Metal Blast Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 26, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 540 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT recognize The Committee of Employee Representatives or
any successor thereto, and withdraw permanently recognition from it; and we
hereby disestablish it as the representative of any of our employees for the
purpose, in whole or in part , of dealing with or discussing grievances, labor
disputes , wages, rates of pay , hours of employment , or conditions of work.
WE WILL NOT initiate , form, sponsor, or promote The Committee of Em-
ployee Representatives , or any successor thereto, or any other labor organiza-
tion , or assist , dominate , contribute to the support of, or interfere with the
administration of, said committee , or any successor thereto, or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT promise to our employees contributions to hospitalization
premiums , free tools, free tuition and books, hospitalization benefits, or other
economic benefits or rewards in order to discourage their union activities,
sympathies , membership , and affiliation.
WE WILL NOT grant our employees free tools, increased wages on overtime
and callout time , or other economic benefits or rewards, in order to discourage
their union activities , sympathies , membership, and affiliation.
WE WILL NOT change or vary existing terms or conditions of employment
except for reasons not related to union membership or activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor or-
ganizations , or join or assist Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from engaging in all such activities as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming
or remaining , members of Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
THE CHARDON TELEPHONE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- --- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 720
Bulkley Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, Telephone Number, Main
1-4465, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Metal Blast, Inc. and John Lee Thompson . Case No. 8-CA-2716.
October 26, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 20,1962, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent 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 Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermedi-
ate Report and a supporting brief.
139 NLRB No. 31.
METAL BLAST, INC. 541
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
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 Inter-
mediate Report and the entire record in the case, including the excep-
tions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modification.'
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner, as modified below?
1 We concur in the Trial Examiner's ultimate conclusion that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a) (3) of the Act when it discharged John Lee Thompson In doing so, however,
we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's reasoning In our opinion, the record amply shows
that Thompson was discharged for engaging in a protected concerned activity, I.e., as shop
steward, insisting that the layoffs on January 25, 1962, be accomplished on the basis of
seniority. We find that Respondent's assigned reason for Thompson's discharge, namely,
that he allegedly incited a wildcat strike, was a pretext. Accordingly, we do not find it
necessary, as the Trial Examiner did, to rely upon Rabin Bros Footwear, Inc., 99 NLRB
610, or Mastro Plastics Corp., and Fi ench-American Reeds Mfg. Cc , Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 350
TI S 270, as additional support for the ultimate conclusion herein.
2 The following note will appear immediately below the signature In the notice:
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application In
accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
The penultimate paragraph in the notice Is amended to read . . posted for 60 con-
secutive day s from the date of posting, . . .
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was heard at Cleveland,
Ohio, on July 2, 1962, before Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon, pursuant to due
notice with all parties being represented. The complaint issued by the General
Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the General Coun-
sel and the Board) on May 23, 1962, and based on charges dated February 12,
1962, duly filed and served, alleged in substance that Respondent had engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by dis-
criminating against its employee, John Lee Thompson, because of his union or
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid
or protection or because of the belief that he had engaged in such activities either
as an individual or in the performance of his duties as shop steward on behalf of
the Union.
In its duly filed answer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices and alleged that Thompson was discharged because of his failure to live
up to the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and Re-
spondent which provided for an orderly procedure for the handling of grievances
and prohibited strikes, stoppages, slowdowns, restriction of output, and refusal to
work or impeding of work during the life of the agreement.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACTS
I. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent is and has been at all times material herein a corporation organized
under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal
office and place of business located in Cleveland, Ohio, where it is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of metal shot. In the course and conduct of its business
operations Respondent annually ships finished products valued in excess of $50,000
from its Cleveland, Ohio, plant to customers located in States of the United States
other than the State of Ohio. Respondent admits and I find that at all times mate-
rial herein Respondent is and has been engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Ice, Coal, Miscellaneous Scrap Metal, Auto Wrecking & Smelting Drivers &
Workers, Local No. 422, of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
John Lee Thompson, the Charging Party herein and the alleged discriminatee,
testified as follows:
He began his employment with Respondent in July 1959 and was elected to
serve as union steward in October 1961. On the morning of January 25 when he
reported for the start of his shift, he was told by Assistant Foreman Roscoe Knox
that there was some question whether the men would work but that they should
go down to the basement and change their clothes. As he approached the base-
ment he was told by Wilson, another foreman (presumably from the preceding
shift), to tell his own foreman, Alan Bergman, when he arrived that they were "all
going home." Wilson also told him about letting him "get the shots out of the hole"
because he had worked there 2 years and knew how to do it. Thompson replied,
"Okay, I will." 1
When Foreman Bergman arrived on the scene about 7:30 he told the men,
"All you guys on the bag machine will have to go home because we have a
breakdown." Thereupon, according to Thompson, the following colloquy occurred
between the two:
I said, "Alan, the breakdown been fixed," I said, "because when we came
in the guys running the shots, they were running the shots out one hole and
put them in the other when we came in."
He said, "Well, you going home because there is no work."
I said, "Well," I said, "Alan," I said, "Let us work." I said, "We done
worked the hour. You going to have to pay us for four hours anyway."
He said, "No. You are going home."
And I said, "Well, what about the guys in the shipping?" I said, "They going
home?" He said, "No." He said, "That is not your work, your job." He
said, "That is the guys in the shipping." He said "They are my men."
I said, "Well, Alan, we all your men. We are all working for the same
company."
He said, "You going home, and that's it."
And I said, "Well," I said, "what about our two hours-our four hours
under the contract?" I said, "You should let us work until 12 o'clock be-
cause we are going to get paid for four hours."
He said, "What hours?"
I said, "The contract speaks that if a man report to work and no work
available," I said, "He gets the two hours."
I said. "if a man report to work and work one hour or 15 minutes, he is
supposed to get four hours."
He said, "Well, you ain't going to work. you going home."
So I spoke again about the men in the shipping. I said, "What about the
men in the shipping?" I said, "You sending the older men home and you are
going to let the new men in shipping work."
He said, "Well, that's it, you going home."
'There is no explanation in Thompson's testimony what this meant.
METAL BLAST, INC. 543
At this point Bergman walked out of the stockroom and left the dozen or so
men there discussing the matter. Some of the men started laughing but one of
them, Ad-ms, said, "You all laughing and giggling. The boy Lis] trying to help
you all. If you did the right thing, we just walk on out of here, just like that."
Thompson then spoke up, "Yes, if you did do the right thing you would all walk
out, but you all wait until I come back. I will go down to the union hall and get
Mr. Mullen and he will straighten it out."
Thereupon he and four or five others went to the union hall and waited for
Mullen for about an hour but apparently left without seeing him or anyone else
there. That afternoon Thompson went back to the plant for his check, it being
payday. When Bergman came out with the checks, Thompson got in line with
the others. When he came to Bergman , the latter told him to go inside for his
check. In the office Nelson Libman, Respondent' s president , told him, "I don't
want you to work for me no more. You are a troublemaker." Thompson asked,
"What you mean, Nelson? Something wrong?" Libman replied, "No. I don't
want you to work for me no more because you tried to pull a wildcat strike."
Thompson denied it. Libman said, "Well that's it. I am fed up with you. Here's
your check."
According to Thompson's further testimony, he returned to the plant at 5:45 am.
the following Monday. At this time he did not enter the plant but stood outside
the gate. He admitted talking to some of the incoming employees but only after
they initiated the conversations. He denied seeking to get them to go on strike
pending his reinstatement. Regarding one Bud Taylor, Thompson testified that
Taylor had said something about not going back to work until Thompson was
reinsta.ed. Thompson told him, "No, that wouldn't be right." Thompson ex-
plained that he had gone to the plant that hour to get his clothes.
The only other witness called by the General Counsel, Cleo Westerfield, testified
as follows:
Well, I went to work that morning and there had been a breakdown, and
Alan said that we had to go home. So John did ask him, said , "There is
work that could be done around here," like that.
So he says, "No, there isn't anything you can do."
So he asked him, he says, "Well, couldn't we get the shot out the hold?"
That is the shot that the men couldn 't get out the night before. So Alan told
him. he said, "No."
So that time he says, "Well, there is nothing you can do. You have to go
home," like that.
So John asked him about sending some other guys home with less seniority.
He said no, he wasn't going to do that.
He asked him about the hour, you know , for coming in, pay, he says, "Well,
you don't get any pay," just like that.
W th that Bergman walked away. One of the men then spoke up, "Well, we should
walk out " Thompson said, "No. I will go down and get Mr. Mullen who is the
union man "
Roscoe Knox, called as a witness by Respondent, testified that he had asked
Thompson on the morning of January 25 to fill in for someone on the bagging
machine. Thompson said, "He wasn't going back there" So Knox said "okay,"
he would just have to wait until Foreman Bergman came and tell him that Thompson
would n t go on the job he had told him to go on. Knox further testified that he
was present when Bergman informed the men that there would be no work that day.
'n t is connection he testified that as he was leaving for the other stockroom he
heard Thompson say, "We might as well all of us walk out." 2
George Mal]ott, another of Respondent's employees called as a witness by Re-
spondent, testified that in the discussion that followed the announcement of the
breakdown and the subsequent lack of work on the morning of January 25, Thomp-
son eventually said, "We all ought to go home."
According to Bergman's testimony, when he came to work on January 25, he
found a breakdown that would require the layoff of 20 to 25 men. When he had
informed those affected including Thompson. the latter claimed that as union
steward he should be permitted to work. But Bergman was not sympathetic.
Accordingly, he punched out Thompson's timecard with the others. In a sworn
statement given the Board, Bergman had stated:
2 At another p lace in his testimony Knox said that Thompson stated, "Well, we might
as well just walk out then."
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There was a group of men standing in the stockroom where Thompson and
I were speaking. All at once Thompson turned to the men and said, "We
should all walk out " No one had said anything about a walkout to this point.
I paid no further attention to Thompson. .. .
On the stand , Bergman testified that he left the scene prior to any discussion
between Thompson and the others took place and that he heard no comment by
Thompson. He explained that his statement should have indicated that the remark
he attributed to Thompson was what he had been told Thompson had said.
According to the testimony of Floyd Washington, on Monday, January 29 when he
got to the plant about 6 a.m. Thompson told him in substance that if he did not
get back to work, everyone was going to walk out and asked Washington if he was
"going along with them." Knox also testified that on the same Monday he saw
Thompson standing at the plant gate sometime before 6 a.m. Thompson said
nothing to Knox but the latter heard him tell one of the employees "you might as
well not go in because we are not going to work today."
Nelson Libman, Respondent's president, confirmed in his testimony that at the
time of his discharge Thompson denied trying to pull a wildcat strike. However
in his further direct testimony Libman testified that the following Monday morning
in a grievance hearing on the matter at the office Thompson "admitted . . . the
attempt to pull a wildcat strike." On cross-examination Libman was vague as to
what exactly was said about this matter. He testified that there were so many things
said in this discussion that he could not remember all of them. He could recall
"only that [Thompson] tried to get the men to walk out."
Robert E. Hearn , secretary-treasurer of the Union, called as a witness by Re-
spondent, testified as to the Monday meeting as follows:
. Mr. Libman . . . explained that [Thompson] had started a wildcat strike
and told the men not to go in At that time there was four other fellows who
came into this meeting to verify what he said. There was a statement made at
that time by one of the gentlemen that somebody else had made the statement
for them not to go in and Thompson said "Let's not go in," or words to that
effect.
He also testified that Thompson admitted "that he did make this statement after this
fellow bad said that, that he made the statement for them not to go in " He
further admitted that Thompson at the meeting could have told them that he told
the employees to wait at the plant until he had gone down to the Union about the
matter Whether such in fact had been said by Thompson, Hearn could not recall.
There was no denial by him, however, that Thompson had made such a comment.
James E Mullen, the Union's president, also testified that Thompson admitted "that
he made the remark, after somebody made it, `Yes, we should all stay out.' "
The remaining evidence shows that- (1) The collective-bargaining contract in
effect between Respondent and the Union contains a no-strike clause and a reporting
time provision; (2) Thompson was transferred from the night shift to a day shift
because of trouble with the night foreman on one occasion; (3) Thompson had been
discharged once before for having invited a foreman outside for a fight. On that
occasion, after intercession by the Union and an appropriate apology, he was re-
instated; and (4) no work stoppage or strike ever took place as a result of the
January 25 layoff.
Contentions and Conclusions
In his oral argument 3 the General Counsel contended that Thompson's conduct
viewed in either of two lights ( i.e., acting as a rank-and-file employee or as the
union steward) reveals that he was engaging in activity protected by Section 7 of
the Act. Maintaining that Thompson did not "attempt to incite" a strike but indeed
actually acted to prevent one, the General Counsel relies on Rubin Bros. Footwear,
Inc., 99 NLRB 610,4 in countering a possible defense that even if Thompson had not
3 Both sides presented oral argument and waived the filing of briefs
4 The rationale of the Rubin Bros. case is contained in this quotation from the Board's
decision ( pp. 611 to 612) :
We are now of the opinion that the honest belief of an employer that striking
employees have engaged in misconduct provides an adequate defense to a charge of
discrimination in refusing to reinstate such employees , unless it affirmatively appears
that such misconduct did not in fact occur. 'We thus hold that once such an honest
belief is established , the General Counsel must go forward with evidence to prove
that the employees did not, in fact, engage in such misconduct . The employer then,
METAL BLAST, INC. 545
attempted to foster an unauthorized walkout he was nevertheless discharged in the
honest belief that he had done so.
On its part, Respondent disagreed with the General Counsel's analysis of the
evidence and maintained that the record proved Thompson's attempt to incite a strike
contrary to the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement. This, Respondent
contended, was the "third strike" for Thompson 5 "the final straw that broke the
camel's back."
I have set forth the evidence in some detail because it is apparent that the
decision herein turns on a very narrow issue-i.e., whether or not Thompson tried
to incite a strike. Notwithstanding what the evidence shows regarding Thompson's
record in the past and regardless of Respondent's motive now, it seems to me that
if the General Counsel's position is correct that Thompson was indeed engaged in
protected activity, then Respondent acted at its peril and in discharging him violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
While I am not overwhelmed by either side's evidence, I feel that the General
Counsel has established a sufficient preponderance in the proof to warrant a decision
in his favor. Regardless what Thompson said about leaving, walking out, or going
home, there is nothing in the record to controvert or dispute the essentials of his
testimony.6 Respondent apparently feels that even if his testimony stands alone and
uncontradicted it should not be credited. The difficulty with this is that what
transpired tends to support Thompson's version. There was no strike. Thompson
in the company of several others went to the union hall in furtherance of his instruc-
tions to take no action until he had the opportunity to explore the matter with the
union officials.
The remaining indicia of incredibility regarding Thompson's version that Re-
spondent would invoke from the evidence are equally tenuous. The alleged ad-
mission by Thompson in the Monday morning grievance meeting that he had
attempted to incite a strike is not supported by credible evidence. Libman was
vague and uncertain as to what Thompson said on that occasion. He could recollect
only one thing-"that he tried to get the men to walk out." And this in contrast to
Thompson's categorical denial of just that 2 days previously. Hearn's testimony that
in the meeting "There was a statement made at that time by one of the gentlemen
that somebody else had made the statement for them not to go in and Thompson
said, `Let's not go in,' or words to that effect," is hardly proof of an admission by
Thompson. Mullen's testimony was no more dispositive of the matter.
Nor does Thompson's conduct at the plant gate early Monday morning support
Respondent's position as to what Thompson did on the preceding Friday. I do not
doubt that Thompson was there to solicit support and sympathy for his reinstate-
ment. But the circumstances were quite different now. And the evidence that he
was trying to incite a strike at that time is meager. In any event having been dis-
criminatorily discharged, as I find, a strike in protest thereof would have been an
unfair labor practice strike and thus would not have been unlawful nothwithstanding
the no-strike clause in the contract. Mastro Plastics Corp., and French-American
Reeds Mfg. Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 350 U.S. 270.
In view of the foregoing and considering the record as a whole I conclude and
find that Thompson was engaged in protected activity when he sought to get Respond-
ent to let the men with more seniority work on the morning of January 25. I
further find that on this occasion he did not attempt to incite a strike and that his
discharge for that reason (or because it was believed he had done so) was dis-
criminatory within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Rubin
Bros., supra; Pontiac Motors Division, General Motors Corporation, 132 NLRB 413.
In the alternative, if Respondent's action was based on its unhappiness with
Thompson's conduct apart from the alleged attempt to incite a strike, it is equally
discriminatory.
On the record as a whole, I am convinced and I find that the General Counsel
has sustained the allegations of his complaint relating to Thompson's discharge.
of course, may rebut the General Counsel's case with evidence that the unlawful
conduct actually did occur. At all times, the burden of proving discrimination is
that of the General Counsel
Respondent pointed to the two previous occasions involving difficulties with Thompson
to show that he was a troublemaker.
8 Knox could testify only as to one comment by Thompson as he left the men at their
discussion. Obviously, he was in no position to contradict Thompson . The only other
testimony offered by Respondent was that of Mallott to the effect that Thompson eventu-
ally said, "We all ought to go home " This testimony actually tends to corroborate
Thompson.
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent unlawfully discriminated with regard to
the hire and tenure of John Lee Thompson It will therefore be recommended that
the Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to h,.s seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of such discrimination, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which
he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his dicharge to the date
of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during the period,
such sum to be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Wool-
wortti Company, 90 NLRB 289-294.
While a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act normally would call for a broad
cease-and-desist order in the circumstances here, I shall not recommend such an
order.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John Lee
Thompson, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3).
3. By the aforesaid discrimination the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is
recommended that the Respondent, Metal Blast, Inc., its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
I Cesse and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or in any other labor organization
of its employees, by discharging its employees or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist the Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement (the execution or application of which is not prohibited by State law)
requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer John Lee Thompson immediate and full reinstatement to the position
he held at the time he was discharged, or an equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss
METAL BLAST, INC. 547
of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the
manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for examination
and copying , all payroll records , social security payment records , timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports , and all other records necessary to analyze the amount
of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Cleveland, Ohio , plant copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 7 Copies of said no .ice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Eighth Region, shall , after being duly signed by a representative of the Re-
spondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eigh t h Region, in writing, within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.8
'In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner " in the notice In the further event that the Board ' s Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order "
I In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall he modified to read • "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days
from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith"
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Ice, Coal , Miscellaneous Scrap
Metal, Auto Wrecking & Smelting Drivers & Workers, Local No. 422, of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America , or any other labor organization of our employees , by dis-
charging or otherwise discriminating against any employee in regard to his
hire, tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist the above-named union or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing , and to engage in collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement ( the execution or application
of which is not prohibited by State law) requiring membership in a labor
organization as authorized by the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer John Lee Thompson immediate and full reinstatement to the
position he formerly held, or its equivalent , without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
METAL BLAST, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other materiel
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional office, 720
Bulkley Building , 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland 15, Ohio, Telephone Number,
Main 1-4465 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
672010-63-vol. 139--36