M. B. D. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 1, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 494 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
M. B. D. Company and International Union of
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 6-CA-5255
October 1, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On June 16, 1971, Trial Examiner Benjamin K.
Blackburn issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision with supporting brief and the General
Counsel filed a brief in opposition and in answer to
Respondent's exceptions.
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 of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the 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 orders that the Respondent,
M. B. D. Company, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Trial Examiner It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule a
Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544,
enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing his findings.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN K. BLACKBURN , Trial Examiner : International
Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC, referred to herein as the Charging Party
or the Union , filed an unfair labor practice charge against
M. B. D. Company , referred to herein as Respondent, on
October 26 , 1970,1 and amended it on January 21, 1971. On
January 29 , 1971, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board , by the Acting Regional Director
for Region 6 (Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania), issued a complaint
alleging that Respondent had violated Section 8 (a)(1) and
(3) of the Act , principally by discharging Kent Myers and
Dale Neill on October 9 . Respondent's answer , duly filed,
admitted certain allegations of the complaint and denied
others, including the allegation that it had committed any
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice , hearing was held before me in
Brookville , Pennsylvania , on March 18 , 19, 29, 30, and 31
and April 1 , 1971. The major issue litigated was Respon-
dent's motive for discharging Myers and Niell. All parties
appeared and were given full opportunity to participate, to
adduce relevant evidence , to examine and cross -examine
witnesses , to argue orally , and to file briefs . The General
Counsel 's motion to correct transcript is hereby granted.
Upon the entire record as corrected , including briefs filed
by Respondent and the General Counsel , and from my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while
testifying under oath , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation, is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Beverage-Air Company,2 Spartanburg,
South Carolina, referred to herein as the Spartanburg plant.
Respondent manufactures small coolers for keg beer,
known as barmobiles , at its plant in Brookville . During the
year just prior to issuance of the complaint in this case,
Respondent received goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 which were shipped to the Brookville plant
directly from points outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. On the basis of these admitted facts, I find
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges , the answer admits , and I find the
Charging Party is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
i Dates are 1970 unless otherwise indicated
2 Respondent in Beverage -Air Company, 164 NLRB 1127, enfd. as
modified 402 F.2d 411 (C.A 4, 1968 ); Board 's Order enfd pendente hie as
modified 391 F 2d 255 (C A. 4, 1968) Herman Buffington, Respondent's
president , is the Buffington referred to variously in Beverage-Air as
president and chief executive officer of that Company A third company,
located in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania , and mentioned in Beverage-Air,
also figures in this case. It is also headed by Herman Buffington. It is
referred to herein as the Punxsutawney plant.
193 NLRB No. 79
M. B. D. COMPANY 495
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Credibility
The heart of the General Counsel' s case is testimony from
several of his witnesses that James Love, Respondent's
plant superintendent , said Kent Myers and Dale Neill were
going to be discharged for engaging in union activities. The
heart of Respondent 's defense is Love's categorical denials
that he did so. Thus the beginning and the end of the
resolution of the issues presented by this case must turn on
whose witnesses are believed . For the reasons which follow,
where the conflicting testimony of the General Counsel's
and Respondent 's witnesses cannot be reconciled, I have
credited the General Counsel's witnesses (Myers, Neill, and
fellow employees Wayne Corbin, Larry Arnold, and Gene
Boddorf) over Love and Earl Bros ius, Myers' and Neill's
immediate supervisor and the only other witness called by
Respondent whose testimony relates to these critical areas.
I have not relied on numbers in reaching this conclusion.
Five witnesses for the General Counsel do not necessarily
outweigh two witnesses for Respondent . Nor have I relied
on demeanor of the witnesses in the literal sense in which
that phrase is usually used . None of the witnesses "looked"
or "acted" like a barefaced liar, however a liar is supposed
to look or act when practicing his art . All struck me as men
involved in a novel experience who were trying to live up to
the oath they had sworn to tell the truth without, however,
doing mortal hurt to the cause with which their interests
lay.
Because of this impression , based on demeanor in a
literal sense , I have also not relied on inconsistencies within
the testimony of any particular witness. The case of Gene
Boddorf illustrates this point . It is the most glaring in the
record . As developed below, there is no dispute that
Boddorf got a raise by complaining about the work of a
man working next to him who was making more money
than he . According to Respondent , that man was Neill. On
rebuttal , Boddorf testified that the man was one Joe
Sherman and stated flatly that he knew Sherman was
making $2 .45 an hour while he was making only $2.35
because he had seen the payroll change notice which
boosted Sherman to the $2.45 level. However, Respondent
introduced all payroll change notices relating to Joe
Sherman into evidence . They establish beyond any doubt
that Sherman , who left Respondent 's employ in late
October, never earned more than $2.35. Therefore, Boddorf
did not tell the truth when he said he saw Sherman 's payroll
change notice . I do not think , however, that Boddorf must
be discredited generally for this reason . He got carried
away by a desire to help Neill or the Charging Party and
may well have convinced himself, as he sat through the
hearing and listened to Respondent 's evidence about Neill's
inadequacies as a worker , that he really did have Sherman
in mind when he complained. I find below that Boddorf
complained about Neill, not Sherman. In spite of the fact
that I have discredited Boddorf on this specific detail,
however , I have credited , for example , his testimony on
which I have based my finding below that Love told
Boddorf he had orders from Buffington to discharge Myers,
Neill, and Carl Uplinger.
What I have relied on in generally crediting the General
Counsel's witnesses over Respondent's is demeanor in a
broader and , I think , more useful sense , namely, the
personality of James Love as he revealed it on the stand.
Love got in on the ground floor when the Brookville plant
opened and advanced rapidly from the ranks to the top
managerial position in the plant . His version of one of the
early antiunion statements attributed to him by the General
Counsel 's witnesses is that he told the men he personally
did not want any part of the Union. It is undisputed that
Respondent waged a vigorous and skillful campaign to
keep the Union out of the plant . Love frankly admitted his
lack of experience in labor relations . Putting all these pieces
together , including the way he looked and acted on the
stand, I conclude that Love, because of his inexperience
and an excess of zeal to protect what he conceived to be
Respondent's as well as his own best interest , went too far.
It is not surprising that a man in this predicament could not
bring himself to acknowledge his transgressions on the
stand. In the context of the total situation which admittedly
existed at the Brookville plant in the spring , summer, and
early fall of 1970, I find the General Counsel 's version of
what Love said and did more inherently credible than a
man of Love 's demonstrated temperament and personality
conducting himself as Love claimed he did.
There were two other witnesses to whom I have not yet
alluded. John Amend , an organizer for the Union , testified
for the General Counsel . I have credited his testimony.
There are no significant conflicts between it and Respon-
dent's evidence . I have also credited Dennis Henry, the
inventory control clerk at the Brookville plant , who was
called as a witness by Respondent . He impressed me as a
candid young man with excellent powers of recall. There
are some minor conflicts between his testimony and that of
the General Counsel 's witnesses , principally as to what
words Myers spoke to Love when Love discharged Myers
on October 9. In those instances , I have relied on Henry's
testimony and rejected that of those who disagree with him.
Finally , I have placed in June an event which the General
Counsel 's witnesses placed in March , namely , a meeting of
employees at which Love admittedly read them a letter. The
letter is in evidence. It conveys the usual message of an
employer who has employed experienced counsel to his
employees who are about to participate in a Board election
that unions can mean strikes , strikes can mean trouble, and
they had better think twice about where their real interests
lie before they vote . It is unlikely that such a letter would
have been read to employees 2 months or more before
election day in a campaign conducted by expert counsel. I
find that it was read a day or two before the election held at
the Brookville plant on June 26 and that all the events
which took place on the occasion when Love read a letter to
them took place then and not in late March, as the General
Counsel's witnesses recollected.
B. Facts
1. Opening of the plant
The Brookville plant is housed in a building the steel
framework of which stood exposed to the elements for a
number of years before Respondent acquired it. Once the
building was completed by Respondent and a complement
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employees began to assemble, the first work done in the
plant was to scrape and paint the rusty steel. As the
building was readied and machinery moved in, employees
were gradually transferred from that work to production
jobs. James Love was hired in April 1969 as a maintenance
man. He was one of Respondent's first employees. At that
time the operation was under the direction of William
Kallas, manager of the Punxsutawney plant. Other early
hires were Allen Dempsey and Carl Uplinger. Soon after he
was hired Love was entrusted with supervisory duties,
including the hiring of employees. In late 1969 or early
1970, as production loomed larger and plant preparation
became less demanding , Kallas suggested to Love and
Uplinger that one should begin to specialize in production
and the other in maintenance. Uplinger opted for
maintenance . Love took production. In the summer of
1970, when Kallas left, Love succeeded to his title of plant
superintendent, although he had, in fact, been performing
most of the duties of that job for more than a year. Uplinger
is not, and has never been, a managerial employee or a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
The Brookville plant is the site of an automatic shear, a
large machine used to cut steel, which services the
Spartanburg and Punxsutawney plants as well. After it was
installed in the spring of 1969, Love operated it for a short
time. He was succeeded by Dempsey. From mid- 1969 until
mid-1970, production work at Brookville was limited to
making parts of coolers for the Punxsutawney and
Spartanburg plants. The Brookville plant began turning out
finished coolers in July 1970. In May, when the assembly
operation was being organized, Dempsey elected to transfer
to it. He ultimately became foreman of that department,
apparently in August, although the exact date is not clear in
the record. Myers, who had been hired in July 1969 and
worked in the carpenter shop in the interim, succeeded him
as operator of the automatic shear. Neill, who was also
hired in July 1969, worked first in the rack department and
then in the pressroom. Earl Brosius transferred from the
Punxsutawney plant in late April 1970 as foreman of the
pressroom and the automatic shear.
2. The election campaign and its aftermath
The Union, which still represents employees at the
Punxsutawney plant and represented those at the Spartan-
burg plant at the time, appeared on the scene in Brookville
in March 1970. Organizer John Amend held a meeting on
March 11. Four employees attended. They were Myers,
Neill, Uplinger, and Dempsey. Amend held a second
meeting on March 18. This time seven employees, Myers,
Neill, Uplinger, Dempsey, Glenn Schaeffer, Gary Cable,
and Larry Arnold, attended. Employees signed authoriza-
tion cards for the Union. Myers and Neill were among
those who signed. The Union filed a petition for an election
in M. B. D Company, Case 6-RC-5445, on March 20.
Amend continued to hold weekly meetings until the
election. Myers and Neill attended on a regular basis.
A few days after the petition was filed Love held a
meeting of the employees in the plant , a not unusual event.
In the course of a discussion about the way the plant was
developing, the Union's effort to organize the employees
came up. Love said that he knew the names of all those who
had signed authorization cards. He also said that Herman
Buffington would close the plant if the Union gave him too
much trouble. The question of whether wages were frozen
for the time being came up. Love said he understood that
they were but that he would try to get them unfrozen. (In
fact, Respondent continued to grant individual raises
throughout the pre- and post-election penod.)
Gene Boddorf started working for Respondent on April
1. A few days before, when Love interviewed him and hired
him, Love asked Boddorf how he felt about a union.
Boddorf said he had worked for both union and nonunion
companies and had got along under both systems. Love
said there were a few men around the shop who were trying
to get a union in but he thought it was too early, he did not
want any part of it.
During this same period in March, around the filing of
the petition, Love talked to Neill one day in the plant. Love
said he knew the men were trying to get a union in and who
the instigators were. He said he was going to weed them out
and heads would roll.
On the evening of April 8 Amend held one of his weekly
organizational meetings in room 6 at the Howard Johnson
Motor Lodge in Brookville . On April 10 Love called Larry
Arnold into his office. He told Arnold that three men had
come to him and told him Arnold was going to get him. He
said he had talked to an attorney and had enough evidence
to fire Arnold and Allen Dempsey. He said he had a tape
recording of the meeting held on April 8, he had been in
room 7 that night and knew everything that went on there.
He said Arnold could tell anybody Arnold wanted to tell
and he would deny it.
At another employee meeting held sometime in April,
Love again told the employees that a few people in the
plant were trying to bring a union in and he knew who they
were. He said he felt it was too soon for a union and he
could not see any reason why a handful of people should
determine whether they were going to have a union or not
when the plant was going to employ 80 or 90 persons in the
future . He said that Buffington was against the Union and
would fight it to the bitter end. He said that, as the plant
grew, a number of supervisory jobs would open up.
A hearing was held in Case 6-RC-5445 on April 21. The
issue litigated was whether the time for holding an election
was ripe in view of Respondent's contention that the unit
was expanding. The evidence showed that Respondent then
had 13 to 16 employees, expected to hire 12 or 13 more in
May, and anticipated an ultimate complement of 90 unit
employees at some unspecified time in the future. (As
events turned out, Respondent 's fastest rate of hiring came
in July, apparently due to the beginning of full scale
production of coolers in Brookville. At the beginning of
that month there were 30 to 35 employees. By the end there
were 40 to 45.)
On June 1 the Regional Director issued his Decision and
Direction of Election in Case 6-RC-5445. The election was
scheduled for June 26. The preelection campaign intensi-
fied. Love talked to employees. On several occasions, one
of which was about 2 weeks before June 26, he told Boddorf
he knew who was pushing the Union. Two or three days
before the election, Love came by as Neill was passing out
union leaflets before work. Love took the leaflets out of
M. B. D. COMPANY 497
Neill's hand and asked him what Neill could give the men
that Love could not. Neill demanded that Love return the
leaflets. Love did so. Later that morning, Neill was
answering questions from some of the men on the assembly
line. Love came by. One of the men asked about dues and
initiation fees. Neill said there would be no initiation fee
because all the men in the plant who joined would go in as a
group. He said there would be no dues until a contract was
signed. Love said Neill knew Buffington would not sign a
contract. Love said the men at the Spartanburg plant
wanted a contract and Buffington would not sign one there.
Love asked what made Neill think Buffington would sign a
contract in Brookville when he would not sign one for
Spartanburg.
A day or two before the election Love talked to Larry
Arnold in the plant. Love asked Arnold to be honest with
him and tell him what the men expected to gain by getting
the Union in the plant. Arnold told him. In the course of
their discussion Love said that Neill had beaten himself out
of a foreman's job by being active for the Union. Love also
said that the men were talking strike at their meetings and
asked Arnold whether he was aware that, in the event of a
strike, Respondent would move the automatic shear to
Spartanburg. Love pointed out that the shear was the
lifeline of all three plants and it would be legal for
Respondent to bring a truck through a picket line to haul it
away.
Also a day or two before the election, Love held
employee meetings on each shift He read to the assembled
men a 5-page document prepared for him in Spartanburg
which was entitled "NOTES FROM LETTER." The only
part of the document prepared in Brookville was a list of
local fringe benefits inserted in a blank left for that purpose
on page 3 after the words "As to your benefits, you have."
The document started out by assuring the employees that
how they vote in the upcoming election was their decision, a
decision which they should weigh carefully in light of their
own best interest. It pointed out that unions sometime
mean strikes and strikes sometime mean loss of money
and/or, lobs. It avowed Respondent' s intention to improve
the lot of its employees in every way possible as the plant
grew and prospered. It pointed to the high wages and
attractive fringe benefits the men were already receiving. It
argued that the Union was only interested in the money it
could get out of the men. It assured the men that they did
not have to belong to the Charging Party or any other union
in order to work for Respondent. It ended with the opinion
that, once the men had given the matter thorough study,
they would conclude that they stood to lose if the Charging
Party got into the plant and to gain by keeping it out.
A discussion developed between Love and the employees
at these meetings . Love announced that Buffington had had
a heart attack. He said that Buffington was opposed to the
Union and would not sign a contract. He said that, in the
event of a strike, Respondent would move the automatic
shear to the Spartanburg plant.
The election was held as scheduled on June 26. Kent
Myers and Carl Uplinger acted as observers for the Union.
Allen Dempsey and Rollene Corbett, a secretary, acted as
observers for Respondent. The Union lost. It filed
objections. On August 19 the Regional Director issued a
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Notice of Hearing in
Case 6-RC-5445. It scheduled a hearing on the Umon's
objections for September 3.
Sometime in early July, Love called Neill into his office.
Love asked, now that the union thing was all over, how
Neill felt about the Union. Neill said he still felt the same
but was not going to stick his neck out anymore. Love said
that was what he wanted to hear. He said he needed a
backup man for Earl Brosius as supervisor of the pressroom
and thought Neill was the man for the job but he "wouldn't
put a man in this situation with this business [i.e., union
business] behind his [i.e., Love's] back." Neill received a
10-cent raise shortly thereafter and did, in fact, on at least
one occasion keep an eye on the pressroom in Brosius'
absence.
In late August Love held another employee meeting. He
announced William Kallas was resigning and Love was
taking over officially as superintendent of the Brookville
plant. He told the men the Punxsutawney plant was due for
a raise on November 1. (Under the contract then and now
in effect between the Punxsutawney plant and the Union,
higher maximum rates of pay were scheduled to go into
effect on November 1.) He told the men they had nothing
to worry about because he expected raises to go into effect
at Brookville on October 1. The maximum rate at the
Brookville plant was, in fact, increased from $2.55 to $2.75
per hour around the first of October. Not all employees got
a raise at that time, however.
Shortly before September 3 the hearing on objections
scheduled in Case 6-RC-5445 was postponed until
September 10. Neill had arranged with Brosius and Love to
get off so that he could go to the September 3 hearing to
testify for the Union. When the hearing was postponed, he
did not take off. Sometime between the postponement and
September 9, Love asked Neill if he still planned to go to
the hearing. Neill said he did. Love shook his head, said,
"You don't want to go to that hearing," and walked off.
On September 2 Brosius interviewed Neill and filled out
an employee performance review form on him, a personnel
management technique which Respondent penodically
uses with all employees. Brosius rated Neill poor on job
attitude. Neill asked him what he meant by a poor attitude.
Brosius said , "Well, let's face it-like this hearing business.
You can't be all for the company and go to a hearing."
On September 4 Boddorf asked Love for a raise. Boddorf
was making $2.35 an hour at the time, while Neill was
getting the top rate of $2.55. Boddorf argued that he was
entitled to a raise because he was doing better work than
the "God-damn" man working next to him. He was
referring to Neill. Love gave him the raise he wanted. They
then discussed Boddorf's becoming a group leader. In the
course of this conversation, Love told Boddorf that
Buffington had given Love direct orders to fire Myers,
Neill, and Uplinger. Love said he was going to try to do
something about Uplinger because he needed Uplinger, but
Myers and Neill had to go.
On September 9, the Union withdrew its objections to the
election. The Regional Director issued in Case 6-RC-5445
a withdrawal of the outstanding notice of heanng and a
certification of the results of the election held on June 26.
When Love learned that the hearing had been canceled he
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
went to Neill's machine and told Neill the hearing had been
called off. He said , "That must be some Union. You want
to know something else? I 'm going to get rid of you. First
chance I get I 'm going to fire you. The first time you're not
doing your job I'm going to fire you."
Myers was injured on the job on August 27 and
hospitalized. When Myers called Love in mid-September to
tell Love that he was ready to return to work, Love asked
Myers to come to the plant to see him first . Myers went to
Love's office as requested on September 18. Love told
Myers things had changed since Myer's accident, the
charges against Love in the objections case had been
dropped. Love asked Myers why they had been dropped.
Myers said he did not know. Love asked Myers what he had
to gain by forming a union in the plant. Love accused
Myers of trying to get Love fired by taking part in the
objections phase of the representation case . Love told
Myers he did not want Myers to return to work. He asked
Myers to quit. He told Myers, if Myers did not quit, he
would fire Myers the first chance he got without even giving
2 weeks' notice . Love said he was also going to fire two
other men for union activities . He said none of them had a
chance of going any further in the plant or getting a better
job. Myers refused to quit. He returned to work the
following Monday, September 21.
3. Kent Myers' work history
Kent Myers went to work for Respondent on July 14,
1969, at $2 an hour. Initially, like all employees hired that
early in the history of the Brookville plant, he chipped rust
and painted steel. On July 28, 1969, he received a raise to
$2.10 an hour. On September 15, 1969, he received a second
raise, this time to $2.35 an hour. The payroll change notice
which effectuated this raise contains the remark "Very
good worker, will do anything he is ask [sic] to do, never
has been late for work or absence [sic] from work."
Sometime in the early days of his employment Myers tried
to drive a forklift through a trailer doorway when the lift
was raised too high to clear the doorway with predictable
consequences. No serious damage was done.
Myers ' first assignment following the chip-and-paint
phase of his employment was to the carpenter shop. On
February 9, 1970, he received a raise to $2.45 an hour. This
time the payroll change notice read, "Good worker-good
attendance, judgment, etc. but was told that he would have
to be carefull [sic ], not get hurt. Get help from supervisor if
needed. At all costs must be carefull [sic]-no more
accidents and use all safety equipment." There is no
evidence of what accident or accidents prior to February 9
caused Love to write this remark. The first accident of
which there is any detail in the record occurred in April. At
that time, Myers strained his back in lifting some material
down from a shelf. He lost no time from work.
In May the job of operating the automatic shear opened
up. Love offered it to Myers as the next senior man in the
plant. Myers accepted it. A notation written by Love and
dated May 15 on a job bid form in Myers' personnel file
reads, "This job not up for bid as Ken Myers was man with
most time, I ask [sic] him and he said he would like to trade
job to shear line." Love explained to Myers at the time of
his transfer that he was next in line for the job of supervisor
of the carpenter shop and would probably get that
promotion in the near future if he elected to remain there.
Love pointed out, however, that Myers could not expect to
be transferred back to the carpenter shop when that job
opened up if he decided to move to the shear. Myers elected
to take the transfer on this basis. Another note on the bid
form dated July 20 reads, "I talked to Ken, asked him if he
still wanted to stay on the shear or move back to the
carpenter shop." Myers elected to stay on the shear.
Myers operated the shear until his discharge on October
9. He made some mistakes on the job. It is a serious mistake
for the operator of the automatic shear to cut steel pieces to
sizes different from the sizes ordered, especially when the
steel involved is destined for the Punxsutawney plant or the
Spartanburg plant. Myers made that mistake on occasion.
So did other persons who operated the automatic shear. It is
a somewhat less serious mistake (but one that can have an
unfortunate effect on Respondent's inventory control
system) for the operator of the shear to cut more pieces on a
particular order than he is told to cut. Myers made that
mistake on occasion. So did other persons who operated the
shear . It is a mistake for the operator of the automatic shear
to fail to put protective tape on the steel he is cutting when
protective tape is called for or to put it on when it is not.
These mistakes also affect inventory control adversely.
Myers made both on occasion. He also, on occasion,
marked improperly tickets which accompany orders of cut
steel to the Punxsutawney and Spartanburg plants.
Approximately 1,600 orders to cut steel on the automatic
shear have been processed at the Brookville plant since the
shear was put into operation. A search of the forms used in
processing those orders shows approximately 25 instances
in which mistakes of the types just mentioned were made.
Most, but not all, of these mistakes were made by Myers. It
is a nuisance for Dennis Henry, Respondent's inventory
control clerk, when the operator of the automatic shear fails
to record on the form which tells him what he is supposed
to do how many pieces he has actually cut, but it is not a
particularly serious mistake. Myers did that on occasion.
Myers received his last raise on June 1. This one brought
him up to $2.55 an hour, the top rate in the plant at that
time. The remarks entered on that payroll change notice
read, "Talked to Ken about steel length-also about
keeping coils [of steel] in line and writing ticket up-also
about being carefull [sic], make sure to use all safety
equipment-also if you get hurt must report it at once." In
July he caught his hand in the automatic shear. He was
taken to the hospital for X-rays. The hand was only pinched
and not broken. He returned to work the same day.
Myers' personnel file contains four written warnings. All
are on forms which provide for a series of three written
warnings at most. The first is dated July 20. It indicates that
the violation took place in the plant in the "month of July."
The nature of the violation is specified as substandard
work, conduct, and attitude. The section devoted to
company remarks reads, "Steel length all off, left [sic] wavy
steel go, tickets mixed up." The question "has employee
been warned previously?" is answered with a check in the
yes box. The notation "talked to employee in office" also
appears on the form. It is signed by Love.
Myers cut his arm seriously on August 27. Coils of steel
M. B. D. COMPANY 499
come with a retaining band on them. There is a safety
device on the automatic shear which is designed to keep the
end of the coil from springing free when the retaining band
is cut. Myers cut a retaining band without using the safety
device. The end of the coil sprang and hit him on the arm.
Myers underwent surgery and was hospitalized for a time.
He returned to work on September 21.
Myers' second written warning is dated September 22.
This time the date of violation is "Sept." Nature of violation
is substandard work and carelessness . Company remarks
read, "Talked to Ken, ask [sic] him to slow down, not so
carelessness [sic], also orders all mixed up." The form is
signed by Love.
Myers' third written warning is dated October 1. Date of
violation is "Oct." Nature of violation is substandard work
and carelessness . Company remarks read, "Talked to Ken
at machine-orders all mixed up-length all off." Else-
where on the form appears "talked to Ken in office." For
the first time, the "action to be taken" section of the form is
filled in This entry reads, "Ken was told at this time that
this would go on his record, but that it was his 3rd warning
but would go along for a couple of weeks." Love prepared
the form. It is signed by both Love and Brosius.
Myers' fourth and last written warning is dated October
6. Date of violation is "month of Oct." Nature of violation
is substandard work , carelessness , and attitude. Company
remarks read, "Talked to Ken. Orders all mixed up. We
must do something within a couple of days or I must let him
go-length off-carelessness-cut two fingers on stainless
on [sic] this morning." The form indicates some confusion
in Love's mind at the time he prepared it as to just how
many warnings he had given Myers. The "3rd warning"
caption of one part of the form is circled. However the "2nd
warning" caption of the part just next to it is overwritten
with a penciled "3rd" and immediately under it appears,
once again , "talked to employee in office." Action to be
taken reads, "Again Ken was told, we would look at his
work until end of the week." The form is signed by both
Love and Brosius.
On all four occasions Myers did not enter his remarks on
the form and refused to sign it.
Myers cut one finger on a piece of stainless steel on the
morning of October 9. He also ruined two pieces of
stainless steel in an order of 50 which he was cutting. He
was discharged that afternoon.
4. Dale Neill's work history
Dale Neill was hired July 23, 1969, at a rate of $2 an hour.
He, too, apparently chipped and painted initially. He
received a 10-cent raise on August 11, 1969. By September
29, 1969, when his rate went up to $2.35 an hour, he was in
the carpenter shop The payroll change notice which
effectuated this raise bears the remark "very good worker."
On February 9, 1970, Neill was given a raise to $2.45 an
hour. He was apparently transferred to the rack department
at this time, for the remark on this payroll change notice
reads, "Trans to coatingjob, doing real fine."
In May ajob came open in the pressroom. Love offered it
to Neill. Neill accepted. A bid form dated May 15 bears
Love's notation "I ask [sic] Neil [sic] if he wanted to move
to press room. He said yes, so we did not putjob up for bid
as Neil [sic] was oldest man at this time." A notation dated
July 27 reads, "Asked Neil [sic] if he wanted to stay in press
room. He said yes he liked it there."
Neill's last raise, this one to the top rate of $2.55 an hour,
came on July 13. This time Love's remark on the payroll
change notice reads, "Talked to Dale about being late and
talking on the job but still thought that we would let the
raise go in, he said he would try."
Earl Brosius rated Neill on September 2. Love added a
note to the employee performance review form Brosius
filled out which reads, "I talked to Dale and said that he
due for raise but must improve work."
All of the evidence produced by Respondent to
demonstrate that Neill was discharged for cause relates to
his work as a press operator. Neill's usualjob was to punch
holes in flat pieces of various types of steel already cut and
notched in various shapes and sizes according to the sizes
and positions specified on the blueprint which accompa-
nied the steel. He sometimes operated other presses which
notched the steel or bent it into various shapes,
Neill made a number of mistakes while working in the
pressroom. In most cases, the record is unclear as to just
when they occurred. In this group are six stainless steel
doors on which he punched the hole for the lock half an
inch out of position. The doors had to be scrapped. His
setup was left for another employee to use the next day. The
remainder of the run of 50 or 100 doors was saved from
being similarly nuspunched only because Brosius happened
to check the setup the next morning. Also, Neill misbent
approximately 700 air deflector bottoms. This is a 5 by 13-
5/16 inch piece of paint grip steel which must be bent at a
30-degree angle along one side. Neill bent them at the
wrong angle. They were unusable. Also, Neill mispunched
approximately a dozen blower housing covers, made from a
piece of paint grip steel measuring approximately 19 inches
by 11 inches. In this instance, he punched a screw hole in
such a position that the cover would have been askew if
used on a cooler. The covers were scrapped. Also, Neill
rmspunched approximately 200 blower housing fronts.
Here he punched holes on the wrong edge of a piece of zinc
grip steel measuring approximately 20 inches by II inches
in a place where the forming operation which followed
would have made a tray designed to hold water. The holes,
of course, would have made the trays leak. The pieces of
metal which would have become blower housing fronts but
for Neill's mistake were scrapped.
Neill's personnel file contains four written warnings. The
first is dated July 27. Date of violation is "July." Nature of
violation is substandard work, tardiness, and attitude.
Company remarks read, "Talked to Neill about being late
for work, must stop. Attitude must improve. Work very
bad." The yes box is checked under the question "Has
employee been warned previously?" The form is signed by
Love.
Neill's second written warning is dated August 12. Date
of violation is "Aug." Nature of violation is substandard
work. Company remarks, written by Love, read "Talked to
Dale about always playing around sitting at machine and
not keeping at his work. Must improve quality, and follow
prints. Answer: nothing will try." The form is signed by
both Love and Brosius.
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Two other mistakes which Neill made near the end of his
employment can be dated with a fair degree of accuracy In
mid-September , Neill mispunched more than 1 ,000 screw
plates. A screw plate is a piece of plain mild steel which
measures 3-1/2 by 5/ 8 inches. It has a tapped hole in the
center and another three -eighths of an inch from one end. It
fits inside the door of the cooler Its function is to hold the
screws which fasten the door to the body of the cooler. Neill
punched the end hole at a three -sixteenths of an inch
instead of three-eighths of an inch dimension. When the
assemblers attempted to use these screw plates, the doors
did not fit properly New screw plates had to be made
before the assembly work could proceed. Some of the
mispunched screw plates were later salvaged by punching a
proper hole in the other end Several hundred, however, still
had not been used at the time of the hearing. At one point
in the controversy over this incident, Allen Dempsey, the
assembly foreman , complained about Neill to Brosius in
Neill's presence Neill told them to fire him if they did not
like his work His manner was not contrite
Neill's third written warning is dated September 21. Date
of violation is "Sept." Nature of violation is substandard
work, tardiness, and attitude. Love's company remarks
read, "Talked to Neill about poor work, holes all off and is
not following prints." Love and Brosius signed.
Around the first of October, Neill mispunched approxi-
mately 12 cooler tops. A cooler top is made from a piece of
stainless steel which measures 30-5/16 inches by 28-9/16
inches . It comes in various models. However, generally
speaking, it is punched to accommodate a beer pull at the
front which runs through to the keg inside the cooler and to
fasten wooden rails on the sides and back designed to keep
glasses from slipping off. Neill double-punched the rail
holes on one side Since the extra set of holes could not be
covered up or repaired, the tops could not be used. These 12
pieces of stainless steel got through the forming process and
were nearly ready for assembly when the mistake was
discovered
Neill's last written warning is dated October 5. Date of
violation is "Sept -Oct." Nature of violation is substandard
work and attitude. Love's company remarks read, "Talked
to Neill about poor work again. He said it's the best he can
do for the money he is making I left [sic] him see some
samples and he claims a man can make a mistake once in a
life time. (Sample in office of work.)" In the block under the
printed "3rd Warning" is penciled "4th " Both Love and
Brosius signed
In each instance, Neill did not enter his remarks on the
form and refused to sign it . He, too, was discharged on the
afternoon of October 9.
5. The events of October 9
Near quitting time on the afternoon of Friday, October 9,
Brosius sent Myers to Love's office on Love's instructions.
When Myers entered Love asked him what, in view of the
mistakes Myers was making, Love was going to do with
him Myers replied, "Pay me in full " Love told Myers he
was discharging him because he was accident prone,
because he had a poor attitude, and because of the mistakes
he was making . He referred to the two pieces of stainless
steel Myers had crushed in the automatic shear that
morning and the fact that he had failed to mark his work
order sheets properly in the past week . Myers asked what
effect his discharge would have on his hospitalization
insurance . Love said he did not know , but, that if Myers
would call back on Monday morning, he could find out
then from Love 's secretary . There was some controversy
over whether Love had authority to pay off discharged
employees in full in view of the fact that paychecks are
ordinarily signed by officials in Spartanburg.
Brosius, as instructed , next sent Neill to Love 's office.
Neill went in when Myers came out. Love flipped an
employment verification form across the desk to Neill.
(Neill had applied for a loan to buy a house . The form was
part of the process he was going through to get it.) Love
said he was not going to fill it out, he was going to release
Neill instead . Neill said , "OK, just give me my check."
Love said it was being prepared . Neill said they both knew
why Love was firing him but what sort of a reason had Love
thought up ? Love said substandard workmanship. Neill
said that is as good a reason as any. Love said he could not
have a man who was going to make parts like some samples
he showed Neill. The samples were screw plates , a blower
housing cover, and a cooler top, all mispunched . Love said
he had gotten the cooler top off the production line. Neill
denied that he had put it there. Neill asked what kind of a
reason Love had given for firing Myers . Love said it was
none of Neill 's business. Neill said he would find out
anyway. Love said he had discharged Myers because he
was accident prone. He cited the occasion when Myers had
failed to use the safety device on the shear with the
consequent serious injury to his arm , the fact that he had
crushed two sheets of stainless steel in the shear that day,
and the fact that he had recently cut his fingers.
Myers and Neill both received their final checks before
they left the plant that day. On Monday, October 12, Love
prepared a payroll change notice on each which showed
that they had been removed from the payroll on October 9.
In Myers' case , the reason given on the form is "resigned"
and the explanation reads, "When called in to be talked to
about bad quality and production , he asked to be paid in
full " In Neill's case, the "discharged" box is checked and
the remark reads, "Had to discharge Dale because of
continued errors in production and his attitude toward
foreman ." Both forms are signed by Love and Brosius.
Sometime after October 9, Myers was informed that his
hospitalization insurance would remain in effect until the
end of the month. He had an operation before the end of
October for which the insurance company paid.
Only two employees other than Myers and Neill have
ever been discharged by Respondent . Both were fired
during their probationary period for failing to do what their
foremen told them to do.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
Respondent does not seriously argue that Kent Myers
quit, therefore he was not discharged . In its brief,
Respondent states, "Whether Myers, when called to the
office by Plant Superintendent Love on October 9, 1970,
was terminated before or after he asked to be paid off in full
may be an issue in the case , but, at least for present
purposes, it is not one of great significance . Love testified
M. B. D. COMPANY 501
that he was in the process of giving Myers a final warning
when Myers asked to be paid off in full, and this was
corroborated by testimony of employee Henry and by
company records . . . Myers testified that Love told him he
was being discharged , and that Myers thereupon asked
Love for the full amount of pay he had coming. . . Either
way, however, the fact is that Myers' employment was
terminated on that occasion in the course of a discussion
about his work." Respondent ' s answer admits the allega-
tion of the complaint that Respondent "did terminate the
employment of" Myers on October 9. Therefore, despite
the disparity of the wording on the payroll change notices
by which their terminations were reported to Spartanburg, I
find that Respondent discharged both Myers and Neill on
October 9.
Moreover , I find that Respondent discharged Myers and
Neill because of their union activities and not for the
reasons it advances . My reasons for this finding are so
obvious as to be almost self-evident.
First , and most important , Love said he was going to fire
them for engaging in union activities . He told each of them
to his face; he told Boddorf about each of them behind
their backs . The fact that only Myers and Neill of the
original four ringleaders in trying to organize the employees
eventually lost theirjobs is consonant with these facts Love
told Boddorf that Carl Uplinger was too important to
Love' s management of the plant for Love to fire him. Allen
Dempsey, obviously, shifted his allegiance from the Union
to Respondent before the election . Second , the documenta-
ry evidence introduced by Respondent to prove it was
motivated by Myers' and Neill's shortcomings as workers
belies the very point it is meant to support . All of the
relevant documents from their personnel files are in
evidence. Each man was a good enough employee to rise to
the top of the rate expeditiously and be praised in the
process. The only hint of a criticism of either man which
predates their activities as leaders of the drive to get the
Union into the plant is found in the payroll change notice
when Myers got a raise in February. The reference there is
only to his alleged propensity for getting hurt and not to the
quality of his work . The first unfavorable mention of his
work is in the notice which accompanied his raise in early
June . Here , it is significant that the exhibit does not jibe
with Respondent 's explanation of Myers' and Neill's rapid
transformation from satisfactory to unsatisfactory employ-
ees, evidenced by their four quick written warnings. All
Respondent 's witnesses emphasized that both men only
started into a marked decline in late July. In Neill' s case, no
hint of criticism appears in Respondent 's record until after
the election on June 26 and the resulting charges about
Love's conduct in the campaign which were not resolved
until withdrawn by the Union on September 9.
The written warnings will least stand scrutiny . Myers did
not work in the month of September until Monday the 21st.
Yet his second warning is dated September 22 and purports
to warn him for substandard work and carelessness in the
month of September . Myers' third warning is dated
October 1 , yet it purports to warn him for the same failures
in the month of October. The fourth, dated October 6,
states that Myers "cut two fingers on stainless . . . this
morning ." Both Myers and Love testified that Myers cut
himself on the morning of October 9 although they
disagreed over whether he had cut one or two fingers.
Neill's testimony about his conversation that afternoon
with Love is that Love said "He [Myers] didn' t use the
pillar [i.e., the safety device on the shear ] and that he got his
arm cut and [Love ] said . . . he messed up a couple of
sheets of stainless that very day and [Love] said yesterday
[i.e., October 8] he cut his fingers." At least a suspicion
arises that the warnings were concocted after the discharges
because of Love's misconception about written warning
systems and the use to which they are frequently put as
evidence when motive for discharge becomes an issue in a
Section 8(a)(3) case before the Board.
Third, Myers and Neill are the only nonprobationary
employees Respondent has ever discharged . Even though
the Brookville plant is still relatively new and not a large
number of persons have yet worked there , the fact that
every other employee who survived the probationary period
stayed until he left of his own accord indicates that
Respondent is, at the least , a most lenient employer. While
Respondent may well have had good cause to discharge
either Kent Myers or Dale Neill or both for allowing the
quality of their work to drop far below acceptable levels
and for failure to improve their work and their attitude
towards their jobs after having been given repeated
warnings and reprimands , as Respondent claims, I find that
these reasons advanced by Respondent are pretexts. Since
Respondent 's real reason was their activities on behalf of
the Charging Party, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act when it discharged them on October 9,
1970.
Respondent , by the acts of James Love during the
Section 10(b) period, also committed various independent
violations of Section 8(a)(1). In this respect , Respondent:
(1) Threatened to discharge employees for engaging in
union activities in Love's conversation with Boddorf on
September 4, with Neill on September 9, and with Myers on
September 18.
(2) Promised to grant and granted economic benefits to
employees for rejecting the Union when Love gave Neill a
raise in July and made him backup supervisor to Brosius in
the pressroom and when Love announced, in August, that
the Brookville plant would receive a raise a month earlier
than the organized Punxsutawney plant and implemented
the new top rate around October 1.
(3) Told employees their efforts to organize for collective
bargaining were an exercise in futility when Love told Neill
in a private conversation a day or two before the June 26
election and told all the employees at a meeting around the
same time that Buffington would never sign a contract.
(4) Threatened to deny employees opportunities for
promotion for engaging in union activities when Love told
Larry Arnold a day or two before the election that Neill
had beaten himself out of a chance to be a supervisor by his
union activities.
I find that , in each of these instances , Respondent
interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
The General Counsel also contends that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by creating the impression that it
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had employees' union activities under surveillance, interro-
gating them about those activities, and threatening to move
the automatic shear to Spartanburg in the event the Union
got into the Brookville plant. As to the first, the only event
relevant to this issue occurring less than 6 months before
the charge was filed in this case is the conversation in June
in which Love told Boddorf he knew who was pushing the
Union. While Love said several things before April 26
which would sustain an impression of surveillance finding,
this one conversation will not. As to the second, the only
event relevant to this issue is the conversation Love had
with Arnold about the Union a day or two before the
election. In the context in which Love's question about
what the men wanted was asked and answered, it was not
coercive. As to the third, it is clear from the testimony of the
General Counsel's witnesses, especially on cross-examina-
tion, that Love's statements about the shear being moved to
Spartanburg was in the context of what Respondent could
do to continue its production in the event the men struck
the Brookville plant. As such, it was an exercise of
Respondent's right of free speech under Section 8(c) of the
Act and not an illegal threat to move the shear in retaliation
for employees' union activities. I find that the General
Counsel has failed to sustain his burden of proving each of
these allegations of Section 8(a)(1) violations.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. M. B. D. Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Kent Myers and Dale Neill on
October 9, 1970, for engaging in union activities, Respon-
dent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
4. By threatening to discharge employees for engaging
in union activities, promising to grant and/or granting
economic benefits to employees for rejecting the Union,
telling employees their efforts to organize for collective
bargaining were an exercise in futility, and threatening to
deny employees opportunities for promotion for engaging
in union activities, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent has not committed other violations of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act alleged in the complaint
THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it is
necessary that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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
from the unfair labor practices found and remedy them. In
order to remedy the discriminatory discharges of Kent
Myers and Dale Neill, I will recommend that Respondent
be required to offer them reinstatement with backpay
computed on a quarterly basis, plus interest at 6 percent per
annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716. I will also recommend that Respondent be required to
post appropriate notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 3
ORDER
M. B. D. Company, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to discharge employees for engaging in
union activities.
(b) Discharging employees for engaging in union
activities in order to discourage membership in Internation-
al Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization.
(c) Promising to grant and/or granting economic benefits
to employees for rejecting a union.
(d) Telling employees their efforts to organize for
collective bargaining are an exercise in futility.
(e) Threatening to deny employees opportunities for
promotion for engaging in union activities.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Kent Myers and Dale Neill immediate and full
reinstatement to their formerjobs or, if thoseJobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, and pay them
for the earnings they lost as a result of their October 9,
1970, discharges, plus 6 percent interest.
(b) Notify immediately the above-named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
(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 amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plants in Brookville, Pennsylvania, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 6, after being duly signed by Respondent's
4 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 "
M. B. D. COMPANY 503
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 Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.5
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations by Respondent of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act not specifically found herein.
5 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
APPENDIX
WE WILL NOT discharge you or threaten to discharge
you for engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against you in any way in
order to discourage membership in International Union
of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT promise to grant or grant you
economic benefits for rejecting a union.
WE WILL NOT tell you your efforts to organize for
collective bargaining are an exercise in futility.
WE WILL NOT threaten to deny you opportunities for
promotion for engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere
with you or attempt to restrain or coerce you in the
exercise of the above rights.
All our employees are free, if they choose, to join
International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization.
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
trial, that we violated Federal law by discharging employ-
ees in order to discourage membership in a labor
organization and by interfering with your rights in various
other ways, we hereby inform you that:
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees
these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representa-
tive of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or
other aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
Dated By
M. B. D. COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
WE WILL notify immediately Kent Myers and Dale Neill, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of their right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
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 concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1536
Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania 15222, Telephone 412--644-2977.