M R Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 14, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 118 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
M R Products, Inc. and International Union, United
Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America , UAW. Case
7-CA-7184
October 14, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND ZAGORIA
On July 30, 1969, Trial Examiner Arthur M.
Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision in which it stated its reason for
the exceptions, and the Charging Party filed an
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 proceeding 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 Respondent's exceptions,
the Charging Party's answer thereto, and the entire
record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the
Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, M R Products, Inc., Troy, Michigan,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified:
Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and reletter
the following paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Notify the above-named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of her right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner Based upon a
charge filed on February 20, 1969,' by the International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW (herein called the
Union or the Charging Party), the complaint herein issued
on April 18 alleging that M R Products, Inc. (herein
called the Company, M R, or the Respondent),, violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (herein called the Act). The alleged
8(a)(1) conduct consisted of coercive interrogation of
employees concerning their union membership and
activities and threats of loss of employment and less
desirable working conditions if the employees did not
refrain from union activity The putative 8(a)(3) violation
consisted of the assignment of Rena Camire to allegedly
more arduous and dangerous work which caused her to
end her employment with the Company. Respondent
denied all material allegations of the complaint.
All parties participated in the hearing in Detroit,
Michigan, on June 4 and 5, and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to introduce evidence, to examine
witnesses, and to present oral argument. General Counsel
presented oral argument on the record and Respondent
filed a brief.
Based upon the entire record in the case, my reading of
the Respondent's brief, and from my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find
that M R Products, Inc , a Michigan corporation with its
only office and place of business in the city of Troy,
Michigan, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of plastic products and related products.
During a representative 12-month period ending
December 31, 1968, Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold,
and shipped from its Troy, Michigan, plant, products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
State of Michigan.
The Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and meets the
Board's standards for the assertion of its jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Events of February 4
Respondent is a fabricator of plastic parts. The Union
embarked on an effort to organize Respondent's
employees on February 4 when two organizers appeared
'Unless otherwise noted all dates herein were in 1969
'Respondent's name appears as corrected at the hearing
179 NLRB No. 17
M R PRODUCTS
at the plant and attempted to distribute leaflets to the
employees. The evidence as to Respondent's reaction when
the organizers appeared is in sharp dispute. However, as
the complaint is silent as to the actions of the parties
while this handbilling was taking place, I do not deem it
necessary to resolve this conflict It is manifest, however,
that the Company strongly resented the organizing effort.
The nature of Respondent's operation requires that its
machines operate around the clock. Three shifts of
employees are utilized, the first working from 7 a.m. to 3
p.m., the second shift scheduled from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m.,
and the night shift working from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Contrary to his usual procedure, Michael Russo,
Respondent's president, was at the plant when the night
shift reported at 11 p.m. on February 4. Rena Camire
testified that when she asked Night Foreman John Moore
why Russo was there that night, Moore replied that Russo
had said he was having trouble with the Union which had
been around passing out literature. Moore then went on to
express his opinion that Respondent's employees did not
need a union, explaining that there was no discrimination
or prejudice at the Company and that if the plant were
organized the employees would lose their privilege to
smoke and sit on stools while working, as well as their
Christmas bonus and party. Further, Camire testified,
Moore stated that the Union would not raise the
employees' pay.
Moore testified that the employees, Camire among
them, wondered why Russo was at the plant that night
Moore stated that after explaining to Camire that Russo
had been at the plant because of the union activity earlier
that day he went on to compare conditions at the
Company with those at a union organized plant at which
he had previously worked Moore testified that he had
told Camire that at his former place of employment the
employees had not been allowed to sit while working, or
to smoke or drink soda pop on the job, benefits which
they enjoyed at M R.
The complaint alleged' that on February 4 Moore
warned that "employees would lose their bonuses, and
certain other benefits such as smoking and having stools
at their machines" as a result of union activity. I so find.
I do not credit Moore's version of his conversation with
Camire Based on my observation of Camire and Moore
while testifying before me as well as the pattern of threats
with which I find Respondent responded to the Union's
appearance,' I credit Camire's testimony that Moore, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, coupled with his
list of present employee benefits, issued a warning that
these would be lost if the Union succeeded in organizing
Respondent's employees.'
'Par 8(b)
'See sec III, B, below
'Employee Elise May Quick testified that on either February 4 or 5
Foreman Frank Bartlett , while talking to a group of three employees,
brought up the Union and stated that it would probably cost the employees
$1,000 a year Quick stated that the employees laughed at Bartlett's
remarks, because "we figured with what we were making , we didn't even
make that much " Bartlett, who testified under sedation made necessary by
an in-plant accident, denied having had such a conversation This incident
was not alleged in the complaint as a violation of the Act Accordingly, I
do not deem it necessary to resolve the conflict between Quick and
Bartlett In any event , I would not find a violation of the Act based on the
"puffing" remark attributed to Bartlett by Quick Mrs Baird 's Bread,
Dallas, 171 NLRB No 26
119
B The Events of February 5
Former employee Kathleen Jones and Eleanor Jonas,
who had worked for Respondent as a supervisor, testified
that on February 5, the day after the Union first appeared
at Respondent's plant, they were called to Russo's office
where he talked to them about the Union.
Jones testified that Russo first asked how she felt about
the Union and after she explained why the employees
favored organization, Russo, who was holding one of the
union handbills, stated that the Union was not needed and
that it would not do all it had promised in its leaflets
Russo told Jones that he did not want the Union and
would sell out if the Union succeeded in organizing the
plant After telling Jones that she would be transferred
from her job in the shipping department to machine work
if the Union came in, Russo gave his opinion on the cost
to the employees of union initiation fees and dues. Russo
then told Jones, who is a Negro, that he was an equal
opportunity employer, that he had hired "colored people"
and that he had been raised by a "colored woman." Then
Russo asked Jones about a preacher to whom he wished
to make a donation. Further, Jones testified, Russo stated
that if the Union came in the workers would not be able
to smoke or drink pop at the machines and that it would
stop the Christmas bonuses and party Russo told Jones
that he had filled out papers to be filed with the
government for a profit-sharing plan and the Union would
stop that as well. Russo told Jones that one company for
whom he worked had called and said that they had heard
the Union was at M R and if the Union organized
Respondent, they would pull out their molds, leading to a
cut in the workweek down to 2 or 3 days. Russo stated
that Jim Robbins, another company for whom M R did
work, would probably take away their molds as well.,
Former Company Supervisor Eleanor Jonas testified
that on February 5 Russo called the employees to the
office in order of their seniority. After asking if Jonas had
seen the union paper and card he was holding Russo
asked why the employees thought it was necessary to have
a union, explaining that he had always made it a policy
that people could bring their grievances to his office at
any time and talk them out with him. Russo told Jonas
that he did not want a union and would have to take away
all bonuses and the Christmas party as well as the
profit-sharing plan he was putting into effect at the time.
Jonas testified that Russo asked if she knew which of the
girls had signed union cards and if she would give him
that information. Jonas stated that she said she would not
do that. Russo then said he would learn who had signed
for the Union because someone at the Union would give
him that information as well as advising him if any of the
girls were union organizers. Jonas testified that Russo
then said that one firm for which M R worked had called
and when he told them of the "union episode" had said
they would pull out their molds because they could not
afford to have the molds lie idle while "the scrape" was
going on. Russo also told Jonas that the prices he had
quoted to Jim Robbins had been without the Union and if
the Union came in it could not help any of the employees.'
'Jones testified that on the Friday following the February 5 session she
asked to see Russo because she understood that Russo had told her
supervisor that he felt Jones was a union organizer On this occasion
Russo told Jones that he did not know for sure but that someone had
overheard Jones talking union talk and had reported this to him
'Jonas was not cross -examined on this testimony and Respondent totally
ignored her testimony in its brief
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Russo testified on both the first and second days of the
trial On the first day Russo testified that he had talked to
Kathleen Jones on two occasions in February when she
asked to see him His first session with Jones, Russo
stated, was on February 19 when she asked Russo for his
opinion of the Union. Russo replied that he did not think
a union was needed at M R Jones then asked if she could
get more money To this Russo testified he told Jones she
would have to leave shipping to earn more pay. The
second conversation was a month later when Jones told
Russo and David Duncan, her foreman, that if she could
not get more money in shipping she would return to
machine work after her vacation Russo further testified
that Eleanor Jonas had told him that Jones was rumored
to be an organizer for the Union and when Jones came to
him to discuss this report, he had told her that he didn't
care and that any way she wanted to go was perfectly all
right with him. The last exchange was alleged to have
occurred during the first conversation
On resuming the stand on the second day of the hearing
Russo amended his testimony to place the first
conversation with Kathleen Jones in his office on
February 9, rather than the 19th.8 At that time, Russo
testified, Jones said that she had been told that Russo
thought she was a union organizer, and she wanted to set
the record straight that she was not Russo stated that he
told her that he did not care "either way." It was during
this February 9 conversation that Jones asked for more
money
Shipping Foreman David Duncan, who testified before
Russo, placed the time when Jones asked to see Russo in
April At that time, Duncan testified, Jones told him she
had asked to go back to machine operation so that she
could earn more money.
Kathleen Jones impressed me as a credible witness who
was earnestly recounting the events as they occurred.
Moreover, nothing in her version of the events of
February 5 and the following Friday gives me occasion to
doubt its accuracy While I make no finding of violation
based on Eleanor Jonas' account of her conversation with
Russo because of her supervisory status, her credible
testimony convincingly corroborates Jones. Based on my
observation of Russo as a witness at the hearing herein I
am not persuaded of his reliability as a witness.
Accordingly, I do not credit his testimony except insofar
as it is corroborated by credible witnesses or constitutes
admissions contrary to his own or Respondent's interests
Duncan's account of a conversation with Jones in April
concerning her desire to transfer to machine work does
not lend support to Russo who claimed his talks with
Jones both took place in February.
Accordingly, I find that on February 5, Russo
interrogated Jones concerning her union sympathy,
threatened loss of benefits if the Union were successful,
and warned that the plant would shut down in whole or
part if organized by the Union, all in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. Rena Camire
1. Camire's employment history
Rena Camire at the time of the events herein was in
her second period of employment with the Respondent
having returned to the Company on November 13, 1968
Camire had previously worked for the Respondent for a
'February 9, 1969, was a Sunday
period of 2-1/2 to 3 months before going on a leave of
absence in March 1968.
Prior to Camire's return to the Company's employ her
sister, Pat Ambrose, obtained and filled out an
employment application for Camire. On this application
Ambrose listed herself as a friend rather than as Camire's
sister. The record contains evidence of a company policy
against hiring relatives of presently employed workers for
the same shift. As there is no evidence that Ambrose
consulted Camire prior to listing this misinformation on
the application form I do not deem Camire's credibility to
be damaged in any way by this incident
2. The twin injector
Sometime in 1968 the Company installed a new piece
of equipment known as the twin injector. This machine
runs two jobs at the same time Russo testified that the
twin injector is used on about four different jobs but on
only one, for which the twin injector is used about 10 days
a month, is an operator required At all other times the
machine runs automatically without an operator assigned
thereto John Moore, the midnight shift foreman, testified
that when the twin injector is run manually, i e , with an
operator assigned, the run is for a number of days at a
time and a different operator is assigned to the machine
each night.
The twin injector is acknowledged to be an easy
machine to operate and Camire testified that some
employees seek assignment to the twin injector because of
the ease in operation. Sometime in November 1968, on
the midnight shift, an employee named Irene Zehaloski
was injured when the heated plastic in the twin injector
shot out of the machine and burned her face. Camire was
at work at the time of the accident. In addition to
Zehaloski, another employee was injured when she
inserted her hand into the machine and Frank Bartlett,
supervisor of the afternoon shift, was injured when he
slipped on oil which had leaked from a faulty hydraulic
line on the twin injector.
3 Camire and the twin injector
Frank Bartlett testified that on the night of the accident
to Zehaloski, Camire told him that she would never run
the twin injector again.
Camire testified that she feared the twin injector
because of the accident to Zehaloski She testified that
from the time of the accident in November until the
beginning of January, when John Moore succeeded Frank
Bartlett as midnight shift foreman, she was not required
to run the twin injector even as a relief operator On each
shift two employees are assigned to floorwork. When so
assigned the floorgirl relieves machine operators so that
they may take their two 10-minute breaks and 20-minute
lunch period
Camire testified that after Moore became midnight
shift foreman she informed him of her fear of the twin
injector and that Moore told her not to worry, she would
not have to run the twin injector as She was doing all right
on the other machines. Thereafter, while Moore did assign
Camire to floorwork, which Moore testified required
Camire to run the twin injector as a relief operator three
or four times, he did not assign her to operate the twin
injector for a full shift until the night of February 17.
Moore testified that when Camire ran the twin injector on
relief "she was just scared of it She was still afraid it was
going to jump up and bite her or something "
M R PRODUCTS
On January 22 Moore assigned Pat Ambrose, Camire's
sister to run the twin injector for the full shift. Ambrose
refused to run the machine and was discharged because of
her refusal. After Ambrose was discharged Camire told
Moore that she would not run the twin injector However,
subsequent to Ambrose's discharge, Camire was assigned
to floorwork and ran the twin injector as a relief operator
On one occasion, when Moore was not at work, Dave
Duncan filled in for him as midnight shift foreman
Duncan assigned Camire to the twin injector and she
refused to operate the machine for the shift Duncan then
reassigned Camire and, when he told Moore of the
incident the following day, Duncan told Moore he had not
enforced his order to Camire because he was just filling
in
4 Camire signs a union card
Camire testified that when she left work on February
14 at 7 am she received union literature and an
authorization card from organizers then at the plant
Camire took the card home and talked to her husband
about signing Camire's husband told her that she could
not be fired for signing a union card and said she should
mail it in
Camire testified that when she reported for work on the
night of February 14, Moore, contrary to his usual
custom, went from machine to machine talking to the
girls. Camire stated that Moore asked her what she
thought of the Union and she replied that she was all for
it, telling Moore of her conversation with her husband and
his comment that she could not be fired for signing.
Camire told Moore that she was going to sign a card.
Moore's reply to this was "We'll see," and he walked
away
Moore denied that Camire had told him that she had
signed a union card and he disputed as well Camire's
entire testimony concerning the incident on the night of
February 14 Moore testified that he had no knowledge
whatsoever of Camire's union activity or "of any union
activity "
Moore's denial of knowledge of any union activity is
clearly contrary to the facts As earlier noted, on
February 4 Russo advised Moore of the Union's
organizational campaign and I have heretofore found that
on the night of February 4 Moore threatened Camire with
loss of benefits if the Union's campaign were successful I
credit Camire's version of the events of February 14 and
find that on that night Camire told Moore she had signed
a card for the Union
5 The events of February 17
Under the procedure followed by the Company in
assignment of production employees to various operations
in the plant, the foreman places the worker on the task
assigned at the start of each shift. On February 17, the
first work shift following Camire and Moore's
conversation on February 14 when she informed him that
she was signing a union card, there were between 9 and I 1
employees available for assignment. After Moore had
placed the other girls on various machines he told Camire
to run the twin injector She told the foreman that she
couldn't run the machine because she was afraid of it
Camire testified that Moore told her to run the machine
anyway and she repeated that she could not do so, adding
that the only reason he was doing this was to get rid of
her. Camire testified that Moore replied, "You catch on
121
fast" and walked away Thereafter Camire spoke to fellow
employee Joan Goff saying that she had been assigned to
the twin injector which she was afraid to operate and
therefore was going home. Goff testified that the following
day Camire told her that she would not be back to work
Moore's testimony does not vary substantially from
Camire's version of the events Moore added that when
Camire repeated her refusal to operate the twin injector
he told her she would either run the machine or he was
going to send her home Camire's reply, Moore stated,
was that he was doing the same thing to her that he had
done to her sister, Pat Ambrose Moore testified that he
walked away after telling her that she was being sent
home for refusing to operate the twin injector However,
Moore controverted that part of Camire's testimony in
which she had claimed that he was assigning her to the
twin injector as a device to get rid of her and that he had
replied, "You catch on fast "
Frank Bartlett, the second shift foreman who was still
in the plant at the time of the exchange between Camire
and Moore testified that Moore had told Camire that she
was to run the machine or to go home Russo testified
that foremen have complete charge of their shifts and are
instructed to rotate the girls each day so that no one
employee has a hard job day after day, although Russo
stated "there are some exceptions to this rule " Russo
explained that foremen have the complete right to fire an
employee for lack of respect, absenteeism, "or
unwillingness to work on machines or for lot of reasons "
Moore acknowledged that he had not asked Camire to
run the twin injector for an entire shift before February
17, explaining that "other girls were running it "
At another point Moore stated that there was no reason
that he had not assigned Camire to the twin injector
before February 17 and that he had put her on that task
that night because he "just felt it was her turn, that's all "
Moore testified that when he assigned Camire to run the
twin injector he knew she would refuse to run the
machine
6. Conclusions and findings
Admittedly, Moore knew on February 17 that when he
assigned Camire to the twin injector she would refuse to
operate the machine Further, it was company policy, as
demonstrated by the discharge of Ambrose, to terminate
employees who refused to carry out assignments given to'
them by their foremen at the start of a shift
Russo testified that the twin injector was operated
manually approximately 10 times each month Assuming
that the accident to Zehaloski occurred in the latter part
of November (the record is silent as to the exact date) and
accepting Russo's testimony as to the monthly operation
of the machine there would have been need for manual
operation of the twin injector approximately 20 shifts
between the time of Zehaloski's accident when Camire
first stated her intention to refuse to operate the machine
and February 17 when Moore first assigned her to the
twin injector With a work force of 9 to I I employees on
the midnight shift under ordinary circumstances Camire
would have been required to take a full shift on the twin
injector at least two times prior to February 17 1
conclude therefore that Camire's testimony that Moore
had told her she would not be required to operate the twin
injector was accurate and that until she advised him on
February 14 of her adherence to the Union Moore had
excused Camire from her regular turn on the twin
injector.
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel argues that the twin injector is an
"abnormally dangerous" machine and that Camire's
refusal to operate the twin injector should be excused
under the provisions of Section 502 of the Act ' I do not
deem it necessary to reach the question raised by General
Counsel as to whether the twin injector is in fact an
abnormally dangerous machine. The issue presented is not
that of the nature of the machine itself but rather that of
Camire's reaction to the piece of equipment. It is manifest
that Camire was frightened of the twin injector and had
broadcast her intention to refuse an assignment to operate
the twin injector for a full shift. In the circumstances of
Respondent's open opposition to the Union, the threats to
the employees by Respondent of loss of benefits and
employment opportunity in the event of a successful union
campaign and the juxtaposition of Moore's assignment of
Camire to the twin injector on February 17, and her
advice to him on the immediately preceding workday that
she had joined the Union, I find that Moore assigned
Camire to the twin injector on February 17 with the
knowledge that she would refuse the assignment because
of her fear of the machine, that this assignment was
contrary to his having excused her from operating the
twin injector prior to her adherence to the Union, and
that this assignment was made for the intention of
terminating her employment pursuant to the company
policy of firing workers who refused assignments 11
Accordingly, I find that on February 17 Moore assigned
Camire to the twin injector for the purpose of driving her
into an involuntary quit because of her union adherence
and that the termination of her employment constituted a
constructive discharge, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act N L R B v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty
Morn Div , 339 F.2d 203, 204-205 (C A 6) "
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 Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
'It reads as follows
Saving Provision
Sec 502 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require an
individual employee to render labor or service without his consent, nor
shall anything in this Act be construed to make the quitting of his labor
by an individual employee an illegal act, nor shall any court issue any
process to compel the performance by an individual employee of such
labor or service, without his consent, nor shall the quitting of labor by
an employee or employees in good faith because of abnormally
dangerous conditions for work at the place of employment of such
employee or employees be deemed a strike under this Act
"The Respondent contends that Camire was not discharged Rather, the
Company argues that she voluntarily quit her job Some weeks earlier
Ambrose, Camire's sister, had been discharged for refusing to operate the
twin injector Moore testified that when he insisted that Camire run the
machine she commented that he was doing the same thing to her as he had
done to her sister, for the same reason It seems clear that on February 17
both Camire and Moore were aware that her refusal to run the twin
injector meant discharge
"On February 28 and March I Russo delivered a speech to the
employees which had been prepared for him by Respondent 's attorney In
that speech Russo stated , among other things, "I don't think a Union can
do anything for us, and it could work to our serious harm " While there is
testimony in the record concerning his speech and Respondent introduced a
copy of the speech into evidence, there is no complaint allegation
concerning Russo 's speech Accordingly , I do not pass upon the legality of
the speech or of any statements therein as the speech is beyond the scope
of the complaint herein
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 engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
purposes of the Act
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully drove
Rena Camire to quit her employment involuntarily, I shall
recommend that Respondent be ordered to reinstate her to
her former or substantially equivalent position of
employment without prejudice to her seniority and other
rights and privileges and to make her whole for any loss
of pay she may have suffered as a result of Respondent's
unlawful conduct Backpay shall be computed in a manner
set forth in F W Woolworth Company. 90 NLRB 289,
with interest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co. 138 NLRB 716
Respondent's unfair labor practices indicate an attitude
of opposition to the purposes of the Act generally
Accordingly, a broad cease-and-desist order is necessary
and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I M R Products, Inc., Respondent herein, is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act
3 By engaging in certain described conduct referred to
in section III, A and B, hereof, Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By engaging in conduct described in section III, C,
hereof, Respondent discriminated against Rena Camire in
regard to the terms and conditions of her employment, in
order to discourage activities protected by Section 7 of the
Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, M R Products, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall
I Cease and desist from-
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union
membership, activities, and sympathies, and the union
membership, activity, and sympathy of their fellow
employees, threatening employees that Respondent's plant
would close or that less work would be available for the
employees if the Union were successful in its organizing
campaign or that the employees would lose currently
enjoyed benefits if the Union succeeded in organizing
Respondent' s establishment
M R PRODUCTS
(b) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any
other labor organization, by discriminating against
employees in regard to the terms and conditions of their
employment
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Rena Camire immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of
earnings she may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
discrimination against her as set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) 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
and all other rights under the terms of this Recommended
Order.
(c) Post at its premises in the city of Troy, Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 2
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
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.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 7, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
123
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered
us to post this notice and keep our word about what we
say in this notice
WE WILL NOT question you in any way over the
Union
WE WILL NOT threaten you in any way over the
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with our
employees' rights to self-organization
WE WILL offer her job back to Rena Camire and
give her backpay from the day we forced her to quit.
You are free to become and remain members of
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, or
any other labor organization, or to refrain from such
activity, and we won't punish you in any way if you do
M R PRODUCTS, INC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan
48226, Telephone 313-226-3200