Leslie Metal Arts Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 323 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

LESLIE METAL ARTS CO., INC.
Leslie Metal Arts Company , Inc. and Betty McDo-
nald. Case 7-CA-10237
January 10, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On July 31. 1973, Administrative Law Judge David
S. Davidson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding . Thereafter , Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed a
brief in response to exceptions of Respondent.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labo - Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions I 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, Leslie Metal Arts
Company, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan, its officers.
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the sr id recommended Order.
I As the employees in the instant case did not seek to protest
management's selection of its supervisors, we neither adopt nor pass upon
the Administrative Law Judge's obiter dictum that the banding together of
employees to protest "e ten management 's choice of supervisors is protected
concerted activity."
DECISION
ST4'rEMF..NT OF THE CASE
DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Administrative Law Judge: Pur-
suant to a charge filed on March 20, 1973, by Betty
McDonald, an individual, a complaint issued on May 3,
1973, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by threatening employees with disciplinary action,
suspending Adrian Knoll, Michael Wildfong, Alice Le-
nard, and Betty McDonald, and subsequently discharging
Betty McDonald. all because they engaged in a protected
concerted withholding of their services in order to protest
certain terms and conditions of their employment. In its
answer Respondent denies the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
t Unless otherwise indicated , the findings which follow are based on a
composite of the testimony of McDonald , Lenard, Adrian Knoll , and Don
323
A hearing was held before me on June 14, 1973, at
Grand Rapids, Michigan. At the conclusion of the hearing
oral argument was heard, and a brief has been received
from Respondent.
There is no dispute that the four named employees were
suspended and that McDonald was discharged. The
principal issue is whether their activities which caused the
suspensions and discharge were concerted activities pro-
tected by Section 7 of the Act.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Michigan corporation, is engaged in the
State of Michigan in the plating and manufacture of dies
and automotive parts. During the calendar year 1972,
Respondent sold products valued in excess of $50,000
which were shipped directly to points outside the State of
Michigan. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. Background and events before March 9
At the time of the events involved herein Betty
McDonald, Alice Lenard, Kathy Gallegos, and Jane
Johnson all worked in the plating department in Respon-
dent's Grand Rapids plant 2 on the second shift under the
supervision of Paul Voorheis.I McDonald had worked in
that department as a chrome racker since 1966. From mid-
September 1972 until January 29, 1973, she was on sick
leave. At the time she went on sick leave, none of the other
three worked as chrome rackers.
During McDonald's absence, Gallegos and Lenard both
started to work as chrome rackers and were working in that
capacity when McDonald returned to work. In mid-
February, Lenard transferred to another department.
However, about 2 weeks later an opening was posted for a
chrome racker, Lenard requested it, and on March 22
Lenard was transferred back to chrome racking. On
Monday, March 5 Johnson also was transferred to chrome
racking.
There is considerable evidence that relations between
Gallegos and Johnson on the one hand and McDonald and
Lenard on the other were strained and deteriorating before
and after this date. Gallegos had dubbed Lenard "bitch,"
and Gallegos made statements to Johnson and others,
which came to McDonald's attention, that she was going to
call the wives of second shift platers Adrian Knoll and
Mike Wildfong and tell them they were playing around
with other women. Knoll was married to McDonald's
daughter, and Wildfong was married to McDonald's niece.
A further conflict and complaint arose from the
performance of the racking work. The rackers were paid on
Brown There is little conflict in their testimony as to the essential facts
2 All dates which follow occurred in 1973. unless otherwise indicated
208 NLRB No. 51
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a piece-work basis, but with a maximum on the amount
they could earn on one shift. Some parts were considered
more desirable to rack because of the prices they bore.
McDonald and Lenard believed that Gallegos and John-
son had at times maneuvered to gain the more desirable
parts for themselves to rack leaving the less desirable parts
for them. There is evidence, less definite in nature, that
complaints also had been made against McDonald by
Gallegos and others.
On Tuesday, March 6, Voorheis asked Lenard to work as
an unracker, a different job in the same department.
Lenard protested the assignment on the ground that she
had been on the racking job longer than Johnson. Voorheis
rejected her protest, but Lenard was not required to work
as an unracker that night.
On Wednesday night, Lenard and McDonald separately
spoke to Plant Superintendent Don Brown about Lenard's
transfer to unracking, contending that Johnson should be
transferred because she had less seniority in the depart-
ment. Brown, however, took the position that under
Respondent's seniority' policy, Lenard was the appropriate
person to be transferred as she had less seniority in the
plant. Lenard told Brown that if she was required to
unrack, she would go home. Later that night, when
Voorheis instructed her to unrack, Lenard left the plant.
The next night she returned to work and was disciplined.
She was given a written warning with the explanation that
because it was busy a 1-day suspension provided under
Respondent's rules had been waived.
That night, Thursday, Lenard worked as an unracker,
and the other three worked as rackers. During a break
McDonald stopped work, but Johnson continued to work
and finished a rack which McDonald had started. Johnson
got credit for the performance of that work. Although
McDonald was not thereby prevented from earning the
maximum rate for the shift, she viewed Johnson's action as
an attempt to pick on her and complained to Voorheis. He
agreed that Johnson should not have finished McDonald's
rack, but attributed Johnson's conduct to aggressiveness
and said that he wanted to see Johnson earn the maximum
like anyone else. That night, McDonald also complained to
Brown about the incident and her belief that Gallegos and
Johnson were teaming up against her in order to pick the
parts they wanted to rack and to leave the less desirable
parts for her. In response to a question by Brown,
McDonald said she thought she was being picked on.
McDonald also mentioned Gallegos' threats to call Knoll's
wife. Brown commented that the latter was a personal
matter and said that he would talk to Voorheis about her
other complamts.3
2. The March 9 chair incident and walkout
On Friday, March 9, at the 6:30 p.m. break period,
McDonald and Gallegos stopped racking while Johnson
continued to work. McDonald and Gallegos sat in the only
two chairs available near their work location. Lenard, who
3 McDonald so testified According to Brown, he told her that he did not
like the petty bickering in the department and that he was going to call a
departmental meeting to resolve it Although I believe Brown that he told
McDonald that he did not like the petty bickering in the department. I
credit McDonald that Brown did not mention calling a departmental
was working as an unracker that night, came by to talk
with McDonald. While they were talking, Gallegos got out
of her chair and went to talk with Johnson where she was
working. Lenard sat in the chair that Gallegos had vacated.
Gallegos immediately returned and told Lenard to get out
of her chair. Lenard refused. Gallegos again told Lenard to
get out of the chair. Lenard said that it wasn't Gallegos'
chair and that she wasn't moving. Gallegos then grabbed
the chair and yanked it out from under Lenard. Lenard
kept her balance and did not fall. Gallegos thet said to
Lenard, "For two cents, I'd knock you right on your ass."
Voorheis was present and observed the incident. After a
pause, Voorheis said that they shouldn't argue over a chair
and asked why they didn't go upstairs and get another
chair. When no one else moved to get one, Voorheis went
and got another chair.
At the end of the break period Knoll and Wildfong
walked by. Lenard told them what had just happened, and
McDonald told them what Gallegos had said about calling
their wives. Knoll said he had heard something about those
statements and that he was fed up with Gallegos.
McDonald said that she had about had it and wasn't going
to take much more of it. However all four returned to
work.
A few minutes later Voorheis walked by where McDo-
nald was working. McDonald told him she thought it was
pretty "chicken shit" of him to have failed to stop Gallegos
or do anything when Gallegos threatened Lenard. Before
Voorheis could answer, Gallegos called out, "You old hag.
If you've got something to say, say it to me and not to
Paul." McDonald answered that she wasn't talking to her.
Voorheis said nothing and walked away.
McDonald then decided to leave, figuring that if she
stayed it would end in a fight. McDonald got her coat,
went toward the timeclock to leave, and again encountered
Voorheis. She told Voorheis that she was not going to work
under "these conditions of being called names and having
these girls work against me all the time, and threatening
other employees." She told Voorheis she had talked
previously to him and Brown about some of these
problems and that nothing seemed to be done about it. She
told Voorheis that she wasn't going to stay there that night,
and he told her that if she wanted leave she should go.
McDonald then told Voorheis that she wouldn't be going
alone and that Lenard, Knoll, and Wtldfong would also go
because they had also had their fill of Gallegos and the
working conditions there.
McDonald then went to the timeclock she was Joined by
Knoll, Wildfong, Lenard, and another employee Rick
Wilbert, as well as Voorheis. A loud discussion ensued.
Voorheis asked them what they were trying to do and said
they couldn't walk off the job like that. Lenard said she
was tired of what she had been taking from Gallegos.
meeting until 2 days later on Saturday There is no evidence that such a
meeting was otherwise mentioned by anyone until Saturday , or that any
plans to hold such a meeting had been made
LESLIE METAL ARTS CO', INC. 325
Knoll said that something had to be done about Gallegos'
conduct.4 McDonald, Lenard, Knoll, and Wildfong then
left the plant.5
3. The aftermath of the walkout
After McDonald reached her home, she telephoned
Plant Manager Debski and told him that the four
employees had walked out because of Gallegos' behavior
and the working conditions. Debski said they couldn't
leave their jobs like that. McDonald said that she had
talked to management 2 days earlier but that nothing had
changed. Debski told her that they had to return to work
that night or strict disciplinary action would be taken on
the following Monday. McDonald said that under the
circumstances they would not work any more that night.
Later that night Debski telephoned McDonald and
asked her to come to the plant with Lenard on the next
morning, Saturday, to talk the matter over with him and
Brown.
At the meeting the next morning, Brown asked McDo-
nald why the four employees had left their jobs. McDonald
told Brown and Debski about the chair incident the night
before, Gallegos' threat to Lenard, Gallegos' calling her
names, and Gallegos' threats to call the wives of Knoll and
Wildfong. Brown then said that he knew conditions were
not the best in the department and that there were hostile
feelings. He asked McDonald if she had any suggestions as
to what could be done to change the attitude of the girls in
the department. McDonald made no suggestions. Brown
suggested one change in work procedure and asked her
opinion of it. McDonald at first said she thought it might
work, but then disagreed.
After talking to McDonald, Brown and Debski asked
Lenard why she had walked off the job. Lenard gave
essentially the same reasons as McDonald, mentioning also
that Gallegos called her names while at work.6
Brown and Debski said that it was ridiculous to have a
walkout over these things and that they would have a
departmental meeting to try to solve the problem. They
told McDonald and Lenard that they were suspended
pending further investigation and that they should call the
plant on Monday for further information about their
status.
On that day Brown and Debski met separately with
Gallegos and Johnson, and Gallegos was given a 3-day
suspension because of the chair incident.
On March 14 or 15 Brown told McDonald that she had
been discharged for instigating a departmental walkout
and leaving herjob without permission.?
On March 13, Brown informed Lenard that she was
4 Knoll testified that apart from the chair incident , he was dissatisfied
because of Gallegos' threats to call his wife and Wildfong 's, because it was
too hot where he worked , and because the 'platers often worked
shorthanded However, he mentioned none of the other reasons to Voorhees
at the time he left
S Although Wilbert initially indicated that he would also join them, he
did not
6 McDoflald and Lenard so testified as to what they said were the
reasons for the walkout . Brown testified that they only mentioned the chair
incident as a reason , but that other problems in the department were also
discussed in the meeting I have credited McDonald and Lenard that they
voiced all their complaints when asked why they walked out
suspended for 3 days for her second offense in leaving the
plant without permission . At the end of the 3-day period
Lenard returned to work.
Wildfong and Knoll were each given 1 -day suspensions.
Wildfong returned to work on Tuesday, March 13, but
Knoll did not. Knoll talked to Brown and Debski that
afternoon before the start of the second shift and learned
of the discipline against him . He asked what was being
done with respect to McDonald and Lenard, but Brown
and Debski only told him that they were still under
suspension. Knoll said that he did not want to return to
work under those conditions and that he could not return
to work and maintain a happily married life.8
On Thursday, March 15, Brown called him, asked him if
he would come back to work that night, and told him that
if he didn't return that night, he would be considered as
having voluntarily quit because of unexcused absences.
Knoll told Brown that he thought he would be there, but
when he learned later that afternoon that McDonald had
been discharged, he did not report for work.
The next day, Knoll went to the plant to pick up his
check and spoke with Brown . Brown said that he was sorry
to see Knoll go, and Knoll replied that he was sorry to go
but that he could not return to work in view of
McDonald's termination because of his personal family
life. Knoll told Brown that he had applied for a prospective
job in tool-and-die work which looked promising. Brown
offered to give him a good reference. Knoll thanked him
and left .9
B. Concluding Findings
Section 7 of the Act protects "concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection." Here it is not disputed that the walkout was
concerted activity and that the suspensions and discharge
were caused by the employees' participation in it. The
question is whether the concerted activity was for a
purpose protected by Section 7. The General Counsel
contends that the purpose of the walkout was to protest
working conditions and was for mutual aid and protection
on the job. Respondent contends that the walkout was not
in protest of working conditions but was the result of
personal animosity between employees which was beyond
the control of Respondent.
The cause of the walkout was articulated differently by
its various participants at different times, as is not unusual
when an unorganized group of employees decides to act
jointly in the absence of a designated bargaining represent-
ative or spokesman.iO But whatever the background of
animosity between Gallegos and Johnson on the one hand
7 Brown 's testimony indicates that McDonald was disciplined more
severely than the other employees because she was deemed the instigator of
the walkout and because of her past record
8 These findings are based on a composite of the testimony of Knoll and
Brown
9 These findings are based on a composite of the testimony of Knoll and
Brown Although Knoll testified that he could not recall whether he made
reference to the feeling within his family, he did not deny that it was
mentioned , and Brown so testified
10 See. e g, N L R B v Washington Aluminum Company, Inc, 370 U S 9.
14-15 (1962), Polytech, Incorporated, 195 NLRB 695
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the employees who walked out on the other, the
circumstances and the testimony make it clear that the
chair incident and its immediate aftermath were the
precipitating cause of the walkout and that the purpose of
the walkout was to protest that incident and Voorheis'
handling of it. Thus, immediately after the incident the
four employees who later walked out gathered and
discussed it. McDonald then indicated that she had about
"had it," and Knoll said that he was "fed up." Although
they then returned to work, only shortly thereafter they
walked out after McDonald reproached Voorheis, Gallegos
intervened, and Voorheis walked away without answering.
This incident was not unrelated to the chair incident, as
Respondent contends, but was its direct sequel, and the
provocation which led McDonald to decide to leave was
not merely that Gallegos had called her an old hag, but
that she had done so when McDonald complained to
Voorheis over his failure to take action at the time of the
chair incident, and that Voorheis again took no action.
While McDonald testified that she decided to leave to
avoid a fight, one can hardly separate that reason from her
criticism of Voorheis' failure to intervene, which left
Gallegos' hostile actions and statements unchecked. With
respect to the other three employees who walked out, even
though they initially returned to work after the chair
incident and might well have remained there if McDonald
had not decided to leave, it does not follow from the fact
that they did not leave immediately and waited for
McDonald's leadership that the chair incident was not the
cause of their leaving. To the contrary, there is no reason to
believe that they would have left but for the chair incident,
which at least two of them mentioned to Voorheis as they
were leaving and all three later mentioned to management
when questioned after the fact as to the cause of the
walkout.
Even absent McDonald's articulation of the complaint
about Voorheis' failure to act, implicit in the action of all
the employees who left was an appeal to management to
do something about Gallegos' conduct during the break. ii
The chair incident was not simply a dispute between two
employees unrelated to their work. It took place during a
break within the department. It entailed both a physical
and a verbal threat to Lenard's safety. It was within
Respondent's power to take action to maintain discipline
within the plant, as Respondent clearly recognized in
suspending Gallegos after the walkout occurred. The
quality of supervision and the manner in which it is
exercised are directly related to working conditions, and
the banding together of employees to protest the way in
which supervision is exercised and even management's
choice of supervisors is protected concerted activity.i2
11 N L R B. v. Washington Aluminum Co, 370 U S 9, 14-15 (1962),
System Analyzer Corp, 171 NLRB 45, 49-50
12 N L R B v. Guernsey- Muskingum Electric Cooperative , Inc, 285 F 2d 8
(C A. 6, 1960); Cubit Systems Corporation, 194 NLRB 622
13 Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc v NLRB, 358 F 2d 411, 413-414
(C.A 9, 1966)
14 N.LR B v. Washington Aluminum Co, supra I have considered
Joanna Cotton Mills Co v. N LR.B., 176 F 2d 749 (C.A. 4); G & W Electric
Specialty Company v N LR B, 360 F 2d 873 (C A 7, 1966), and AHI
Machine Tool and Die, Inc v. N LR B, 432 F 2d 190 (C.A 6, 1970), on
which Respondent relies , but find that each is distinguishable on its facts. I
have also considered Respondent 's contention that the walkout exposed
Indeed, a protest against a supervisory response to a
breach of plant discipline both literally and in spirit is
concerted activity for mutual aid and protection of
employees while at work. This is not to say that
management was required to take any particular action
sought by the employees or to change its supervisory
practices in any respect. But it is to say that concerted
activity for such a purpose is protected by Section 7 of the
Act and cannot be the basis of disciplinary action against
the protesting employees. The fact that Knoll and
Wildfong were not themselves involved in the chair
incident did not deprive them of protection of the Act
when they joined McDonald and Lenard in walking out.i3
Likewise, the fact that the chair incident did not occur in
isolation, but followed escalating hostility within the
department did not deprive the walkout of protection.
Insofar as the record shows, the hostility did not arise from
incidents outside the plant unrelated to employment but
from conduct within the plant relating to discipline, safety,
and work load by which, whether rightly or wrongly, the
employees felt aggrieved. In any event, whatever the
ultimate effect of that hostility might have been absent the
chair incident, the record shows that the chair incident and
its aftermath were the direct cause of the walkout.
Accordingly, I find that McDonald, Lenard, Knoll, and
Wildfong were engaged in activity protected by Section 7
of the Act when they walked out and that the suspensions
of all four and the discharge of McDonald violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.14
In addition, as I have found that the walkout on March 9
was protected concerted activity, it also follows, as alleged
in the complaint, that when Debski told McDonald that
night that the employees would have to return to work
immediately or face strict disciplinary action on the
following Monday, this warning violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
There remains for consideration the allegations of the
complaint that Knoll became an unfair labor practice
striker and that Brown violated the Act by telling Knoll
that his employment would be considered terminated
unless he returned to work.
As set forth above, on Tuesday, March 13, when Knoll
was told that he could return to work that night, Knoll was
unable to learn what discipline was to be imposed on
McDonald and Lenard. Knoll refused to return to work
and said that he did not want to return to work under those
conditions and that he could not return to work and still
maintain a happily married life.
Two days later Brown telephoned Knoll and told him
that if he did not return to work that night he would be
considered as having quit because of unexcused absences.
Respondent to significant loss because of its abrupt occurrence while work
was in process While Brown 's testimony suggests that Voorheis may have
been required to expend extra effort to avoid scrap when Knoll and
Wildfong left their plater's jobs, there is no evidence that materials or
equipment was damaged as a result of the walkout, that the employees
should have taken reasonable precautions to protecuthe Respondent 's plant
from such imminent damage as forseeably would result from their work
stoppage, or that they deliberately timed their walkout so as to create a risk
of substantial property damage Cf Marshall Car Wheel and Foundry Co of
Marshall, Texas, Inc; 105 NLRB 57. 107 NLRB 314, enforcement denied
218 F.2d 409 (C A. 5).
LESLIE METAL ARTS CO., INC. 327
Although Knoll indicated that he would return, after
learning that McDonald had been terminated he did not
report for work that night.
On the next day, Knoll picked up his check and spoke
again with Brown, again indicating that he could not
return to work because of his personal family life.
Neither counsel for the General Counsel in oral
argument nor Respondent in its bnef has dealt with the
issues raised by these facts.
Although the facts above indicate that Knoll's motive in
refusing to return to work stemmed at least in part from
family considerations, the motive for Knoll' s refusal is
irrelevant.15 At the time of his conversation with Brown
and Debski on Tuesday, it is clear that Knoll was only
refusing to return to work until McDonald and Lenard
were reinstated and was not refusing to return under any
circumstances. 16 By this refusal, Knoll made common
cause with McDonald and Lenard, both of whom
remained employees of Respondent within the meaning of
the Act. Accordingly, I find that by refusing to return to
work on March 13, Knoll became an unfair labor striker.
As Knoll's withholding of his services on Tuesday and
Wednesday was protected, Brown's statement to him on
Thursday that he would be considered a voluntary quit if
he did not return to work on Thursday threatened Knoll
with discipline if he did not refrain from this protected
activity and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I find further that Knoll's status was not changed after
his visit to the plant on Friday. Although Knoll's
statements to Brown at that time indicate that he may have
then viewed his departure as final, Brown had previously
told him he was to be considered as a voluntary quit if he
did not work the previous night. While one cannot assume
that Knoll would ever have returned to work without the
reinstatement of McDonald, in the light of Brown's
warning the day before, Knoll's statements to Brown on
Friday cannot be construed an unequivocal abandonment
of his rights as an unfair labor practice striker.17 Accord-
ingly, I find that from March 13 on, Knoll was an unfair
labor practice striker and is entitled to reinstatement upon
his unconditional application.
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 the operations
described in section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several states and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
15 Wheeling Electric Company, 182 NLRB 2I8, 220, enforcement denied
444 F 2d 783 (C A 4, 1971) Cf NLRB v Union Carbide Corporation, 440
F 2d 54 (C A. 4, 1971), cert denied 404 U S 826 (1971) Here, unlike the
situation in Carbide where an employee refused to cross a picket solely by
reason of physical fear, Knoll's family relationship to McDonald gave him
added cause to support her legitimate claim to reinstatement as well as to
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent suspended and
thereafter discharged Betty McDonald in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that
Respondent be ordered to offer her immediate and full
reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer
exists , to a substantially equivalent position , without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights or privileges, and
make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have
suffered by payment to her of the amount she normally
would have earned as wages from March 12, 1973, to the
date of an offer of reinstatement , less net earnings, to
which shall 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.
As I have found that Respondent suspended Adrian
Knoll and Michael Wildfong from work for the day of
March 12, 1973, and suspended Alice Lenard from work
from March 12 through 14, 1973, 1 shall further recom-
mend that their suspensions be rescinded and that they be
made whole for any losses they may have suffered during
the periods of their suspensions , with interest.
As I have found that Adrian Knoll became an unfair
labor practice striker on March 13, 1973, I shall further
recommend that Respondent , shall, upon application, offer
him reinstatement to his former position or, if that position
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or
privileges, dismissing, if necessary, any person hired to
replace him, and make him whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered or may suffer by reason of Respon-
dent's refusal, if any, to reinstate him, by payment to him
of a sum of money equal to that he normally would have
earned as wages during the period from 5 days after the
date on which he applies for reinstatement to the date of
Respondent 's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings,
with interest, to be computed in accordance with the same
formula.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Leslie Metal Arts Company, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. By suspending Adrian Knoll, Alice Lenard, and
Michael Wildfong, by suspending and then discharging
Betty McDonald, and by threatening employees with
discharge or other disciplinary action, all because they
engaged in protected concerted activities or refused to stop
engaging in protected concerted activities , Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(b) and (7) of
the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
fear the consequences to his home life if he did not
16 Knoll so testified , and it is clear from Brown 's telephone call to Knoll
on Thursday that Brown understood that Knoll had not unconditionally
refused to return to work
17 See S & M Manufacturing Company, 165 NLRB 663.
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 18
Respondent, Leslie Metal Arts Company, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
by suspending, discharging, or in any other manner
discriminating against employees for engaging in protected
concerted activity.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge or other
disciplinary action for engaging in protected concerted
activity or refusing to refrain therefrom.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Betty McDonald and, upon application, offer
Adrian Knoll immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights or privileges.
(b) Rescind the suspensions of Adrian Knoll, Alice
Lenard, Betty McDonald, and Michael Wildfong based on
their March 9, 1973, walkout and make them whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
unlawful action against them to the extent and in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under
the terms of this recommended Order.
(d) Post at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, place of
business, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 19 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 7, after having been duly
signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent 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 Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. '
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
18 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
19 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 be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees by suspending, discharging, or in any other
manner discriminating against them for engaging in
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge
or other disciplinary action for engaging in protected
concerted. activities or refusing to refrain therefrom.
WE WILL offer Betty McDonald and upon applica-
tion WE WILL offer Adrian Knoll reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent jobs.
WE WILL make Adrian Knoll, Alice Lenard, Betty
McDonald, and Michael Wildfong whole for any losses
of pay they may have suffered as a result of unlawful
action against them, and WE WILL rescind their
suspensions based, on their March 9, 1973, walkout.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
LESLIE METAL ARTS
COMPANY, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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. Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249
Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Tele-
phone 313-226-3200.