Middle Earth Graphics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1987

283 N.L.R.B. 1049 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

MIDDLE EARTH GRAPHICS Middle Earth Graphics , Inc. and James Cannon, Jr. and Lidell Ford, Jr. and Wayne Ford and Karen Root and Clark Olson and Patricia Ann Cole and Garry Wayne Root and Lamar Ed- wards and United Paper Workers International Union, AFL-C10-CLC. Cases 7-CA-24013(1), 7 -CA-24019, 7-CA-24013(2), 7-CA-24914(1), 7-CA-24013(3),- 7-CA-24856(2), 7-CA-' 24030(1), 7-CA-25033, 7-CA-24030(2), 7- CA-24856(3), 7-CA-24914(2), 7-CA-24953, 7-CA-24030(3), 7-CA-24030(5), 7-CA-24052, and '7-CA-24921 19 May 1987 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On 6 June 1986 Administrative Law Judge Walter H. Maloney Jr. issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.2 1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative' law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us, that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cur. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. We further find totally without merit the Respondent's alle- gations of bias and prejudice on the part of-the judge. On our full consid- eration of. the record and the judge's decision, we perceive no evidence that the judge prejudged the case, made prejudicial rulings, or demon- strated a bias against the Respondent in his analysis or discussion of the evidence, We also find nothing improper in the judge's questions to the Respondent's witnesses. We agree with the judge's finding that the Respondent failed to comply with the reinstatement provisions of the settlement agreement. In agreeing with the judge, we recognize that the Respondent experienced a significant reduction in orders for Cadaco game cards in 1985. The Re- spondent hired the discriminatees in May and June 1984 when its business was expanding dramatically because, of the Cadaco contract. The em- ployees were discharged in November 1984 and the settlement agreement was executed on 22 April 1985. By the summer of 1985, orders for Cadaco game cards had decreased, with a resulting decline in bindery work Although the amount of bindery work available after the settle- ment agreement was substantially less than what existed in 1984, the record shows that the Respondent periodically produced game cards for Cadaco throughout 1985. The record further shows that on numerous oc- casions the Respondent bypassed the discriminatees and used employees with less seniority, including individuals referred by temporary employ- ment services, to perform the Cadaco work, In view of this evidence, we find that the Respondent did not abide by the reinstatement provisions of the settlement agreement 2 We correct the judge's, inadvertent error in par 2(b) of his recom- mended Order, under which the Respondent is to notify the employees in writing that the discharges and warning will not be used against them in any way ORDER 1049 The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and' orders that the, Respondent, Middle Earth Graphics, Inc., Kalamazoo, Michigan, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. A. Bradley Howell, Esq,, and Richard F. Czubaj Esq., for the General Counsel. Francis T Coleman, Esq., and Scott R. Merrill, Esq., of Washington, D.C., for the Respondent. Clare Annen, of Scotts, Michigan, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WALTER H. MALONEY JR., Administrative Law Judge. The first nine of the consolidated cases initially came on for hearing before me on April 22, 1985, and they,all came on for hearing ultimately on January 28, through February 5, 1986, at Kalamazoo, Michigan, on consoli- dated complaintsi issued by the Regional Director of Region 7, which allege that Respondent Middle Earth Graphics, Inc.,2 violated Section' 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act and that it failed to comply with the provisions of a settlement agreement, thereby authorizing the Re- gional Director to set aside the agreement and to pros- ecute earlier unfair labor practices ostensibly settled therein. More particularly, the consolidated complaint al- leges that the Respondent repeatedly threatened employ- 1 The'principal docket entries in the consolidated cases are as follows Charges filed by James Cannon Jr., Lidell Ford Jr., Wayne Ford, Karen Root, Clark Olson, Patricia Ann Cole, Garry Wayne Root, and Lamar Edwards, respectively, against Respondent Middle Earth Graph- ics, Inc, between November 13, and 29, 1984, in Cases 7-CA-24013(1), 7-CA-24019, 7-CA-24013(2), 7-CA-24013(3), 7-CA-2403011), 7-CA- 24030(2), 7-CA-24030(3), 7-CA-24030(5), and 7-CA -24052, consolidated complaint issued by the Regional Director for Region 7 against the Re- spondent on December 31, 1984, Respondent's answer filed on January 8, 1985; hearing scheduled for Kalamazoo, Michigan, on April 22, 1985, in- formal settlement agreement executed by all charging parties, the General Counsel, and the Respondent and approved by me on April 22, 1985; charges filed against the Respondent by Wayne Ford, Clark Olson, Lidell Ford Jr., United Paperworkers International Union, AFL--CIO-CLC (Union), and Karen Root, respectively, between August 2, and Septem- ber 26, '1985, in Cases 7-CA-24856(2), 7-CA-24856(3), 7-CA-24914(2), 7-CA-24953, 7-CA-24914(l), 7-CA-24921, and 7-CA-25033, consolidat- ed complaint issued against Respondent by Regional Director for Region 7 on September 30, 1985, and first amended consolidated complaint issued against Respondent by Regional Director for Region 7 on October 30, 1985; Respondent's answer filed on November 7, 1985, hearing held in Kalamazoo, Michigan, on January 28 through February 5, 1986, briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent on or before April 28, 1986. 2 The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a Michigan corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where it is engaged in the commercial printing business In the course and conduct of this business Respondent during the preceding 12 months sold and distributed from its Kalamazoo, Michigan place of business products valued in excess of $100,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped directly to points and places located outside the State of Michigan Accordingly; Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(2), (6); and (7) of the Act The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act 283 NLRB No. 156 1050 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ees with plant closing if they unionized, created the im- pression among employees that their union activities were the subject of company surveillance; threatened to fire employees- if they joined a union; threatened to dis- charge employees and require them to become employ- ees of a temporary employment referral service if they continued to discuss unionization ; attempted to suborn- perjury by an employee in a Board proceeding; coercive- ly interrogated employees, threatened to fire employees who supported the Union,,, and to prevent them from re- ceiving unemployment copensation ; threatened an em- ployee with reprisal on returning to work if he engaged in union activities; issued disciplinary warnings to em- ployees because they were union sympathizers; dis- charged James Cannon Jr., Lidell Ford Jr., Karen Root, Garry Wayne Root, Clark Olson, and Wayne Ford be- cause of their union sympathies and activities; contracted out work in order to prevent unionization by removing union sympathizers from its payroll and placing them on the payroll of a temporary employment referral service; failed to recall Wayne Ford to work and discharged him because of his union sympathies and activities; harassed, demoted, and transferred Lidell Ford Jr. on his return to work because of his union sympathies and activities; and since September, 1985 failed to recall Karen Root from layoff because of her union sympathies and activities. The Respondent denies the commission of any independ- ent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; asserts that it discharged Lidell Ford Jr. because he sabotaged compa- ny ina'chinery; discharged James Cannon Jr. because of his poor work performance; and discharged Garry Wayne Root, Karen Root, Clark Olson, and Wayne Ford because they refused to sign up with the temporary employment referral service that it had employed. It contends that it failed to recall employees because of - lack of work and that Lidell Ford Jr. was demoted on his return to the job'because he was unable to perform assigned work. The Respondent also contends that viola- tions settled by an agreement, concluded on April 22, 1985, area barred from prosecution by limitations. On these contentions the issues herein were joined.3 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED Respondent Middle Earth Graphics, Inc. is a small printing firm located on the north side of Kalamazoo, Michigan. It is owned and operated by Louis Hall, who founded the business-about 12 years ago. Until the spring of 1984 , it employed about 10-15 individuals and was en- gaged principally in handling small and medium-sized commercial printing jobs. In the spring of that year, it obtained a contract from a Chicago firm, Great Cadaco Games, a Division of Rapid Mounting & Finishing Co. (Cadaco), to produce sets of question-and-answer cards used - in a game modeled after Trivial Pursuit. The Cadaco game is known- as "Bible Trivia ." Subsequent orders received from`,Cadaco included printing of ques- tion-and-answer cards-for two similar games, "Children's Bible Trivia" and "Catholic Trivia." Taking on these 3 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected orders meant a rapid increase in the staffing of the Re- spondent's plant, particularly, in unskilled employees in the bindery who performed such functions as merging, collating , and banding . The discriminatees involved in this case were hired in May or June 1984 when this up- surge in business began . Concurrently with the increase in staff, the plant began - to,,operate on weekends and oc- casionally on an around-the-clock basis during the regu- lar workweek. The initial Cadaco order was only for 25,000 sets of Bible Trivia cards , but, as that order was filled, other orders followed , rapidly . Respondent contin- ues to produce Cadaco game cards but not at the hectic pace it experienced in 1984 . At the same point in 1984 Hall began to enlarge the physical facilities of his plant and to acquire new machinery for his expanded oper- ation. The bindery operation involves the cutting of large "signatures" or printed sheets into quarters , collating them on a nine-sheet collator , merging these collated sheets into larger bundles , by what is, in effect, a hand- collating process, cutting or "trimming" , the newly formed bundles of question-and-answer sheets into indi- vidual game sets, and then putting rubber bands ' around _ individual sets before they are boxed for shipment. In this operation , Lidell Ford Jr. operated a collator (some- times called a Harris multi-stitcher); James Cannon Jr. was a merger ; Karen Root was a bander ; Lidell Ford's brother; Wayne Ford , worked as , a merger and _ collator helper; and Karen Root's brother, Clark Olson, was a bander . Karen Root's husband , Garry Root, had a semi- skilled job as trimmer operator. In June 1984, shortly after they had been hired, Garry and Karen Root were carrying on a conversation in the office with Hall. Hall had been talking with Jim English, a salesman from another print shop, Kalamazoo Label, and was repeating to the Roots what the salesman had said . Hall noted that Kalamazoo Label was running, at about a third capacity because of union work rules and a high union scale. Karen Root asked Hall what would happen if a union came - into Middle Earth Graphics. Hall replied that a union would never "get in here. I will close my doors before I will let a union in here." Sometime in May or June, Lidell Ford was working with Hall at the collator and asked Hall if he would ever , have a union in the shop. Hall replied that he would "close the g.d. doors" before he would permit a` union to come into - the shop . Ford had a similar conversation at this same point in time with Chalker . Chalker expressed the opinion that Hall would close the ' plant before he would permit it to become unionized. During the summer of 1984, Wayne Ford was engaged in a conversation with Foreman Don Antolovich and fellow employee Mike Ibeck at Antolovich 's home. Ford observed that , if the plant were unionized, the Company would stop a lot of activities that Ford objected to,,such as 12-hour workdays and cutting incentive rates. Antolo- vich replied that a union would be nice but there was "no chance of it." Early in the fall, K. Root became upset by an incident at the plant involving her son , employee Steven Kilburn. Kilburn was attacked by a dog that had been' tied up MIDDLE EARTH GRAPHICS behind the plant and had been allowed to stay there for plant security reasons. Kilburn was not injured but had been frightened by the dog's aggressive behavior. On learning of this incident, K. Root complained to Plant Manager Keith Tap and the General Foreman Rod Chalker, but received a rebuff. On returning to her job station, she angrily shouted to employees in the merging area of the plant, "Like hell we don't need a union." An- tolovich was present when these remarks were made. Shortly thereafter, K. Root phoned the office of the United Paperworkers Union and sought information on how to go about organizing a union at the Respondent's plant. She did not follow up immediately on this infor- mation but, along with other employees , began to discuss the possibility of unionization. Much of this talk took place at the merging line. On one occasion, Antolovich told employees on the merging line that the Respondent was keeping a complete file on who talked union at the plant. On Friday, November 2, 1984, the Respondent staged an open house at the plant. Respondent had just complet- ed an addition to the company premises, and this mile- stone provided the occasion for the celebration. Custom- ers, friends, and public officials were invited to view the enlarged building , see the plant in actual operation, and join Hall and others for a light lunch and a ceremonial ribbon cutting. A humorous program booklet, prepared and for the open house, was introduced into evidence. Among the visitors- was Patrick Allgood, the 'regional manager for Manpower, a supplier of temporary help. Allgood suggested to Hall that Manpower could be of help in providing him with extra help during peak peri- ods, and Hall was amenable to the suggestion . He told Allgood to prepare a specific proposal and present it. The following Tuesday, November 2, Allgood visited Hall and presented a. written proposal. The document in question appears to have been derived from a word processor, with individual name changes on the cover and an individual quotation of a rate for temporary help at $4.92 an hour. This figure represented the charge by Manpower to Middle Earth Graphics. Although the pro- posal did not say so, record evidence indicated that this figure presumed an actual payout rate to employees of about $3 .50 or $3.75 an hour . The balance represented deductions and supplements for withholding and insur -ance, payroll computations, and Manpower's profit. It became clear that Hall had in mind not merely procuring additional help from Manpower but was interested in placing a number of his current employees ' on Man- power's payroll, thus' treating them as temporary help. Hall insisted to Allgood that none of the employees he wished transferred from the Middle Earth Graphics ' pay- roll to the Manpower payroll should experience reduc- tions in their hourly rate, although it is clear that eventu- ally all of them lost benefits, inasmuch as they were cov- ered by a health insurance program as Respondent's em- ployees while Manpower had no such program for the temporary help it supplies. Both Hall and his manage- ment employees were quite evasive about the actual hourly rate they were being called on to pay to Man- power in order to maintain a $4 payout rate to current employees. Eventually, another Manpower representa- 1051 tive , Debra Kuhn, who assisted ' in the implementation of Manpower's contract with the Respondent, testified that for employees earning $4 per hour, Manpower charged the Respondent $5.65 per hour for existing employees being transferred to its payroll , and $5 , 88 for new em- ployees supplied from Manpower sources. Billing records and invoices in evidence confirm this testimony. The differential in rates represented Manpower 's recruit- ing costs. Higher rated employees were billed at other amounts. Kuhn testified that the Manpower markup was from 17-30 percent, although a simple arithmetic calcula- tion makes it clear that the Manpower markup on the $4- an-hour employees was about 41 percent. On the afternoon of Wednesday, November 7, Greg Henderson , a representative of Manpower, talked to the mergers in the merging area about signing up for Man- power. Both Chalker and, Antolovich were present. There was some objection from Respondent's employees to the idea of leaving the Respondent 's payroll and trans- ferring to Manpower. The objections centered on the fear of losing their jobs and of receiving cuts in pay. As the discussion drew to a' close, Lidell Ford, who was not a merger but who happened to be in the area, told the assembled mergers that if they signed up for Manpower their action would be tantamount to quitting Middle Earth Graphics, and they would have no standing to or- ganize a union among the Respondent 's employees. An- tolovich admits reporting this or similar statements on the part of L. Ford to Hall.4 On 'the evening of the same day, Ford phoned Clare Annen , the Union's representative in the Kalamazoo area, told 'him what was happening at Middle Earth Graphics among the mergers, and arranged for Annen to meet with interested employees at Ford's home on Satur- day, November 10. On the morning of Thursday, No- vember 8 , ' Hall summoned Ford to his office. In the course of a private interview, Hall told Ford that he was in possession of written proof that Ford had wilfully damaged ' the Respondent 's collating machine and pro- ceeded to fire' Ford for' doing so. Ford denied the accu- sation 'and asked to see the statements that Hall had re- ferred to. He also asked Hall to produce the second-shift employees who had made the written allegations. Hall declined and said they would be given to him with his final paycheck. Ford protested this action and claimed he could run the collator better than any two employees. He told Hall to "cut out the bullshit" and accused Hall of using him as a scapegoat. Hall's only response was that nobody would,run the Company but Hall himself. When Ford picked,up his paycheck the following day, he asked, Comptroller Joseph Hagenbarth for the state- ments, and Hagenbarth refused to produce them on advice of counsel. No such statements have ever been furnished, even in response to the General Counsel's sub- 4 Although there is some confusion in the record concerning the se- quence of events that surrounded the discharge of L Ford, it appears, as detailed later, that damage had been done to a collator the previous after- noon or evening, which the Respondent attributed to Ford Ford was discharged for this infraction on November 8, the morning following his statement to the mergers recited above 1052 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD poena. I conclude that they never existed in the first place.5 During the next few days, several supervisors made statements to various employees indicating that only mergers would be required to sign up for Manpower. On Friday, November 9, Chalker spoke to several employ- ees, including Garry Root, -near the trimmer and indicat- ed to them that Manpower was only for mergers, ex- plaining that mergers were part-time -employees and that the Respondent was taking this action because it was not sure,how long orders for Cadaco games would last so it wanted to be sure,that the mergers had some alternative source of employment if the Cadaco contract ran out. Later on in the day, Garry Root spoke to Antolovich and asked him if Manpower was just for mergers. Anto- lovich assured him that this was so. On the same day, Patricia Ann Cole, a merger, came to the plant to pick up her paycheck. She spoke to Antolovich and asked him if she had to join Manpower. He told her that she would have to sign up and stated that this requirement applied only to mergers because they were regarded as part-time employees. Chalker had also told Clark Olson that only the mergers were being required to transfer to the Manpower payroll. Debra L. Schrock worked as a collator helper on the evening shift.6 On November 9 she asked Chalker if she had to sign up for Manpower. Chalker's reply was, "Not as long as you don't talk union.',' Later on in the follow- ing week, Tap asked Schrock if she had signed up for Manpower. Her reply was that Chalker told her that she did not have to sign up so long as she did not talk about "onions." She used the word "onions" to avoid mention- ing the forbidden term "union." Tap told her at that time that everyone had to sign up, so she did the following day. The mergers worked on Saturday, November 10. During the course of this workday, Cole made the obser- vation to, her fellow employees and to Antolovich that the only reason the Company was bringing in Manpower was because of union organizing activity. Antolovich's reply was, if there was any further mention of unions, employees would be laid off permanently and the plant. doors would be closed. Antolovich admitted making this statement but explained for the record that he was just expressing his opinion. He also stated for the record that Hall was the "kind of guy who will cut off his nose to Respondent's second-shift employees, Mihally Csiszar and Schrock, gave diametrically opposed statements concerning making written state- ments on November 11. Csiszar, who is Hungarian and has trouble writ- ing English, testified that he and Schrock prepared a joint statement in their own handwriting on being questioned by management about vandal- ism performed on the collator and turned the statement over to their su- pervisor. Schrock testified that she prepared no such statement and, in fact, was never interviewed by nianagement'concerning the events of November 6 until, on November 14, she and Csiszar were presented with a typewritten statement, dated November 12, detailing the damage done to the collator and accusing Ford by necessary implication of doing the damage She insisted that the statement be modified before she would sign it and it was changed. This statement, signed both by her and by Csiszar, is in evidence. At the hearing in this case, Hall admitted that he had been "mistaken" when he said that he had statements in his posses- sion alleging Ford's responsibility for vandalism before Ford was fired. 6 At a much later point in time Schrock became a merger spite his face" and ventured the -statement that "if he doesn't get his way, nobody will." A union meeting took place the same evening at Lidell Ford's home. Among those who attended were the Roots, Olson, Cannon, and Wayne Ford. As noted previ- ously, Ford had been discharged by this time. Among, the questions discussed was whether employees should obey a directive to sign up for Manpower. Annen replied that it was up to each-employee about whether he or she signed up, and each employee would have to make this judgment on the basis of what he could afford to do if faced with discharge. Annen expressed an opinion that it was an unfair labor practice for an employer to force employees off its payroll and felt it would be `appropriate to file a charge. He did not state that he felt, that em- ployees who signed would be disenfranchised from par- ticipating in a representation election. Union authoriza- tion cards were distributed on this occasion and "every employee who attended signed a card. About this same time, Antolovich met Cole at a friend's house. I credit her testimony to the effect that Antolovich told her that the Company was trying to make a case against Lidell Ford and asked her how she would like to make $25? She flippantly replied, "What do I have to,do-kill someone?" Antolovich told her that all she would have to do was to go into court and say she saw Ford tampering with machinery. Cole ob- jected, saying that she did not know anything about the machinery. Antolovich replied that she could just ,say that she -saw him tampering with valves and hoses. Cole refused, insisting that she would not lie either for ,or against Ford. On Monday, November 12, Respondent's supervisors, including Hall, and Manpower- representatives Allkins and Kuhn, met with all shop employees. At this time Hall announced that all employees, except for "the origi- nal ten," would be required to transfer from the Middle Earth Graphics payroll to the Manpower payroll. The "original ten" was Hall's way of describing the employ- ees who had been working for him before the work force expansion took place in the spring of 1984. This number included the pressmen, all supervisors, and the office staff. The Manpower representatives were asked a series of questions about seniority and other matters. They answered some questions and 'were- unable to answer others. Hall was asked why this was taking place and his only answer was, "No comment." Cole and Cannon then stated aloud that the only `reason the trans- fer to Manpower was taking place was because of the Union. Hall said it was taking place so that he could pro- tect, himself from what Lidell Ford had done the preced- ing week. - Later on that day in a private conversation, Cole asked Hall what would happen if she refused to sign up for Manpower. He replied that she would be, fired. She said that she did not want to become a "rent-a-jerk." Hall told her that he did not care if a union, did come into the plant, observing that he had enough money, and could quit and close the doors. After consulting with her husband,' Cole resigned. MIDDLE EARTH GRAPHICS 1053 On the following day Cannon was terminated just after he reported for work. When Antolovich gave him the news his reply was, "I knew it was coming." Antolo- vich told Cannon that he had found a number of mis- takes in Cannon's work the day before. Cannon argued that Antolovich was in no position to complain about Cannon's work when Antolovich's brother, Walter, also a merger, was "goofing off." Antolovich said that he would divide up the mistakes that had been found be- tween Cannon and his brother. However, Walter Anto- lovich was not disciplined. On Wednesday, November 14, a third meeting was held between a Manpower representative and the pro- duction and maintenance employees. Kuhn represented Manpower on this occasion. She attempted to answer employee questions that had been left unanswered during previous meetings . Thereafter, she conducted private interviews at which time she solicited applications from those who were being required to transfer. On November 14 Tap called Garry Root into his office and asked Root if he had heard about any union activities. Root replied that he had talked to someone about the Union the previous week. Tap asked Root whom he had talked with, but Root refused to answer. Tap went on to ask Root if he had seen any union cards. Root replied untruthfully that he had not seen any. About this same point in time, Tap had a conversation with Lamar Edwards, the janitor and maintenance man. He asked Edwards if Edwards had signed for the Union. Edwards replied that he had not done so. Tap then asked Edwards if Edwards had received a union card from Garry Root. Edwards had in fact received a union card from Garry Root. After engaging in a conversation with another employee named - Dove, Edwards showed the card to Tap. Tap asked if he could make a copy of the card- and Edwards consented. Tap then asked Edwards if Garry Root had signed him up on company property. 'Edwards replied that Root had come to his house and had signed him up there. Tap then told Edwards that Garry Root had "lied to save his own ass" because Root had told Tap something else. He then instructed Ed- wards to return to the merging line. On the morning of Thursday, November 15, both Roots and Olson came to work wearing union buttons. They had attended a union meeting the night before and presumably had obtained the buttons at the meeting. Ha- genbarth asked them when they arrived whether they had signed up for Manpower: All three replied that they had not done so. Hagenbarth told them that if they had not signed with Manpower, they would have to leave the plant. Garry Root replied that he did not work for Manpower, "I work for Middle Earth Graphics." Ha- genbarth told Root that he could not give him his check until he signed for Manpower. Root told Hagenbarth to go get someone with authority. K. Root wont to her job and began to work. Some of her fellow employees asked her if she had signed up for Manpower. She replied that she had not done so and that she was not going to so do because she was trying to get a union into the plant. Not long thereafter, Root heard Antolovich report this conversation to Hall in Hall's office. Antolovich told Hall, "You've got to do something. Those people are downtalking Manpower and talking union. We've got to them them out of there." Before long, Hall, Tap, and Antolovich came into the bindery and went up to Garry Root. Hall asked Root if he had signed up for Manpower. Root said that he had not done so, adding that he was working to get a union into the plant. Hall stepped toward Root, backed him into a machine, and called him an s.o.b. Root said taunt- ingly that Hall would love to have an excuse to hit him. Hall replied that he knew a hundred people in Kalama- zoo who would like -to hurt Root. Hall then instructed Tap to call the police. Shortly thereafter, they arrived. Hall pointed to both Roots and to Olson and asked the police to remove them. As the police began to do so, Root asked one of the officers why she was being re- quired to leave and he replied, "Trespassing." She ob- jected, telling the officer that she had punched in and was just doing her job. Hall insisted that she be removed as well and she was. Wayne Ford had originally signed an application for Manpower but then withdrew it., on November 16 by calling the Manpower office. On November 19 when he went to work, Tap asked him if he had signed for Man- power. W. Ford replied that he had done so but had withdrawn his application. Tap then told him that "we no longer need you," whereupon W. Ford left the plant. Manpower's invoices for the first 2 weeks of its contract with the Respondent indicate that it supplied the Re- spondent with 11 newly recruited employees during this period-Lynne M. Alston, Sheila A. Forney, James A. Feringa, Marilyn J. Hosteller, Michael J. Stanfill, Gerald L. Stump, Veronica D. Swift, Deborah E. Talley, Cheryl A. Heighton, Julie K. Kimball, and Jerome W. Phelps. They also indicate that 19 former Middle Earth Graphics employees were transferred to the Manpower payroll: Walter Antolovich, James H. Butler, Dale E. Croy, Houston B. Ford, Bonnie _ K. Garton, Mary Ann Hollis, Michael J. Ibach, Scott R. Kellogg, Lamar Ed- wards, Mytris McCants, Ricardo Nunn, Margaret A. Ross, Debra - L. Schrock, Calvin C. Shafer Jr., Brenda K. Van Tilberg, Charles J. Deneau, Tamara Stickney, Janet M. Van Tilberg, and Phyllis J. Narlock. Between November 13 and 29, the first series of unfair labor practice charges in this dispute were filed. On No- vember 21 the Union filed a representation petition seek- ing to represent, the Respondent's production and mainte- nance, employees. That petition is still pending, having been blocked by the outstanding unfair labor practice charges against the Respondent. Lidell Ford's brother Houston Ford continued to work at the Respondent's plant on the Manpower pay- roll. Sometime late in November, Hall spoke with H. Ford about his brother's discharge. He told H.`Ford that he hated to fire Lidell but that! Lidell had been harassing employees and had tampered,with the collator, so that others who worked on the machine were prevented from operating it to full, capacity, and making their full piece- work incentive rate. Hall added that Lidell was trying to bring a union into the plant, and there was "`no way in hell" that he would permit a union to come into the Company. 1054 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hall also had a private conversation with Lamar Ed- wards in late November, in the course of which he told Edwards that he did not want to give anyone any trou- ble and he did not want anyone to give him any trouble. His words were that if someone gave him trouble, "he would give it to him back," mentioning that he had an employee who was a real troublemaker. Shortly thereaf- ter, Hall told Edwards that he would be laid off for lack of work. Edwards said that he would quit and apply for unemployment compensation. The original consolidated unfair labor practice com- plaint was issued-by the Regional Director on December 3-1, 1984. The case was set for hearing on April 22, 1985. On that date, the parties executed an informal settlement agreement, which included an undertaking on the part of the Respondent to pay specified sums of money to both Roots, Olson,, Wayne Ford, Lidell Ford, and Cannon in settlement of-the outstanding complaint. It also obligated the Respondent to offer these six individuals "full and immediate reinstatement to their former jobs without prejudice to their seniority, or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed" and to cease and desist from com- mitting further unfair labor practices. There is no dispute that the Respondent paid to the six discriminatees the sums required under the settlement agreement or that it posted the required notice. At issue is whether the Respondent offered these individuals full and immediate reinstatement to their former jobs and whether it refrained from committing further unfair labor practices. Of the six discriminatees who were parties to the April 22 agreement, only three ever worked for the Respondent thereafter. Two did not begin to work until June 28 and the third did not start back to work until August 19. Neither was working when the case came on for hearing again on January 28, 1986. On May 9, 1985, Hall wrote identical letters to all six discriminatees who were involved in the settlement agreement. The letter read: Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement entered into between Middle Earth Graphics, Inc., and the National Labor Relations Board,, on April 22, 1985, you are hereby notified that you are rein- stated to your former position as an employee and any reference to your discharge and/or layoff has been removed from your file. Due to lack of production requirements, there is no work available for you at this .time. However, you will be given the normal notice when that does occur. Therefore, you should keep us advised of your current address. 19 when the, third discriminatee returned. Chalker ex- plained that he had been told by Hagenbarth that it was more expensive to, maintain these individuals on the Manpower payroll, with the attendant markup for Man- power's services, than to employ them directly as Middle Earth Graphics employees, Hagenbarth testified that the anticipated savings in administrative costs in the prepara- tion of payrolls did not materialize. Hall was asked why he transferred these individuals from the 'Respondent's payroll to Manpower and then back again . He said that he assumed that it was for a reason other than cost effec- tiveness but he could not quite recall what that reason was.7 Nobody explained why it took the Respondent over 6 months to come to the conclusion that it was costing more to employ former employees on the Man- power payroll than it cost to hire them directly. ' K. Root was recalled on June 28 to her position as a bander. She was laid off again on July 2. She was re- called a second time on July' 30 and worked about 2 weeks, when she took sick leave. She returned again on August 20 and worked until September 20, when she was laid off ostensibly for lack of work. She has not worked since that time." Late in July when K. Root was notified a second time to report for work, her brother, Clark Olson, was at her home. On learning of his sister's recall, Olson phoned Chalker and asked him if he should come back to work as well. Chalker informed Olson that there was no work for him and that there would be no work for him in the near future. About August 9, an office employee, identi- fied only as Brenda, phoned K. Root's home and asked for Olson. He was not there. On receiving this informa- tion, Olson phoned Chalker, who informed him that he had to keep the office updated as to his current phone number. Olson told Chalker that he had the correct phone number. Chalker said nothing about Olson's re- porting for work. He admitted at the hearing that he had no work for Olson at that time. Shortly thereafter, Olson received a letter, dated August 10 and signed by Hall, in which Hall simply noted that Company records indicat- ed that Olson's phone number was the same as his sister's number and reminded Olson that it was his responsibility to keep the Respondent informed as to any change in his address or phone number. It said nothing about reporting for work. A few, days later, Olson received a letter from Hall, dated August 20, informing him that he was being discharged, effective August 20, for his failure to report to work on August 19.9 Olson insisted at the hearing that During this same period of time, the Respondent trans- ferred nine former employees whom it was continuing to utilize on the Manpower payroll back to their former status as Middle Earth Graphics employees. These in- cluded Ann Ross, Charles Deneau, Beth Breed, Debra Schrock, James Butler, Scott Kellogg, Bonnie Garton, Calvin Schaeffer, and Brenda Van Tilberg. Some re- sumed their places on the Middle Earth Graphics payroll on or before June 26, 1985, when the first two discrimin- atees came back to the plant. All were back by August 7 Hall had a very selective memory and professed absence of recollec- tion on crucial matters relating to events in this case He also was evasive in the answers he did give. I note also his profane outburst during the- hearing, the fact that he was photographing witnesses in the hallway out- side the hearing room as they sat waiting to testify, and that he, was coaching a company witness in the hallway, prior to her testimony, not- withstanding the existence of a sequestration order. In short, his partisan- ship at trial was unrestrained and out of control. I discredit his testimony. 8, K Root testified that, during this period of her employment, she wore a union button to work. Chalker stated' at the hearing that he had only a day or two of work for Olson on August "19 and that the purported offer was for temporary work' MIDDLE EARTH GRAPHICS he never received any letter or other communication in- structing him to report for work on August 19 or any other date . Respondent insists that , it mailed Olson such a letter a few days before this date . Although the Re- spondent was able to produce copies of other similar correspondence with its employees , it failed, in response to a subpoena by the General Counsel , to produce a copy of the disputed notification letter to Olson. I con- clude that no , such letter ever existed or was ever sent. On June - 24, 1985 , Csiszar, who by this time had become a supervisor, phoned the Root house for the pur- pose of requesting Garry Root to return to Work. He spoke with K. Root . On learning of the call, Garry Root returned it and was told by Csiszar that there was work available on a 6-hour-a-day basis and requested Root to report the, following morning. Root said he could not do so, since he was working for Merchant 's Publishing Company and would be-obligated to give them a 2-week notice. Csiszar informed Root that the job in question Would last only 2 weeks. Hall testified that Root was only being offered a couple of days ' work . Root told Csiszar that he would have to have 2 weeks' notice of any offer to return and further informed Csiszar he would not come back to work for the ' Respondent on a 6-hour-a-day basis because he regarded such a job- as part-time: On the following day , Garry Root received a letter from Hall, in which Hall stated: This letter is confirming the telephone conversation Mike Csiszar had with your wife Karen on Monday, June 24. You were advised to report to work on Tuesday , June 25, 1985, no later than, 8:00 a.m. Root did not report for work on June 25. Instead, he wrote Hall a letter on that date that stated: This letter is to acknowledge my conversation that I had with Mr. Csiszar late in the afternoon of June 24, 1985. As you are aware , I am presently employed and it is my contention that less than twenty -four hours notice to return to work is less than adequate. As stated in the settlement agreement, I am to be reinstated to my former position with benefits as a fulltime employee . Mr. Csiszar informed me that his offer- was for a six hour shift which is less , than full time, and consequently without benefits. Therefore , I am advising you that at this time your offer , is unsuitable and does not constitute compliance with the settlement agreement . Howev- er, if and when a position of fulltime employment does open, I would expect to be properly notified within (sic) a timely fashion. Root has heard nothing from the Respondent since that time. On June 26, 1985 , Hall sent a certified letter to Cannon instructing him to report to work no later than Friday morning , June 28, at 8 a.m. The letter was sent to Cannon at 207 Alamo Hills, Kalamazoo . At that time Cannon had temporarily moved back to his parents' home in Grand Rapids in order to assist in caring for his 1055 father, who was ill. When Cannon eventually received the letter , he phoned the shop and spoke to a secretary identified only; as, Sandy . He asked to speak with Hall and with other supervisors . He was told by Sandy that they were busy and could not speak with him . This is the last communication- that he has received from the Respondent. A letter, dated June 26 , was sent by the Respondent to Wayne Ford instructing him to report for work on June 28 no later than 8 a .m. W. Ford did so and was assigned to run the collator. Later that day, Chalker moved him to the merging line. W. Ford was employed as a collator operator before his discharge . This was an incentive job on which he was able to earn about $7 an hour , includ- ing the piecework rate which was attaphed to it. Howev- er, a merging job pays a straight $4 an hour, without in- centive . W. Ford worked as a merger until July 2 when he was laid off. At that time he asked Antolovich when he would be recalled . Antolovich told him that he would give him a call or stop by his apartment to inform him when work would again be available. W. Ford heard nothing more from the Respondent for nearly a month, so he went to the plant and spoke with Chalker. Chalker told him at this time ' that in order to come back to work he would have to have a phone so that he could be notified at short notice that work would be available . Ford pressed Chalker to learn when work would be available . Chalker 's only reply was to let him know when he had a phone installed in his apartment be- cause he did not want to have to go through third par ties in order to call him back to work . On August 9 W. Ford received the following letter from Hall: Rod Chalker , called your phone number on August 7, 1985, that you have given us to "call. He received a recording stating that the number had been disconnected. The scheduling of the, work that you qualified for does not allow the time to notify you by mail. It is your responsibility , as am" employee, to inform Middle Earth Graphics , Inc. of any changes of your address and/or phone number. Respondent sent W . Ford another letter, dated August 13 and signed by Hall. It read: This letter is to confirm Rod Chalkers instruction of August 12 when you came into the shop, that we need a phone number, to reach you when there is work. Our work load does not permit the time to notify people by letter. If we do not hear from you by Monday the 19th, we will assume that you do not want to work here. On Monday , August 19, about 3 :50 a. m ., Chalker gave W., Ford a call from his home . Chalker had just returned from a social engagement and, before going to sleep, at- tempted to contact W. Ford to tell him to come to work that morning. Chalker reached a neighbor of Ford who lived in a ' downstairs apartment. He told the neighbor that he was Ford 's boss and - wanted to speak with him. 1056 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The neighbor ' went upstairs , knocked on the door of Ford's apartment, and awakened him, to relay this mes- sage . Meanwhile, Chalker was placed on hold. By the time that Ford had dressed and had come downstairs to take the phone call, Chalker had hung up without dis- closing to anyone the substance of what he wanted to say to Ford. Ford went back to bed. The next day, Ford received a letter, dated August, 20 and signed by Hall, that stated: This is to inform you that your failure to report to work by Monday, August, 19, 1985, results in the termination of your employment Middle Earth Graphics [sic] as of August 20, 1985. Chalker stated in his testimony that he had only 1 to 3 days' work available for W. Ford at that time. In mid-July, Lidell Ford complained to the Board agent who was supervising compliance with the settle- ment agreement 'that he had not been recalled to work. On August 1, 1985, Production Manager Douglas B. Harris wrote L. Ford a letter that stated as follows: This letter is to inform you that as of August, 1, 1985, Middle Earth Graphics is giving you a two week notice to report to work. There is presently work available for you. If you desire work, please let us know immediately and report to work, no later than -7:30 a.m. August 19, 1985. Shortly after receiving this letter L. Ford called the plant and spoke with Chalker. He told Chalker that he would like to come back to work on August 12 but was not sure that he could ' make it by that date because he was having car trouble and wanted to get his car re- paired before starting work. He also told Chalker that if he could not make it by August 12 he would certainly be back to work by the August 19. Chalker told him that he should simply call the plant during business hours and let the Company know the date on which he would actually return. Ford then asked Chalker if he would experience any trouble after he came back. Chalker replied that he would have no trouble "as long as the] did his work, kept [his] nose clean, and didn't talk union." About August 15, Ford called the-plant, talked to a clerical em- ployee named Brenda, and told her that he would be in on August 19 at 7:30 a.m. When Ford reported for work on August 19, Chalker told him to go to work on the collator he had used before being discharged but instructed him to set it up in the stitcher; mode' for a practice run. While operating this machine (sometimes called a Harris multibinder) in 1984, Ford had used it only for collating pages of the Cadaco games into sets of nine. With the addition of different ac- cessories, the multibinder can also be used to fold pages of printed material and, to stitch or staple the folded pages together into booklets. To operate the machine in a stitcher mode, it is necessary to attach the stitcher head, insert a spool of wire used for stitching, attach dif- ferent receiving trays, and make various adjustments in order - to permit the - machine to perform these facets of the operation in proper sequence. Timing is of critical importance in setting up the machine in the stitcher mode. Ford had never before set up the machine in the stitcher mode, nor had he operated it as such. His famili- arity with the machine was limited to its use as a colla- tor. During the interim while the discriminatees were away, the Respondent had purchased a new collator that assembled packets of 20 pages rather than 9 pages, so it used its new collator for this purpose and relegated the older machine to occasional use as a stitcher. The only person employed by the Respondent who was skilled in setting it up and operating it in the stitcher mode was Csiszar. He was on vacation on August 19. Chalker was familiar with this aspect of the operation but did not reg- ularly operate the machine for stitching. Hall had instructed Chalker to assign Ford to the stitcher on his return to the plant. Chalker admits that he had reason to believe that Ford would have difficulty in setting up the machine and in operating it in'the stitcher mode. He was correct in his assumption. After working on the machine for several hours, Ford was unable to set it up and to get it into operation. He could not attach the collator to the stitcher. On several occasions, he asked Chalker for assistance in setting it up and each time Chalker refused to help him, claiming that he was too busy with other matters. Ford asked for the machine manual and Chalker brought it to him, but Ford was unable to complete the set up work with the assistance of the manual. Two other employees, including Houston Ford, came over to help L. Ford on their lunch hour but Chalker told them to leave L. Ford alone. By early afternoon, Ford still did not have the ma- chine in operation and Chalker reported this fact to Hall.' 0 He told Hall that Ford could not set up the ma- chine and was not getting out any production. Respond- ent then made up a written statement, dated August 20, 1985, that read: I cannot set up and run the multibinder that Rod Chalker has asked me to set up and- run. There was a place following this statement for Ford's signature and the signature of a witness. Chalker took the blank statement to Ford and asked him to sign it. Ford insisted that he could get the ma- chine in operation and declined to do so . After, Ford had worked unsuccessfully ' for another hour or so on the multibinder, ' Chalker again' presented the' paper for Ford's signature and insisted that he sign it.' Ford did so but told Chalker that he was signing it under protest. Chalker then summoned Margaret Ann Ross to the ma- chine and asked her to sign the statement as a witness. At this time, Ford was reassigned to become a collator operator 's helper . Chalker explained that this was the only other job available . In doing so, he took a cut in pay from $5.50 to $4 an hour, without incentive bo- 10 There is no contention that Ford was malingering Chalker testified that he felt that Ford was making his best effort to get the stitcher in operation MIDDLE EARTH GRAPHICS nuses.11 Ford continued to work at this job until Sep- tember 20, when he was laid off, ostensibly for lack of work. He has not worked at the plant since that time. U. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS In order for the Board to set aside the settlement agreement of April 22, 1985, it is necessary for it to find that the conduct of the Respondent following the execu- tion of this agreement either violated' specific undertak- ings set forth therein, or that the Respondent committed additional unfair labor practices, which, in general terms, it also agreed to avoid when it signed the settlement. As discussed in more detail, infra, the Respondent failed ut- terly in its obligation to offer the six discriminatees full and immediate- reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions. Moreover, the Respondent committed additional unfair labor practices that also viti= ated any protection it might otherwise enjoy from pros- ecution for unfair labor practices committed before the settlement was signed. In order to treat the events in this record in approximate chronological sequence, the analy- sis of the record should begin with a consideration of the Respondent's presettlement conduct. A. Evidence of Animus Quite apart- from any specific violations of the Act al- leged ,and found in this case, the Respondent demonstrate ed clear evidence of animus that should be considered' in placing the events described herein in proper focus. Among the documents in the record is a large multicol- ored brochure that the Respondent-has printed and cir- culated to advertise the capability of its new multicolor press. The document is a humorous elaboration of Hall's tongue-in-cheek proposal for a new 51st state, to be carved out of the existing state of Michigan and named Six-One-Six after the ' telephone area code for Western Michigan. Entitled "A New State. A New Start." the brochure features Hall as its centerfold,, dressed in regal attire and holding a sword and scepter. Also portrayed on this page are two cartoon figures, dressed as attend- ants from an insane asylum, who are chasing Hall and are making ready to apprehend him and place him in a straightjacket. Inside- the brochure is a large map of Michigan. The eastern half is portrayed as a barren wasteland while the western half-State Six-One-Six-is shown as a flourishing, verdant paradise. At the center of State Six-One-Six is its capital, Kalamazoo. Access, to Six-One-Six from Eastern Michigan is ,limited to a draw- bridge over a moat. This feature is captioned: Access to the State of Six-One-Six will be severely restricted. Drawbridges will' be raised to keep out such undesirable elements as labor organizers, dead beats, carpetbagging politicians, and itinerant law- yers. 11 In addition to demoting Ford, Chalker then gave him a disciplinary wnteup, which he dated August 13. The writeup stated: Lidell called me at my mother's house on 8-3-85 and said that he would come to work on . 8-12-85. He didn't call in a day later He has had 2 verbal warnings before and 1, wk suspension. Action taken. 3rd verbal warning. Next action taken will be sus- pension and after that termination 1057 When asked at the hearing if he was opposed to unions„ Hall replied: "Just in Six-One-Six." B. Independent 8(a)(1) Violations 1. When, in June 1984, Hall told the Roots that a union would never come into the plant and that he would close the doors before letting a union come in, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 2. When, in late May or June 1984, Hall told Lidell Ford that he would "close the g.d. doors" before he would. permit a union to come into the shop, the Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. When, during the same period of time, Chalker told Lidell Ford that he felt that Hall would close the plant before he would permit it, to become unionized, the Re- spondent violated- Section 8(a)(1) of the, Act. 4. When, on November 9, Chalker told Debra Schrock that she did not have to sign up for Manpower if she did not talk union in the shop, the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. When, on November 10, Antolovich told the merg- ers that any further talk of unionization would cause the Respondent to close the plant doors and lay off its em- ployees ` permanently, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. When, about November 9, Antolovich solicited Pa- tricia Ann Cole to commit perjury in' order to support the Respondent's case against Lidell Ford, the Respond- ent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 7. When, on November 14, Tap coercively interrogat- ed Garry Root in his office about whether Root had heard about any union activities, with whom he had dis- cussed- unionization, and whether he had seen any union cards, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 8. When, about November 14, Tap asked Edwards if he had signed a union card and when he asked Edwards if he could duplicate a copy of a union card in Edwards' possession, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. When, in the course of the same conversation, Tap told Edwards that Garry Root had lied about Root's union activities "to save his ass," the Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 9. When, in late November, Hall told Houston Ford that he had fired Ford's brother in part because he was trying to bring a union into the plant, and when,he told H. Ford that there was "no way in hell" that a union would come into the plant, the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. - 10. When, in August 1985, Chalker told Lidell Ford in the course of a phone conversation that there would be no reprisals against Ford when he returned to the plant so long as Ford did his work, kept his nose clean, and did not talk union, the Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. C. The Discharges of both Roots, both Fords, Olson, and Cannon in November 1984 All six discriminatees named, in the original complaint and made parties to the settlement agreement were union supporters. Except for Lidell Ford, all had signed union 1058 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,cards before -they were discharged. K. Root was the original contact between the, Respondent's employees and the Union. Ford had renewed this contact the night before he was discharged. All were discharged by an irascible, and outspoken Employer whose intense and im- placable antiunion sentiments have been itemized and documented above. All six were also known to the Respondent to be union sympathizers." K. Root made known her views in September when, in the presence of Antolovich, she shouted angrily to other employees' that they needed a union because she could obtain no redress of a grievance concerning the maintenance of the watchdog behind the plant. Lidell Ford warned ' mergers on the afternoon of November 7 that they, would forfeit -their right 'to orga- nize 'the Middle Earth Graphics plant if they' became Manpower employees. His remarks were immediately re- ported to Hall. In a private conversation in the summer of 1984, Wayne Ford had'made his prounion sympathies 'known to Antolovich. Moreover, his close family rela- tionship with Lidell certainly placed him under suspicion that he harbored the same sentiments which his brother expressed. Cannon voiced prounion sentiments on the merging line in Antolovich's presence and again at a meeting of employees attended by Hall and' other super- visors. Olson and Garry Root were close relatives of Karen Root and, like- Ford's brother, likely candidates for company suspicion that they engaged in union activi- ties. Garry Root was the subject of considerable interro- gation by Tap and also the subject of Tap's statement to Edwards that G: Root had lied about union activities "to save his ass." Both Roots and Olson wore union buttons to. work the'day they were discharged. I have also cred- ited a reported -statement in the record by Antolovich that the Company was maintaining a complete record of who talked union at the plant. Certainly such a record must have contained the names of most, if not all, of-the above named employees because they did discuss union- ization-at the plant. Thedischarge of Lidell Ford was a clumsy fabrication from `beginning to end. Apparently 'someone vandalized the collator on'November'6. The Respondent admits that anyone in the plant could have damaged the machine. Having heard of Lidell Ford's union outburst the follow- ing day, he then-became the likely candidate, and was the subject of an investigation designed not to find out who- actually damaged the machine but to pin a rap on Ford as the guilty patty. Following the procedure of "verdict first, trial later," three supervisors came to the conclusion that Ford was the culprit. He was never asked if he was the one who damaged the machine. Hall admitted lying to Ford during the discharge interview by telling Ford that he had in his possession written state- ments 'naming Ford as' the guilty party. He had no such statements. Serious efforts'were taken to obtain such evi- dence in the days following Ford's discharge. One super- visor asked another employee to lie about seeing Ford tamper with `the, collator.' Two other employees-whose stories were at'wide'variance-ultimately signed a paper implicating, though not directly naming, Ford as the one who damaged the machine. However, this statement was not in company hands until long after Ford was dis- charged. Like the hearing examiner at the Michigan Em- ployment Security Commission who heard this same de- fense during an unemployment compensation case, I con- clude that there is not a shred of evidence that Ford damaged the Respondent's collator, either deliberately or through negligence . Moreover,, the behavior of the Re- spondent makes it abundantly clear that it had no reason- able grounds to believe that Ford had done so and was scurrying about to find an evidentiary basis to support an action it had already taken. Later on, Hail admitted to Ford's brother that Ford's union activities played a par- tial role in his discharge. Coming as it did 1 day after Ford had urged mergers to refrain from signing up for Manpower, so they could continue their organizing ef- forts, Ford's discharge was the direct result of, ]Fords union activities, which were the only reason for his ter- mination . By discharging Ford the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The next to go was Cannon.' Like L. Ford, he was dis- charged within 24' hours after making a prounion state- ment in the presence of supervisors. He complained pub- licly, in the presence of Hall, and others, that the only reason for bringing Manpower into the plant was to stymie the organizing effort. The asserted reason for Cannon's discharge was errors made on the merging line. There is no - doubt that he made some errors the day before in selecting collated packets of game sheets, for merging into a full or completed packet. The, exact number of errors 'is unknown, as is the magnitude 'of these errors in the context of the Respondent's operation. Antolovich''s brother-was guilty of similar errors on the same day and this fact was brought to the attention of Cannon's supervisor when the discharge was announced. The, only reply made by D. Antolovich was that he would divide up the errors found and attribute an equal number to the other merger. However, he did not exact the same penalty from his brother that he did- from Cannon. ' ' Cannon had been an employee of the Respondent for nearly 6 months. His virtues and failings as an employee were well known. His discharge follows the familiar pat tern of a marginal employee whose deficiencies could be overlooked ' until he became interested in union activities, at which time they were no longer tolerable. Fisher Stove Works,' 235 NLRB 1032 (1978); Markle' Mfg. Co., 239 NLRB 1142 (1979); Bu,falo' Concrete, 276 NLRB 839 (1985). Because an expression of union sympathies was what triggered 'the removal of James Cannon, Jr., I con- elude that his discharge violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The decision of the Respondent in November 1984, to require all of its employees other than the "original ten" to sign, up for Manpower bears considerable scrutiny. Expressions in the record about "signing up for Man- power" tend to obscure the fact that all of the affected employees were in fact discharged by the Respondent. Whether or not any such employee signed 'up for Man- power after being discharged simply indicated whether or not he or she continued to perform work, in the Re- spondent's plant. Those who opted for this route were no longer Middle Earth Graphics employees any more MIDDLE EARTH GRAPHICS than were those who left the plant . Properly viewed, the question at issue is whether the decision of the Respond- ent to discharge all except its long -time employees was discriminatorily motivated, or was it prompted by con- siderations falling within the scope of business judgment. This decision was taken at the same point in time that union activity began to surface at the Respondent's plant. Moreover, the economic benefits and cost effectiveness of the move were only casually considered by the Re- spondent before the decision was taken, if, indeed, such matters were even considered at all . Third, at the begin- ning of May 1985, many of the employees who were re- quired to become Manpower employees were taken back on the Middle Earth Graphics payroll. One of the rea- sons advanced by supervisors for this contrary move was that it was costing the Respondent more to maintain in- dividuals on the Manpower payroll than it was to employ, them directly. Hall stated in his testimony that the later move in 1985 was taken for reasons other than cost effectiveness . A fourth consideration relates to some of the reasons offered by Hall for making the move in the first place. Beginning in May 1984, Respondent had experienced a sudden expansion of its work force. Many of its new employees proved to be unreliable and it was occasionally faced with shortages of unskilled (and some- times semiskilled) help to get out Cadaco orders. As Manpower representatives might well have pointed out, this was a situation in which a supplier of temporary help could be of assistance by providing, at short notice, additional employees to supplement absences or vacan- cies in an existing workforce. Supplying temporary help for peak production periods or to replace absentee em- ployees is one of the principal functions served by such companies. Hectic production problems fail to answer the question why the Respondent not only asked Man- power for additional help to get it through peak periods and to compensate for absenteeism among its regular work force but also placed some 19 of its regular em- ployees on the Manpower payroll under circumstances that admittedly proved more costly than simply keeping them on as Middle Earth employees and supplementing their efforts from time to time with temporary workers supplied by an outside firm. The only excuse that lends any credence to the legiti- macy of this decision is Respondent's excuse that it was trying to provide its regular employees with a source of income and employment if and when the Cadaco job ran out. Actually, the evidence in the record indicates that the Cadaco jobs continued to be produced in large quan- tities throughout the fall and winter of 1984-1985. More- over, it is also clear from the record that the Respond- ent's own income nearly doubled in 1985 over 1984. It had many commercial accounts other than the' Cadaco job and it continued to service those accounts. ' The record discloses that at the time a union organiz- ing drive surfaced a bitterly antagonistic employer fired several key inhouse organizers, and discharged the bulk of its new employees, informing them that they could continue to earn' a livelihood in its establishment only as the employees of another employer. Six months later, when it was faced with the prospect of bringing union sympathizers hack to its payroll, it then transferred back 1059 to the same payroll , admittedly for reasons other than cost effectiveness, a number of former employees who had continued to work for it throughout the winter with- out engaging in any union activities . The effect of the second move-packing a prospective bargaining unit with employees of another employer (Manpower) to offset the return of union sympathizers-is simply re- verse spin on the same tactic it followed in November. Respondent manipulated its staff to prevent unionization in November by transferring employees out and, faced with a contrary situation in May , took the opposite tack for the same underlying reason. As the General Counsel points out, the Respondent's original intention was simply to use Manpower employ- ees to replace its merging employees . When evidence evolved that union sentiment was spreading throughout the plant, the Respondent enlarged on its original plan and discharged all of its bindery employees. By subcon- tracting this work to Manpower to avoid the unioniza- tion of its employees the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The General Counsel does not seek a remedy for all of the employees who were treated in this fashion. However, both Roots, 'Wayne Ford, and Olson were seen as prominent in the union effort and were discharged as a part of this defensive scheme. Ac- cordingly, their discharges violated, Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The fact that any or all of them could have applied for and obtained jobs with Manpower is an irrelevancy that bears, if anything, only on the remedy in this case, not on a determination of whether in fact a violation of the Act took place when they were dis- charged. D. Reinstatement and Postsettlement Activity It is well settled that presettlement activity of a re- spondent may be examined and relied on in assessing its conduct following the execution of the settlement agree- ment to determine if any postsettlement conduct amounts to an unfair labor practice . Laborers ' Local 185 (Joseph's Landscaping), 154 NLRB 1385 (1965); Lawyers Publishing Co., 273 NLRB 129 (1984). To warrant setting aside a settlement agreement , the General Counsel must establish that following the execution of the agreement, the Re- spondent either failed to comply with its specific terms or that it engaged in subsequent unfair labor practices. If the General Counsel is successful in establishing either or both of these facts, then the settlement agreement may be treated as if it had not been executed, and the original complaint, as well as any subsequent complaint, may be prosecuted as if the settlement had never taken place. Contrary to contentions made by the Respondent, the mere execution of a settlement agreement constitutes nei- ther the withdrawal nor the dismissal of a complaint and does not bar future prosecution if the settlement is not honored. The Respondent agreed on April 22, 1985, to offer to the six named discriminatees full and immediate reinstate- ment to their former or to substantially equivalent em- ployment in the event that their former jobs no longer existed . What constitutes a valid offer of reinstatement has been the subject of extensive litigation extending 1060 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD over a long - period of time . In order to constitute a valid offer of reinstatement , the offer of work must be specific, unequivocal , and unconditional . 12, The work offered must entail similar skills, similar pay, and similar working conditions . "' -A mere inquiry , directed to an employee for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not he is available for work ,- does not constitute an offer of rein- statement. 14 Asking employees to come back to work and then telling them that business had not picked up sufficiently to permit reinstatement is a contradiction that amounts to no offer of reinstatement at all.15 An uncom- municated offer of reinstatement is no offer of reinstate- ment at all.16 An employee has no obligation to decide whether he wishes to return to work until he has - re- ceived a valid offer of- reinstatement . 117 Only when an offer of reinstatement has been unequivocally rejected is an employer relieved of his duty to reinstate an employ- ee.18 An offer of a, few days' work or an offer of part- time work to a full-time employee does not constitute an offer of reinstatement . 19 An employee must be given a reasonable time in which to accept a valid offer of rein- statement . Two and four days, respectively , as well as 3 weeks , have been held not to be a reasonable time to accept such an offer . 20 Conditioning reinstatement on avoidance of future union activities is not a valid offer.21 If an employer asserts an economic defense , such` as un- availability of jobs, to justify not making a valid offer of reinstatement , the burden is on 'it to establish such a de- fense by a preponderance of credible evidence . 22 Tested by these principles,, the Respondent herein has yet, to make a valid offer of reinstatement to any of the six dis- criminatees - in this case, with the possible exception of Karen Root. Under certain circumstances , an economic defense may serve to toll the backpay liability of an employer who is under an obligation to offer reinstatement to des- ignated employees and does not do so . However , no eco- nomic defense short of plant closing serves to erase the reinstatement obligation of an employer who is required to 'offer reinstatement and has failed to do so . In this case, the Respondent played games with the six discri- minatees in an effort to strike them from its rolls on a permanent basis while giving lip service to the obligation it incurred when it signed the April 22 settlement. The letter that the Respondent wrote to the six discriminatees on May 9 , offering reinstatement but no jobs, was patent 12 Information Control Corp , 196 NLRB 504 (1972); Controlled Alloy, Inc, 208 NLRB 882 (1974), Standard Aggregate Corp., 213 NLRB 154 (1974), Moro Motors, Ltd, 216 NLRB 192 (1975) 13 KSLM-AM & KSD-FM, 275 NLRB 1342 (1985) 14 Rea Trucking Co, 176 NLRB 520 (1969), National Business Forms, 189 NLRB 964 (1971). 15 W. C. McQuaide, Inc, 220 NLRB 593 (1975), enfd in pertinent part 552 F.2d 519 (3d Cir. 1977) ]s J. H Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co, 158 NLRB, 1414 (1967). 17 Richard W. Kaase Co , 162 NLRB 1230 (1967) 18 Crown Handbag, 137 NLRB 1162 (1962) 19 Floe Chief Inc., 258 NLRB 1124 (1981), C. S. McCrossan, Inc, 272 NLRB 414 (1984); Seyforth Roofing Co., 263 NLRB 368 (1982) 20 Matlock Truck, Body Corp., 248 NLRB 461 (1980), Harowe Servo Controls, 250 NLRB 958 ( 1980), Browning Industries, 213 NLRB 269 (1974) 21 Standard Aggregate Corp, supra. 22 W C. McQuaide, Inc., 237 NLRB 177 (1978). nonsense . Whether it tolled a backpay liability will be discussed infra. As satisfaction of a reinstatement -obliga- tion it was a nullity. It should be noted that all six discriminatees were per- manent full-time employees. The definitions of perma- nent employee and full -time employee are contained in the Respondent 's handbook, either explicitly or by neces- sary inference . The handbook defines probationary em- ployee as one who has worked more than 3 months. By implication anyone who had served more than 3 months was no longer in this status . If he was also a full-time employee , he was eligible for certain stated company benefits. All of the discriminatees had worked at least 5 months at the time of their respective discharges and were eligible for company benefits. A full-time employee is defined in this booklet as anyone who works an aver- age of 36 hours a week or more . This definition fitted all of the discriminatees, many of whom were complaining because they had been working 50 or 60 hours a week. When the Respondent began referring to them and to others similarly situated as part -time employees, it was not only violating common usage in the English lan- guage but the definition contained in its handbook. The offer of a few days' work to Karen Root late in June 1985 did not constitute reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent employment . It was only an offer of a few days' work, not permanent employment. Her recall late in July was arguably reinstatement to a permanent position. However , she worked only 6 more weeks before she was laid off again . She has not been re- called since that 'layoff. When she was laid off again in September, Plant Manager Harris told her that the layoff would be short, that he ' was going to operate on a skele- ton crew for a week, and that she would be called back in order of seniority. In fact , throughout the fall of 1985, others with less seniority than K. Root continued to work along with employees who were brought in from time to time from various temporary services . Despite the fact that the Respondent has continued to prosper and to produce substantial numbers of Cadaco- games along with its regular commercial work, K. Root has not been working. I conclude that the layoff of Karen Root on September 20 was discriminatorily motivated, as was her discharge 10 months earlier , and that by laying her off and failing to recall her, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Wayne Ford was recalled to' work for 2 or 3 days late in June. Because it was a recall to ' temporary work, it did not satisfy the Respondent's reinstatement obligation. Moreover, the letter that he received at that time giving him only a day's notice to report was not sufficient to satisfy a reinstatement obligation, notwithstanding the fact that Ford was able to respond to it. In early August, W. Ford called the plant and asked for work. He was told there was none available . Howev- er, he was told that he would have to maintain a tele- phone in , order to be eligible for recall . This instruction was confirmed by a letter that was' sent the next day. Placing such a condition on Ford 's right of reinstatement violated the terms of the settlement agreement as well as settled Board law. The call to W. Ford at 3:50 a.m. for MIDDLE EARTH GRAPHICS the asserted purpose of having him report for 2 or 3 days' work at 7:30 a.m. on the same day likewise is ,not a valid offer, of reinstatement. Inasmuch as Chalker never told Ford to report or even transmitted such a message through a third person, the call was not an offer at all. It was merely an act of harassment. Accordingly, I con- clude that the Respondent failed utterly in its obligation to offer W. Ford reinstatement to his former or substan- tially equivalent work. Moreover, the Respondent was not satisfied merely to leave W. Ford in the position of an unreinstated employee. When he did not report at 7:30, a.m. in response to an offer that he did not receive, either actually or technically, it discharged him in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Late in June, Csiszar spoke with Garry Root and of- fered him what was essentially part-time employment of a temporary nature. The offer failed to give Root a rea- sonable opportunity to conclude his present employment and report for work. The excuse used with respect to him as well as other employees, namely, that the Re- spondent could not give much advance notice or written notice to report to work because of the sporadic nature of its operation, simply illustrates that the offers that it was making to the six discriminatees were not bona fide offers of permanent employment but were merely at- tempts to remove the discriminatees from its rolls while offering colorable compliance with the settlement agree- ment. I conclude that- the overture made to Garry Root was not a bona fide offer of reinstatement and that the 'Respondent has failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement with respect to his employment. I have concluded that as a matter of fact Olson was never sent a letter of any sort that offered him employ- ment of any kind. Moreover, Chalker testified- that the work available for Olson when the disputed letter was sent was of 2' or 3 days' duration. Accordingly, Olson was never given a bona fide offer of reinstatement, as re- quired by the terms of the settlement agreement. Hall's letter to Cannon, dated June 26, instructing him to report for work no later than June 28 , was insufficient notice to constitute a valid offer of reinstatement. The fact that the letter did not reach Cannon until several days after June 28 merely compounds the failure of the Respondent to honor its contractual commitment. When Cannon responded to the letter, the management of the Respondent refused to speak to him, thus demonstrating that the Respondent was simply trying to avoid bringing him back to work while laying a paper trail suggesting compliance with the settlement. As noted above, a valid offer of reinstatement must be made to the same position or to a substantially equivalent one. In the -case of Lidell Ford, he was brought back to work on August 19 at a job that required the exercise of substantially greater skill than the one that he vacated when he was discharged. The Respondent had reason to believe that Ford was not 'capable of performing the tasks to which he was assigned on August 19 because he had never performed that job before. As anticipated, Ford was not up to operating the collator in the stitcher mode nor was he able to set it up for stitching. The reason he was assigned this was was obvious. The Re- spondent wanted to embarrass Ford and to put him in a 1061 position in which he would either quit or take a lower paying job. Ford chose the latter route. Chalker then de- cided to rub it in by giving him a reprimand for report- ing late for work when in fact he was told in writing that he had until August 19 to report. The reprimand re- cites allegations that were factually false and does so in such a manner that laid a groundwork for a discharge for cause . The reason for both of these moves was the Respondent's abiding : hostility to unionization and to Ford, whom it continued to regard as a principal cause of the union effort in its plant. The August 19 recall does not amount to reinstatement and the reprimand, motivat- ed as it was by antiunion considerations, violated Section 8(axl) of the Act. Because the Respondent has yet to offer Ford a rein- statement that comports with its -obligations under the April 22 settlement agreement or under the Act, that ob- ligation remains in' order to remedy the unfair labor prac- tice that it committed on November 8, 1984. During August and September, Ford continued to promote the union cause actively. On September 20, 1985, he was laid off along with Karen Root. As in the case of Karen Root, Ford was told at this time that the layoff was prompted by lack of work and that he would be called back in order of seniority when work again became available . Respondent has not recalled Ford but contin- ued to employ individuals with less seniority, including persons referred by temporary employment, services, throughout the fall of 1985. During this period of time, it has continued to perform a large amount of work both for Cadaco and for its other customers, As in the case of Karen Root , I conclude that this layoff was discrimina- torily motivated and, as such, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The second complaint alleges that certain of the Re spondent's actions violated Section 8(a)(4) of the Act. There is no doubt that the six discriminatees herein and others filed charges and that certain unlawful acts were committed by the Respondent following the filing of those charges. However, there is some doubt that the filing of charges added, anything but context to the ac- tions taken by the Respondent, i.e., but for the filing of the charges, the settlement agreement could never have taken place . However, Respondent's underlying motive was, and remained, its implacable opposition to unioniza- tion and to those who engaged in union activities. The fact that these individuals sought redress with the Board added nothing to the Respondent's determination to get rid of them. Accordingly, I would dismiss so much of the consolidated complaint that alleges that the Respond- ent violated Section 8(a)(4) of the Act. On the foregoing findings of fact and on the entire record considered as a whole, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Middle Earth Graphics, Inc. is now, and at all times material has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 1062 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. United Paperworkers International Union, AFL- CIO-CLC is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging James Cannon Jr., Lidell Ford Jr., Wayne Ford, Karen Root, Garry Wayne Root, and Clark Olson because of their union sympathies and ac- tivities; and by subcontracting work to another-employ- er; and discharging employees in order to prevent the unionization of the plant, the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(3) of the Act. - 4. By the acts and conduct set forth in Conclusion of Law 3; by threatening employees that the Respondent would close the plant if it became unionized; by coer- cively interrogating employees concerning their union activities and the union activities of other employees; by telling an employee that she would not be discharged if she did not talk union in the plant; by soliciting an em- ployee to commit perjury in order to support the Re- spondent's version of a discharge; by telling an employee that another employee lied to prevent reprisals from being taken against him for his union activities; by telling an employee that it had fired another employee because of his union activities; by telling an' employee that no re- prisals would be taken against him if he did not talk about the union; and by issuing a reprimand against -an employee in reprisal for union activities and for 'the pur- pose of laying the groundwork for his eventual dis- charge, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. - 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close, in- timate, substantial, and adverse impact upon the free flow of commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has committed cer- tain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take other actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. Because the violations of the Act found herein are repeated and pervasive, and because they demonstrate an attitude on the part of this Respondent to behave in complete disregard of the rights of its employ- ees, I will recommend to the Board a so-called broad '8(a)(1) remedy designed to suppress any and all viola- tions of that section of the Act. Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). I will also recommend that the Re- spondent be required to offer to James Cannon Jr., Lidell Ford Jr., Wayne Ford, Karen Root, Garry Wayne Root, and Clark Olson full and immediate reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority -or to other rights that they previously enjoyed, and that they be made whole for any loss of pay or benefits that they may have sustained by reason of the discriminations practiced against them, to be computed in accordance with the Woolworth formula'23 with interest thereon at the adjust- 23 F W. Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950) ed prime rate used by the Internal Revenue Service for the computation of tax payments. Olympic Medical Corp., 250 NLRB 246 (1980); Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). I will recommend that the Respondent be re- quired to remove from its records any reference to the unlawful discharges or unlawful disciplinary warnings re- lating to the discriminatees, •and that it notify these em- ployees in writing that such acts have been done and that their unlawful discharges and unlawful discipline will- not be used as a basis for future disciplinary actions against them. I will also recommend that the Respondent be required to post the usual notice, advising its employ- ees of their rights and of the results of this case. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed24 ORDER The - Respondent, Middle Earth Graphics, Inc., Kala- mazoo, Michigan, its officers, agents, supervisors, succes- sors, and assigns, shall 1. ,Cease and desist from (a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities and the union activities of other em- ployees. (b) Threatening to close the plant if the employees become unionized. (c) Telling employees that they will not be discharged or suggesting that reprisals will not be taken against them so long as they refrain from talking about the union. (d) Soliciting employees to commit perjury in order to support the Respondent's version of a discharge. (e) Telling employees that other employees lied to pre- vent reprisals from being taken against them for their union activities. (f) Telling employees that it had fired another employ- ee because of his union activities. (g) Issuing reprimands against employees in reprisal for their union activities or for the purpose of laying the groundwork for an, eventual discriminatory discharge. (h) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization, by dis- charging employees, contracting out their work, or oth- erwise discriminating against them in their hire or tenure or in their terms.and conditions of employment. (i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to James Cannon Jr., Lidell Ford Jr., Wayne Ford, Karen Root, Clark Olson, and Garry Wayne Root full and immediate reinstatement to their former positions or, in the event that such positions no longer exist, to - 2a. If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the, Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived' for all pur- poses MIDDLE EARTH GRAPHICS substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their' seniority or to other rights which they formerly en- joyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay or bene- fits that they may have suffered by reason of the discrim- inations found herein, in the manner described above in the remedy section. (b) Remove from its personnel records any reference to the discriminatory discharges of the above-named em- ployees ' and ' the unlawful disciplinary warning given to Lidell Ford, Jr., and notify each employee in writing that these discharges and warning' will be used' as a basis for future discipline against them. (c) Post at its Kalamazoo, Michigan plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."25 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent's author- ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu- tive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (e) Notify the-' Regional Director in writing within 20 days ,from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED insofar as the consoli- dated complaint herein alleges matters not found to be violative of the Act, the said consolidated complaint is hereby dismissed. 25 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 1063 The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees concerning their union activities or the union activities of other employees. WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant if the em- ployees become unionized. WE WILL NOT suggest to employees that they will not be discharged so long as they refrain from talking about the union. WE WILL NOT solicit employees to commit perjury in order to support our version of a discharge. WE WILL NOT tell employees that other employees lied in order to prevent reprisals from being taken against them for their union activities. WE WILL NOT issue reprimands against employees in reprisal for their union activities or for the purpose of laying the groundwork for an eventual discriminatory discharge. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization, by dis- pharging employees, contracting out their work, or oth- erwise discriminating against them in their hire or tenure or in their terms and conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer full and immediate reinstatement to James Cannon Jr., Lidell Ford Jr., Wayne Ford, Karen Root, Clark Olson, and Garry Wayne Root to their former or substantially equivalent employment, and we will make them whole for any loss of pay or benefits which they may have suffered by reason of the discrimi- nations practiced against them, with interest. WE WILL remove from our personnel records any ref- erence to the discharges of the above-named individuals and the unlawful disciplinary warning given to Lidell Ford Jr., and we will inform these individuals in writing that the discharges and warning will not be used against them in the future as the basis for disciplinary action. MIDDLE EARTH GRAPHICS, INC.