemblers Drury, J. Harris, F. Harris,
8 In order of daily productivity in October , these nine ranked as follows-
F. Harris 27.5 tires per day
Caldwell 27.2 tires per day
L. Harris 27.2 tires per day
Drury 26.0 tires per day
Evans 20.6 tires per day
HARROD 19.8 tires per day
Murray 18.8 tires per day
Toebbe 18.2 tires per day
Brown 13.9 tires per day
9 In order of total productivity in October these employees were.
F. Harris 578 tires
Caldwell 572 tires
L. Harris 517 tires
Drury 469 tires
Evans 413 tires
Evans 413 tires
HARROD 397 tires
Toebbe 383 tires
Brown 209 tires
Murray 320 tires
and Caldwell were retained while Evans, Murray, Toebbe,
Brown, and Harrod were laid off. Caldwell had less senior-
ity than Harrod; Drury, J. Harris, and F. Harris had more
seniority. Hence, Respondent did not follow seniority
among tire builders in selecting employees for layoff, re-
taining Caldwell in preference to Harrod assertedly be-
cause of Caldwell's superior productivity and versatility.
However, versatility among employees was a factor con-
sidered by Wallace in selecting employees for layoff. Con-
trary to Respondent's contention, Harrod performed other
functions besides those of a first-stage tire builder. He op-
erated the extruder machine and worked on the body ply
and the orbit tread. We have no statistics relating to
Harrod's performance in these functions or how his pro-
ductivity compared with others who performed these func-
tions. Since first-stage tire builders were only a few of the
many employees who were laid off, and since employees
were hired, assigned, and paid for the performance of gen-
eral labor throughout the plant rather than for specially
defined tasks, the statistics proffered by the Respondent in
support of its decision to terminate Harrod are of limited
relevance.
Wallace asserted that seniority was a factor which he
considered in selecting employees for layoff. While
Caldwell's superior productivity may have explained why
Caldwell, a junior employee, was retained in preference to
Harrod, productivity does not explain why a total of 15 of
the 23 retained employees were junior to Harrod, the most
senior employee on the afternoon shift. Respondent in its
brief points out that the seniority differential between em-
ployees was small, but small though it may have been, it
was Wallace who stated that the Respondent relied upon it
in determining who was to stay and who was to go when, in
fact, seniority played no such role as to Harrod. Any sug-
gestion that seniority bore in any way upon Harrod's status
at the time of the November 1 layoff is demonstrably false
on the basis of the Respondent's own records. The mere
reliance by the Respondent on such a transparently errone-
ous excuse itself casts doubt upon the bona fides of its en-
tire defense.
Harrod was not discharged for the first time on Novem-
ber 1. He was also discharged on September 18 and was
immediately reinstated. The ostensible basis for the origi-
nal discharge by Line Foreman Kirk was Harrod's inabili-
ty to meet a production quota or expectation of 25 tires per
day. However, the Respondent's exhibit, detailing the pro-
ductivity of first-line tire assemblers, indicates that five out
of nine of these employees fell far short of this expectation.
Evans produced in October only 20.6 tires per day, while
Harrod, Murray, Toebbe, and Brown were further shy of
this mark. Yet no disciplinary action was taken against any
assembler except Harrod, the known leader of the organiz-
ing drive. Moreover, on the day of the discharge, Harrod
was, by Kirk's own admission, producing tires at a rate
which would meet or exceed the Respondent's alleged dai-
ly production standard for first-stage tire assemblers. These
facts alone make it crystal clear that the discharge of Sep-
tember 18 was discriminatory in character. Indeed, Wal-
lace was well aware of the fact that this action would not
stand up under searching inquiry, so he immediately rein-
stated Harrod at the beginning of the following shift.
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As admitted by Respondent's agents to credited witness-
es other than Harrod, Respondent set about laying the
groundwork for a discharge of Harrod which would stick.
Late in September, Kirk admitted to Evans that he was
issuing him a fake warning as a cover device to make a
similar warning to Harrod appear more plausible. Kirk
told other employees in advance of the event that Harrod
was going to be fired , and announced this fact in the con-
text of statements indicating that the Company was taking
pains to cover up the union animus which was its real mo-
tive. In view of this background , as well as Harrod's cred-
ited testimony, it is equally clear that the two subsequent
written warnings issued by the Respondent to Harrod in
October were part and parcel of the same long-term effort
to eliminate a union activist from its payroll. As part of
Respondent's pretextual scheme, they afford no support
for the contention that Harrod was selected for layoff be-
cause of his unsatisfactory job performance. Moreover, it
should be remembered that the selection of Harrod was
being taken by a Respondent who demonstrated its intense
hostility to unionization by a host of antiunion statements
uttered over an extended period of time, both to Harrod
and to others in the plant. In light of these considerations,
there is little doubt that the selection of Harrod for layoff
on November 1 was made for reasons of union animus and
not for the reasons advanced by the Respondent. Accord-
ingly, I find that, by laying off Harrod on November 1, the
Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record herein considered as a whole, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent IRI, Incorporated, is an employer en-
gaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging James M. Harrod, Jr., for engaging in
union activities, the Respondent herein violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By the acts and conduct set forth above in Conclusion
of Law 3; by coercively interrogating employees about
their union activities and the union activities of other em-
ployees; and by threatening to close the plant and to dis-
charge employees in the event of unionization , the Respon-
dent herein violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close, inti-
mate , and substantial effect upon interstate commerce,
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and 2(7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
an employee , I will recommend to the Board a so -called
broad 8(a)(1) order designed to suppress any and all inva-
sions of employee rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act. N.L.R.B. v . Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 120
F.2d 432 (C.A. 4, 1941). The recommended Order shall
provide that the Respondent be required to offer to James
M. Harrod , Jr., reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent employment, and that Respondent make him
whole for any loss of earnings which he may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination practiced against him, in
accordance with the Woolworth formula , 1° and with inter-
est thereon computed at 6 percent per annum . Isis Plumb-
ing and Heating Company , 138 NLRB 712 (1962). 1 will also
recommend that the Respondent be required to post a no-
tice , advising its employees of their rights and of the reme-
dy in this case.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record herein considered as a whole,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the fol-
lowing recommended:
ORDER "
Respondent IRI, Incorporated , Louisville , Kentucky, its
officers , agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activities and sentiments and the union activities and
sentiments of other employees.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge or with the
closing of the plant in the event of unionization.
(c) Discouraging membership in United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum , and Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization , by discharging employees or
otherwise discriminating against them in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(d) By any means or in any other manner interfering
with, restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to James M. Harrod , Jr., full and immediate
reinstatement to his former position or, in the event that his
former position no longer exists, to substantially equivalent
employment , without prejudice to his seniority or to other
rights which he formerly enjoyed.
(b) Make whole James M . Harrod , Jr., for any loss of
pay suffered by him by reason of the discrimination found
herein, in the manner described in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll
and other records necessary to analyze the amount of
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
other actions designed to effectuate the purposes and poli-
cies of the Act. Because the unlawful activity found herein
is aggravated and includes the discriminatory discharge of
10 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 ( 1950).
11 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.
IRI, INCORPORATED
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at the Respondent 's place of business in Louis-
ville, Kentucky, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix ." 12 Copies of said notices , on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by
a representative of the Respondent , shall be posted imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by
the Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in con-
spicuous places , including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
12 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board.
APPENDIX
335
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their
union activities and sentiments and the union activi-
ties and sentiments of other employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees or to
close our plant in the event that the plant is unionized.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees in the hire and tenure of their em-
ployment because they have engaged in union activi-
ties . All of our employees are free to become or re-
main members of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum
and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner or by any means,
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the ex-
ercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the
Act. These rights include the right of self-organization,
the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations,
the right to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid and protection.
WE WILL offer to James M. Harrod, Jr., full and
immediate reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent employment, and WE WILL make him whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination which was found in this case, with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
IRI, INCORPORATED