KDI Precision Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 135 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC. 135
KDI Precision Products , Inc. and International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-4816
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
May 23, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
On February 7, 1969, Trial Examiner Bernard J.
Seff issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner' s Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Trial .Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and orders that Respondent, KDI
Precision Products, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, its
officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Add the following as paragraph 2(c), and
reletter the following paragraphs accordingly:
"(c) Notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces."
2. Add the following as the fourth indented
paragraph of the Appendix:
WE WILL notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of their right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD J . SEFF, Trial Examiner : This hearing, with
all parties represented, was held on October 23 and 24,
1968, at Cincinnati, Ohio, on the complaint of the General
Counsel issued on September 20, 1968' and the answer of
KDI Precision Products, Inc., hereinafter called the
Respondent or Company. The charge,' on which the
complaint is based, was filed on July 26 by the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union.
The complaint , as amended at Representative hearing,
alleges that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, by
its acts in connection with two petitions circulated in the
plant to improve working conditions ; by interrogating
employees; by confiscating one of the petitions; by
soliciting withdrawal of employees from the Union and its
organizing committee ; and that by suspending employee
Mary Carson and discharging Rebecca Jansen it violated
Section 8(a)(3) and/or 8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent in
its answer denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices . At the hearing the General Counsel, the
Company 's Counsel and the Union's representative
appeared and participated with full opportunity to present
evidence and argument on the issues.
Based on the record, my observation of the witnesses,
and the briefs filed by the Respondent and the General
Counsel, which have been duly considered, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENTS BUSINESS
Respondent is a Delaware corporation having a
Cincinnati, Ohio plant which is the one involved in this
proceeding. During the past calendar year, which is a
representative period, Respondent had a direct outflow of
products valued in excess of $50,000 which were sold and
shipped to points outside the State of Ohio directly from
its place of business in Ohio. The Company is engaged in
military research and development and manufactures
precision arming and fusing systems used in artillery
projectiles, bomb fuses and rocket armament.
Respondent's answer admits, and I find, that the
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO is a labor organization
' All dates refer to 1968 unless otherwise stated.
'Respondent's counsel moved to strike the 8(axl) allegations in the
amended complaint and renewed both motions in his brief on the ground
that the underlying charge is insufficient to support these allegations. I
hereby affirm my denial of both motions . The charge, which alleges
violations of 8(a)(3 ) and (1) of the Act, is sufficiently related to the
allegations of the complaint to support it adequately . Fans Milling Co..
360 U.S. 301; Tear Industries. 139 NLRB 365, enfd . in part and
remanded in part 336 F.2d 128 (C.A. 5).
176 NLRB No. 18
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
The facts in this case concern the preparation and
circulation on July 18 of two petitions by employee Mary
Carson, employed as a machine operator in department
15. The petitions demanded that additional fans be
installed because of excessive heat in the plant. Indeed, the
record shows that July 18 was a very hot day and, in fact,
2 days prior to this date employee Rebecca Jansen had
fainted in the plant from the heat and had to be helped to
the first-aid room where she remained for a considerable
period before she recovered sufficiently to return to work.
One of the petitions circulated, which was signed by 17
employees in department 15, states: "We have asked in a
nice way for Fans. Now we are going to give you until
Break time 9:50 - 7-19-68 or we sit with no work." In
the second petition, which was circulated in department
17, the words "we sit with no work" were crossed out by
employee Harry Schloss and the words "we may all faint
from the heat. Thank you" were added.
Foreman Kenny Piatt took department 15's petition
away from employees Mary Hardin and Virginia Abbott.
When Carson learned that this petition had been taken by
Piatt she personally placed Department 17's petition on
his desk. Department 15's petition was signed by 17
employees including Carson, Judy Carlos, Rebecca
Jansen, Hardin and Darlene Waldrop. Department ITS
petition was signed by 25 employees. Piatt turned both
petitions over to Respondent's superintendent, Al Wilson,
who then brought them to Joe Mayo, Respondent's
director of labor relations. Mayo, in turn, brought the
petitions to the company president, Walter Cox. Mayo
testified that he and Cox were extremely concerned,
discussed the matter with the Company's attorney,
appraised the situation as a threat on the part of the
employees to engage in a sitdown strike or plant seizure
and decided to interrogate each signer individually to
ascertain what the employees intended to do. The group of
13 employees who signed department 17's petition before
the change in language was made by Schloss were closely
questioned in the same manner as the employees who
signed department 15's petition. The remaining 12
employees were not examined closely because they signed
their petition after the threat to "sit with no work" had
been eliminated. The Company conceded at the hearing
that the focus of its concern was limited to the employees
who signed department 15's petition.
Starting with the first shift at 7 a.m., July 19, and
continuing on July 20, each of the employees was
separately called to either Mayo's or Wilson's office
where about 75 percent of them were questioned by Mayo
and the balance by Wilson. There were two company
officials present during the questioning at all times and
during part of this time Frank Purdy, the company
employment manager , was also present. The
interrogations followed similar lines . Each employee, in
the order in which his or her name appeared on the
petition was asked if the signature was his or hers and
they they were asked if it was their intention to abide by
what they had signed. Of the five witnesses who testified,
Carson, Jansen, Waldrop, Carlos, and Hardin, all except
Jansen specifically said they did not intend to carry out
the threat but some added that they would do what the
others did.
In all, approximately 42 employees were individually
called away from their jobs during regular working time
to be interrogated by Mayo and Wilson in the private
offices of these Company officials over a period of about
1 1/2 days.
In the course of the interrogation of Jansen, she was
asked if she intended doing what was stated on the
petition. It is not disputed that she remarked to Wilson,
"you know yourself it's hot, we want to do production
and can't do it in this heat." Mayo interjected, "We are
not interested in that, are you going to do what you said."
Jansen then nodded her head in the affirmative to Mayo's
question. Jansen testified that she also said in a soft voice,
which was probably not heard by Mayo, that she was
going to do what the others did. At this point, Jansen was
abruptly told to clear out her locker and leave the
premises. She was accompanied towards the locker by
Frank Purdy part of the way and then escorted to the
plant exit by Piatt. On the same day, July 19, Respondent
hired a replacement to take her place.
Also, on this same day, Respondent advised Carson
that she was being suspended for 3 days for circulating the
petitions on company time . Apart from Carson and
Jansen , no discipline was meted out to any other
employees. The employees did not, in fact, sit at their
machines or engage in any other concerted activity.
In relation to union activity, the following facts were
not disputed. A union campaign had been in progress at
the plant for some months prior to the incident involving
the petitions. Respondent wrote a number of letters
expressing its opposition to the Union. The Union, on
July 17, wrote a letter to the Company president, listing
the 21 employees who comprised the union organizing
committee. Respondent wrote to each of the 21 committee
members advising them that they would be subject to
normal plant discipline and would have no immunity from
same because of their union activity.
Jansen and Waldrop were members of the union
organizing committee. Over a period of some months,
Jansen distributed handbills outside the plant on 4 or 5
occasions. She made one such distribution on July 18.
Jansen signed up some employees into the Union. On
cross examination Jansen said no supervisor ever
mentioned this activity to her.
Waldrop assisted Jansen in these activities.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The discharge of Rebecca Jansen
The issue here is whether the activities involved in this
matter were concerted activities under Section 7 of the
Act and therefore protected against reprisal by the
Respondent under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It seems
clear at the outset that what the employees were seeking
to accomplish - to secure fans to alleviate what they
considered oppressive working conditions - would
normally be considered the proper subject for legitimate
concerted action to improve their working conditions.
Respondent, however, takes the position that this activity
was not protected under the Act because at least as to
Jansen, the petition which she signed contained the
words" ...we sit with no work," and Jansen nodded her
head in assent when asked if she meant to do what was
said in the petition.
In other words, Respondent argues that by Jansen's
affirmation, Respondent believed that she intended to
KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS , INC. 137
seize the plant and was encouraging others to do likewise.
The cases cited by the Respondent in its brief on this
point all involved instances of actual plant seizure, or
refusal of employees to vacate the premises when asked,
or occurred in an atmosphere of force and violence, none
of which was involved here.
The words, "sit-down strike," or "plant seizure," are
words of art and have a unique meaning in the field of
labor law. The General Counsel' s witnesses were young
girls or women who were unsophisicated and could not be
expected to understand the legal implications which might
be drawn from the words "we sit with no work." If Mayo
wanted to ascertain whether the employees were
threatening to seize the plant or engage in a sit-down
strike he could have asked them a direct question as to
whether they would leave the plant if ordered to do so. No
such question was asked of them. Thus, in the context of
the events which transpired, it is apparent that no plant
seizure was threatened or intended.' In any event, it
strains credulity that Respondent seriously believed that
one girl, Jansen, was going to do this by herself. The
other four witnesses who testified at the hearing stated
that they did not intend to sit at their machines but that
they would do what the others did.
Even if all the employees had carried out the threat to
sit at their machines without work in protest against
excessive heat in the plant such activity would be
protected from discipline by the Respondent in the
absence of either a refusal to leave or some reasonable
basis for believing that the employees intended to "seize"
the plant. In Crane Company, 145 NLRB 587, the
employees did sit at their machines under quite similar
circumstances. Here a group of polishers and buffers
complained that the plant maintenance department
boarded up the windows and ventilators in their work
area. A petition, signed by 25 or more employees, was
given to their supervisor protesting the closing of the
ventilators. The employees worked for about an hour and
went to lunch. When they returned the ventilators had not
been opened so all but two of the men sat at their
machines for about 20 minutes, whereupon the ventilators
were opened. The Trial Examiner termed this activity a
"sit-down" strike protected by Section 7 of the Act. The
Board stated:
Although we do not accept the Trial Examiner's
characterization of this incident as constituting a
`sit-down strike,' we nevertheless agree with him that
this work stoppage by employees, as well as formation
of the grievance committee, was concerted activity
protected by Section 7 of the Act.
Thus, it would appear that a discharge for threatening to
sit at the machines is a violation of the Act.
On facts analagous to this matter there are
well-reasoned cases which support the conclusion reached
in the instant case . For example, the very recent case
Hanes Corporation, 168 NLRB No. 111, involved 35-40
employees who left their work stations, sat on benches
and stood around to protest their wages and to request
additional help. In that case there was no threat to sit
down but an actual sit down did in fact take place. The
Company discharged the leader of this activity, both for
leading the sit down movement and because it anticipated
a second sit down effort would be lead by the same man:
The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's finding that the
employees were engaged in activities protected by Section
7 of the Act.
In Indianapolis Glove Company, 5 NLRB 231, nine
employees sat down at their machines from 1:30 p.m. to
quitting time at 5:30 p.m. and performed no work (except
for uncompensated repair work) in protest over the refusal
of their supervisor to accede to certain work demands.
Three employees, considered by the Company to be
leaders in the sit down activity, were discharged. In
finding that the discharges constituted unfair labor
practices within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
the Board said:
The Respondent does not contend that if the tippers
had walked out of the plant on strike that afternoon, it
would have been justified in discharging or refusing to
reinstate them for such concerted activity. The fact that
in this case the tippers remained at their machines
during working hours instead of leaving the plant does
not justify their discharge. They were not requested by
Respondent to leave, nor did they remain in the plant
after the hour at which they were supposed to leave.
While the stoppage was going on they did some work
for the Respondent's benefit but for which they received
no compensation. . They committed no trepans,
caused no harm to the Respondent's property and did
not prevent other employees from working. The
Respondent has not demonstrated in what respect the
conduct of the tippers was in any way unlawful or
wherein it could be considered `glaring misconduct.''
Under all of the circumstances of this case, and the
applicable precedents, therefore, the discharge of Rebecca
Jansen was, and it is hereby found to be, a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The suspension of Mary Carson
The Respondent contends that Carson was suspended
for 3 days because she circulated petitions on July 18 and
solicited employees' signatures on them during working
hours. It is not denied that Respondent did not have a
rule prohibiting such activity on company time. It is also
not disputed that about a month prior to July 18 Carson
circulated another petition under strikingly similar
circumstances - also directed to securing fans to improve
working conditions - and on this occasion she was
neither disciplined nor warned against engaging in such
activity. Therefore, it is clear that Respondent did not rely
on the fact that her activity took place on company time
as the basis for suspending her. The more reasonable
explanation for her suspension was that the Respondent
wanted to punish Carson for her role in authoring and
circulating the petition in question. As I have found that
the circulation of the petition was a protected concerted
activity, suspending Carson because she engaged in such
activity violated Section 7 of the Act.
3. Confiscation of one of the petitions
Department 15's petition was taken from the employees
by Piatt without their permission. In the context of the
'It is difficult to conceive that Respondent seriously believed that a few
girls were going to seize this large plant against the Respondent's will. (I
have taken judicial notice of the fact that in Cases 9-RC-7296 and
9-RM-487 an election was conducted at this plant in June 1967, in which
380 employees cast ballots.)
'See also Andrews Company . 87 NLRB 379, 394; Globe Wireless. Ltd.,
88 NLRB 1262, 1266 , Lee Cylinder Division of Golay Co ., 156 NLRB
1252, enfd., in relevant part 371 F.2d 259. These cases all hold that the
gravamen of a plant seizure involves a refusal by employees to yield
possession of a plant when ordered to do so.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
facts of this case the seizure of the petition set in motion
the chain of events which lead to the interrogation and
later discipline of two employees . As has been stated
supra in this decision the language of department 17's
petition was changed to eliminate the offending words,
"we sit with no work ." Until the offending petition had
completed its circulation in the plant and had been turned
over to Respondent it remained the property of the
employees . This would be so up to the time they
voluntarily relinquished it. It is not known whether, after
the revision in department 17's petition , department 15's
petition might not also have been revised in the same
manner , had it still remained in the possession of the
employees . In any case , the seizure of the petition
concerning protected activities which belonged to the
employees, especially in view of the use to which it was
put, is an illegal interference with the rights of the
employees and is violative of Section 7 of the Act.
4. Interrogation
The General Counsel argues that the interrogation
under the circumstances of this case constituted an
independent violation of the employees ' right to engage in
concerted activities concerning working conditions and
thus violated Section 7. Respondent argues that the reason
for the questioning was to give the employees a second
chance to avoid engaging in a sit-down strike which it
feared was contemplated by them. If the Company wanted
to ascertain whether the employees intended to engage in
such action it could have asked a direct and clear question
like, "Will you remain at your machines if you are
ordered to leave the plant?" This could have provided an
unequivocal answer to the question as to whether or not a
sit-down strike or plant seizure was intended by the
employees . Respondent did not ask its employees such a
question . Further , the interruption of normal plant
operations caused by individually calling in 42 employees
to the boss ' s office seems a most unusual circumstance.
The fact that so many employees were called away from
their jobs during a normal plant work day, standing alone,
has an intimidatory flavor. In the case of Bourne v. N. L.
R. B., 332 F.2d 47, modifying and enfg. 144 NLRB 805,
there are set forth certain indicia of employer action
which, if met, would constitute illegal interrogation. Some
of the considerations there enumerated were present in
this case . Depending on the answers given by the
employees the Respondent clearly sought information
upon which to base disciplinary action against individual
employees. The place and method employed by the
Company must have created fear and anxiety in the minds
of the employees, who were individually called away from
work to the boss's office where, in an atmosphere of
unnatural formality, they were questioned by high officials
of the Respondent. Under the circumstances, and giving
added consideration to the underlying fact that the
Respondent 's course of interrogation was predicated on a
totally unwarranted assumption that it was faced with a
sit-down strike, I find that the Respondent violated the
Act by engaging in illegal interrogation.
Company wrote each employee explaining how they could
cancel their union authorization cards by writing a letter
to the Union saying, ". . . I hereby cancel and revoke the
union authorization card I signed. . . The letter
continues:
Such a letter, of course, must be signed and dated and
the writer should be sure to keep a copy of it. Your
supervisor or anyone in Personnel will be glad to
answer any questions about your rights in this respect.
The General Counsel argued that the letter of July 24 is
violative of the Act. It should be noted that the letter
nowhere contains a promise of benefit or threat of
reprisal . Further, the genesis for the holding of the
meeting with Wilson came from employee Lefkel. Cox's
letter was written in response to the request of two of the
Company's employees. The Board held in the
Cumberland Shoe Company case , 160 NLRB 1256, 1259,
that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) when its Vice
President shepherded its employees through the process of
drafting and mailing the withdrawal letters and then
informed the employee that a copy of the letter would be
kept in his personnel file. Inherent in this situation was
the influence exerted by the Vice President upon such
employees to complete the process of withdrawing from
the Union which interfered with the rights of the
employees not to do so if, at any point, they chose not to
complete the process. The facts of record do not establish
the above elements contained in the Cumberland case.
The Board has found illegal assistance and employer
interference in situations where a company mails such
letters ; furnishes envelopes , paper and postage for mailing;
keeps copies of the letters ; summons its ' employees to the
office and requests them to sign letters prepared by the
employer. Respondent did not engage in such action.
Therefore, absent the type of assistance indicated above
and absent promises of benefit or threats of reprisal I find
that Respondent's letter of July 24 was not violative of the
Act and it is recommended that this allegation in the
complaint be dismissed.
6. Allegation of 8(a)(3)
Respondent stipulated that it wrote a number of letters
to the employees expressing its opposition to the Union.
The General Counsel contends Jansen was discharged
because she was known to be a union adherent and
Respondent intended to make an example of her and thus
coerce her and other employees to refrain from union
activity. The timing and suddenness of Jansen's discharge
creates the suspicion that antiunion considerations
provided the Respondent's underlying motive for her
discharge . The difficulty with this contention is that
suspicion is not enough to support the 8(a)(3) allegation.
It is significant to point out that 21 employees were listed
as being members of the union organizing committee.
Employee Waldrop was prominently included in this
group along with some of the other employees who
testified for the General Counsel, It is not disputed that
Waldrop was active in the union campaign and worked
5. Letter concerning withdrawal from the Union
The company president , Cox, on July 25, sent each
employee a letter explaining that it had received a request
from two employees asking how they could revoke their
union authorization cards and remove themselves from the
organizing committee .' In response to this request the
'The record shows 'that an employee named Harry Lefkel offered to
bring another employee, Judy Carlos, to Superintendent Wilson's office to
help her cancel her union membership and remove her name from the
union organizing committee , as he had done She accepted his offer and
accompanied Lefkel to Wilson's office, where she added her name to
Lefkel's previously signed statement . Wilson told them that this Statement
would be posted in the plant. The record is silent as to who prepared the
document or what happened to it.
KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC. 139
with Jansen to further this purpose . Jansen was the only
employee out of these 21 employees to be discharged.
Carson was suspended and she was not a member of the
Union or its committee. Thus, the General Counsel did
not sustain his burden of proving by a preponderance of
the evidence that Jansen was discharged in violation of
Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act. It is therefore recommended
that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
Respondent apparently concluded that not only did
Jansen intend to "sit in" but by so doing this single
individual would thereby set in motion an employee
movement to seize the plant. First , this alleged reason for
discharging Jansen is so implausible as to be unbelievable.
Second , no such event occurred . In N. L. R. B. v. Burnup
and Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, the employer believed that
two employees threatened to blow up his property and
they were discharged. The Supreme Court held that the
discharges in these circumstances violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, concurring in the well settled holdings of the
Board that regardless of an employer's motive , Section
8(a)(1) "is violated if an employee is discharged for
misconduct arising out of protected activity , despite the
employer ' s good faith, when it is shown that the
misconduct never occurred ." 379 U.S. 23.
It seems clear that Jansen was discharged as
punishment for threatening to engage in activities
protected by the Act, thus setting an example to
discourage other employees from engaging in such action.
Accordingly , I conclude that Respondent ' s discharge of
Jansen violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above occurring in connection with its operations
described in section 1, above , have a close , intimate, and
substantial relation to trade , traffic , and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(axl) of the
Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent violated the Act by
discharging Rebecca Jansen on July 19, 1968, I shall
recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer her
immediate and full reinstatement to her former or
substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her
seniority and other rights and privileges , and make her
whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by
reason of her discharge by payment to her of a sum of
money equal to the amount which she normally would
have earned as wages from July 19, 1968, to the date of
the offer of reinstatement, less her earnings , to which is to
be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, in
accordance with the formula set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
I shall also recommend that Respondent rescind the
3-day suspension of Mary Carson, remove from her
personnel record any references thereto , and make her
whole for the loss of earnings she suffered by reason of
her suspension.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the
entire record in this case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, KDI Precision Products , Inc., is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with employee rights to engage in
protected concerted activities , by discharging employee
Rebecca Jansen and suspending employee Mary Carson as
found above , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not unlawfully solicited or assisted
its employees in their efforts to cancel their Union cards
and withdraw from the union organizing committee.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby recommended that Respondent, KDI
Precision Products , Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio , its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or suspending employees under
circumstances which interfere with , restrain , or coerce
employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in
concerted activities.
(b) Confiscating petitions of employees which relate to
improving working conditions or other mutual aid or
protection.
(c) Interrogating employees about their concerted
activities regarding petitions which relate to improving
working conditions or other mutual aid or protection.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , coercing, or discouraging employees in the
exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Rebecca Jansen immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed and make her whole for
any loss she may have suffered by reason of her discharge
in the manner set forth in the section of the above
decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Rescind the 3-day suspension of Mary Carson,
remove from her personnel record any references thereto
and make her whole for the loss of earnings suffered by
reason of her suspension in the manner set forth in this
section of the above decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment I records,
timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other
records relevant and necessary to a determination of
compliance with paragraphs 2(a) and (b) above.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
(d) Post at its Cincinnati, Ohio, place of business,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies
of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by
Respondent 's representative , shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. 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 said Regional Director , in writing , within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed with respect to allegations of unfair labor
practices not herein found to have been committed.
'In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the ,Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give
evidence, it was found that we, KDI Precision Products,
Inc., violated the National Labor Relations Act, and we
were ordered to post this notice to inform our employees
of their rights.
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain as a group through a representative
they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all of these things
We have also been ordered to assure our employees
that:
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these
rights.
WE WILL offer Rebecca Jansen immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges and we will make her whole for
any loss she may have suffered as a result of her
discharge.
WE WILL rescind the 3-day suspension of Mary
Carson , remove from her personnel record any
references thereto and make her whole for the loss of
earnings she suffered by reason of her suspension.
WE WILL NOT discharge or suspend employees under
circumstances which interfere with , restrain , or coerce
employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT confiscate petitions of employees
which relate to improved working conditions or other
mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their
concerted activities regarding petitions wiich relate to
improved working conditions or other mutual aid or
protection.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
You are all free to engage in concerted activity for your
mutual aid or protection so long as you do not violate
lawful regulations of the Company.
Dated By
KDI PRECISION
PRODUCTS, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting , and must not be altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, Room 2407,
Federal Office Building , 550 Main Street, Ciaeintati,
Ohio 45202, Telephone No. 513-684-3686.