Midwestern Instruments, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1690 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees at
the 24 State Street and Pier 84, North River, New York, New York,
offices of the Italia Societa per Azioni di Navigazione in the unit
heretofore found appropriate.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and FANNING took no part in the consid-
eration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives.
Midwestern Instruments , Inc. and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union No . 584, AFL-CIO. Case No.
16-CA-981. February 25, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 16, 1957, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac-
tices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it
alleges certain violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a support-
ing brief. The General Counsel filed no exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.1
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Midwestern Instruments, Inc.,
Tulsa, Okahoma, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
'Respondent argues that the Trial Examiner should not have credited the testimony of
Petra Navarro in view of his findings that at times she "manifested a very partisan atti-
tude," and that certain of her testimony was inconsistent with the testimony of Neuman,
the dischargee. We disagree. In our view, the testimony of Navarro was worthy of belief
119 NLRB No. 224.
MIDWESTERN INSTRUMENTS, INC. 1691
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 584, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor 'organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to,
reinstate any of its employees or by discriminating in any other man-
ner in regard to'their employment.
(b) Interrogating any employees, in a manner constituting inter-
ference, restraint, or coercion or violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act, as to their attendance at union meetings or as to whether they
have been solicited to join a union.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 584, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Q. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer B. C. Neuman immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent' position without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole, in the
manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The Remedy" for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of the Respondent's discrimination.
(b) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents upon
request, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social-
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due.
(c) Post at its plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma, copies of the notice at-
tached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix."' Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places includ-
This notice is amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order ." This notice is further amended by inserting the
words "in a manner constituting interference , restraint , or coercion in violation of Sec-
tion 8 ( a) (1) of the Act" after the words "we will not interrogate our employees."
1692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing all places where notices are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in
writing, within 10 days of the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that subsection (b) of paragraph 8 of the
complaint be dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the Labor Management Rela-
tions Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136 (herein called the Act), was heard in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
on June 5 and 6, 1957, pursuant to due notice to all parties . The complaint, issued
on May 16, 1957, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
and based on charges duly filed and served, alleged that the Respondent had
engaged in unfair labor practices, proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the
Act. In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent conceded certain facts with respect
to its business operations , but denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor
practices.
All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce relevant evidence,
to argue orally, and to file briefs. At the conclusion of the hearing a motion by
the Respondent to dismiss the complaint was taken under advisement . It is disposed
of as appears hereinafter in this report. On July 9 an able brief was received from
the General Counsel, and on July 10 an unusually thorough and comprehensive
brief was submitted by counsel for the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation with its principal office and plant in
Tulsa, Oklahoma, is engaged at that location in the manufacture , sale, and distribu-
tion of electronic and electromechanical instruments . In the course and conduct
of its operations, it annually ships in interstate commerce more than $50,000 worth
of its products to points outside the State of Oklahoma . In addition , during the
12-month period immediately preceding the hearing , the Respondent furnished to
the United States Government , pursuant to various contracts , electronic and elec-
tromechanical instruments and parts and supplies valued in excess of $100,000,
said products being directly related to the national defense. The Respondent con-
ceded that , for the purposes of this proceeding , it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act . Upon the foregoing facts, that is likewise my conclusion
and I so find.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No . 584, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events
Early in March 1957 , an attempt to organize the employees at the Respondent's
plant was initiated . On About March 1, B. C. Neuman, an employee in the
electrical assembly shop , contacted George R. Shaull, business manager for the
Union , and the latter arranged for an organizational meeting of the Respondent's
employees at the union hall. This meeting, held on the evening of March 8, was
attended by Neuman and seven of his coworkers , all of whom signed union authori-
zation cards that night . The following day Neuman persuaded 16 other fellow
MIDWESTERN INSTRUMENTS, INC. 1693
employees to sign cards and in the week thereafter he also induced several other
employees at the plant to do likewise.' On March 18, the Union held another
meeting which approximately 32 employees attended.
On the following morning, Glee David, foreman of the electrical assembly shop
and, as such , Neuman 's immediate superior , initiated a conversation with Neuman
during the course of which he told the employee that he had heard rumors of an
attempt to organize a union and that he would suggest that before the employees
considered anything like that it would be well for them to think of the liberal pay
raises the Company had granted in the past. He added that at the moment the
Company was not making any money and could not afford to give any further
increases . 2 That same morning, while on a tour of the plant , Mr. D. B . Piester,
production superintendent, entered the stockroom and engaged the two employees
therein conversation. According to Richard B. Claver and James K. Nave, the two
storeroom men on duty, Piester asked them if they had been to the union meeting
the night before. When both answered in the affirmative Piester proceeded to
discuss the subject of unions in general. In so doing he stated that he had once
been a union member himself and that he felt that if a union organized the plant
there were some privileges the employees might lose and others they might gain.
He suggested that the men think about the matter carefully and be sure they did
the right thing. During the course of the discussion Nave declared to the superin-
tendent, "You can't blame me for attending a union meeting." According to the
employee, Piester then assured him with the remark, "No, that's a privilege that you
have . . . I don't blame you at all. I just heard that you attended a union
meeting." 3
About this same time Charles Cart, a leadman in the electrical assembly shop,4
went to Piester to suggest that in the event of a layoff the Company could rid it-
self of the union adherents by the simple expedient of including the leaders in
any reduction. Cart testified that the production superintendent immediately nega-
tived this proposal on the ground that to follow it would involve the Company in
serious difficulties. In their subsequent conversation, however, Piester asked if, in
view of his suggestion, Cart knew who the union leaders were. The latter stated
that he did not. Then, according to Cart, Piester related the description of an
employee who a neighbor had told him was the union leader. Cart testified that
the description fitted Neuman. On March 19, Shaull telephoned M. E. Morrow,
chairman of the board of directors for the Respondent, to tell him that the Union
had begun an organizational campaign among his employees. According to Shaull,
Mr. Morrow told him "it wouldn't do us no good to organize . we would never
get a union in that plant." 5 Petra Navarro, an employee in the coil winding
department, testified that just before her shift began work on March 20, Neuman
came to her work place and engaged in a short conversation about the Union. Ac-
cording to Navarro, immediately after Neuman left, Irvin E. Lowe, her supervisor,6
came to her position to ask whether Neuman had discussed the Union. Lowe
denied that he ever had such a conversation with her. This conflict is resolved
infra.
On the morning of March 21, Neuman was discharged. That afternoon Shaull
telephoned M. E. Morrow to protest the dismissal. There followed a heated ex-
change between the two in which Shaull admittedly used some profanity. It was
undenied, however, that during the course of this conversation Mr. Morrow de-
clared that he would "fire any he wanted to . . . that
no - union was ever going to organize that plant . . . they had tried it before
and didn't have any success" and that "he would come out and clean out the whole
union. . . ." 7
'At the hearing Neuman conceded that he obtained some of these signatures on com-
pany time.
2 The foregoing finding is based on Neuman 's testimony which Mr. David did not deny
while on the stand.
8 The foregoing findings are based on the credited testimony of Claver and Nave which
was not contradicted or denied by Mr. Piester.
4 The parties stipulated that Cart is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Shaull 's testimony as to this conversation was neither contradicted nor denied.
e Although Lowe is referred to as a leadman in certain portions of the transcript, he
himself testified that he was a "supervisor foreman." The Respondent conceded that he
was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
These quotations are from Shaull 's uncontradicted testimony.
1694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Neuman 's discharge
This employee was hired in December 1955 for work as a wireman in the
electrical assembly shop, where he was engaged during most of his employment in
making oscillograph harnesses . s He was terminated on the morning of March 21,
1957. G. R. Morrow, president of the Respondent and son of M. E. Morrow,
testified that he ordered the discharge after he had observed Neuman for 15 minutes
during which time the employee did nothing but loaf at the harness tester's bench.
Neuman conceded that he had spent about 10 minutes there and , upon learning that
the harness was in working order, started back to his bench to begin another job.
At that moment Foreman David accosted him to announce "you are slowing up
production and that 's a good enough reason to let you go." 9 Neuman asked if that
meant he was being fired and the foreman answered in the affirmative . The em-
ployee then left the plant.
At the time it was shop practice for the wireman, upon completing an oscillograph
harness, the assembly of which would require from 2 to 3 days, to bring it to an
employee at a nearby bench who was designated as harness tester. The latter
then performed certain tests on the instrument which disclosed whether it had been
correctly assembled . Normally, the tester could determine within 5 to 10 minutes
whether a harness was in working order. In the event he found any defects the
harness was returned for correction to the wireman who had assembled it. Accord-
ing to Neuman , it was part of his duties to assist the tester during the latter's exami-
nation of the completed harness. His testimony in this regard , however, was not
convincing and it was not corroborated by any other witness. It was denied by
Foreman David , who testified that a wireman had no such responsibility and Walter
L. Wood, the harness tester, who stated that it was not necessary that the wireman
assist him in any way while he was checking a harness . On the other hand, Wood
also testified that Neuman and the other wiremen frequently stayed at the testing
bench while he examined their work, and that in so doing , they waited 5 and
sometimes 10 minutes during which they did nothing but watch and talk with him.
He further testified that no supervisor had ever complained regarding this practice
of the wiremen . He also stated that on the morning of March 21, Neuman was
at his bench for 10 to 15 minutes , that during that time G. R. Morrow walked by,
and within 2 to 3 minutes thereafter Neuman returned to his own bench.
G. R. Morrow testified that on March 21 he returned to the plant after being
absent for 2 weeks on a business trip and immediately set out on a routine tour of
the departments to check on their operations . Upon entering the large room which
housed the electrical assembly shop under Foreman David and the coil winding
department under Foreman Irvin E. Lowe, he noticed an employee whom he did
not know who was standing idly at the tester's bench . Upon inquiring of Lowe,
the foreman identified the employee as Neuman , and described him as "one of the
chronic loafers in the electric shop ." According to Mr. Morrow, he remained
with Lowe for a short while and then, after having observed Neuman do nothing for
15 minutes , he went directly to the office of Superintendent Piester where he ordered
that Neuman be discharged immediately. Piester remarked that he had had trouble
with Neuman before and then instructed David, who was present in the office, to
notify Neuman of his dismissal . Mr. Morrow conceded that he did not ask
Piester or anyone else to review Neuman 's work record and stated that his decision
was based solely on his own observation of Neuman that morning.
There was much testimony about Neuman's employment history with the
Respondent . Superintendent Piester testified that on three different occasions during
the preceding year he had directed that Neuman be reprimanded for talking on the
job. Foreman David testified that in July or August 1956 he told this employee to
improve the quality of his work and quit talking. About 2 months later he repri-
manded Neuman again for the same reason and told him that unless there was an
improvement he would be terminated. He further testified that in December it had
been necessary to reprimand Neuman a third time. On cross-examination, how-
ever , David conceded that this last reprimand was directed not to Neuman alone but
to the whole shop and that on that occasion he had had to admonish all of his
employees as a group for their tardiness in reporting for work and in returning from
9 These are electronic instruments used to record and log data in many different types of
dynamic analysis . As a device for recording abnormal strains they are used in conjunc-
tion with gages and other instruments which check on the performance of aircraft, jet
engines, and guided missiles.
B The quotation is from Neuman' s testimony . It was not contradicted or denied by
-David.
MIDWESTERN INSTRUMENTS, INC. 1695
rest periods. According to David, at this time, "most everybody was getting
lax. .. . Piester and David conceded that they had never discussed any of
Neuman's deficiencies with G. R. Morrow prior to his discharge.'°
There is also some evidence that David was satisfied with Neuman's work record.
In January 1957 the employee was eligible for his annual vacation. However, he
wanted to take it during the following summer. Since the Company rules provided
that in the event of a layoff no vacation pay would be allowed, Neuman asked David
if there was any reason why he could not take his vacation in July rather than
during the winter. David told Neuman there was no reason to expect that he would
be laid off and that, therefore, he could plan on taking his vacation in July.11
Neuman conceded that on two occasions in 1956 David had reprimanded him for
"talking and killing time." 12 He also testified, and in this respect his testimony was
undenied, that in about December 1957, David had complimented him on his work
and that in two other instances, once in January 1957 and on another occasion in
February, Charles Cart, his leadman, told him that he was the "fastest and best
man he had." 13
The General Counsel relies on another incident to substantiate the allegation that
Neuman was discriminatorily terminated. Petra Navarro testified that on the morn-
ing of March 21, G. R. Morrow and Foreman Lowe were standing within a short
distance of her workbench and that she saw Lowe point across the room at Neuman
and declare to the plant president, "There is the boy that caused the whole deal."
Both Morrow and Lowe denied that any such remark was uttered. They conceded
that they had had a conversation at the time and place fixed by Navarro and that
during the course of their discussion Lowe had, in fact, pointed at Neuman. Accord-
ing to the plant president and the foreman, however, their conversation was concerned
solely with Neuman's loafing which Mr. Morrow had just noted. The Respondent
vigorously attacks Navarro's credibility. It is true that some portions of her testi-
mony were contradicted even by Newman 14 and that at times while on the stand
she manifested a very partisan attitude. However, much the same could be said for
some of Lowe's testimony. It is the heavy responsibility of the Trial Examiner to
resolve such conflicts in the record to the best of his ability. At times he must
rely to some extent on his reaction to the manner in which the testimony was given
and the comparative demeanor of the witnesses while on the stand. That is largely
the situation here, and on that basis, as to this incident, it is my conclusion that
Navarro's testimony is the more reliable and that Lowe did point out Neuman
to the plant president with the remark that he was the one who "caused the whole
deal." Moreover, because of this conclusion as to her credibility in this connection,
I also find that, as Navarro also testified, on March 20, Lowe questioned her as to
whether Neuman had sought to get her into the Union.
The summary punishment meted out to Neuman was admittedly unusual by all
standards at the Respondent's plant. Piester testified that he could only recall
2 instances in which he had ordered a man terminated for loafing during the ap-
proximately 3 years that he had been superintendent. In both cases the employee
had just been hired and was still on probation. David testified that he had never
discharged anyone for loafing or talking too much and, furthermore, that he knew
of no employee who had been dismissed for that reason. M. E. Morrow conceded
that Neuman was the first employee whose discharge he had ever recommended
for loafing. He likewise testified that "It has not been customary practice to fire
people at Midwestern at all."
"One other witness for the Respondent should be mentioned. This was Berl It. Hall,
foreman of the servo shop, who testified that he had seen Neuman in his department
several times in February and March and that on each occasion Neuman was talking to
Hall's employees during working hours. Hall indicated that he considered these visits
unauthorized and a dereliction on Neuman's part. On the other hand, he conceded that
he had never reprimanded Neuman on any of those occasions, nor had he ever reported
the matter to Neuman's foreman or to any of his superiors in management. In view of
these concessions it is obvious that G. R. Morrow had no knowledge of any such incidents
at the time he ordered Neuman's discharge.
"Tile foregoing finding is based on the mutually corroborative testimony of Neuman
and David.
12 The quotation is from Neuman's testimony.
13 The quotation is from Neuman's testimony.
14 For example. Navarro testified that after the conversation in question she saw some-
body other than David come out on the work floor to summon Neuman into the foreman's
office. Neuman, however, testified that it was David himself who came to his workbench
and asked that he come into the shop office.
169.6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent was, indeed , free, as iLS counsel argued at the hearing and in
their brief, to fire Neuman for a good reason , a bad reason, or no reason, so long
as the reason was not, in fact, the employee 's union activities . At the same time it
is also pertinent to recall a somewhat recent observation of the Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit that under the Act here involved "a justifiable ground for
dismissal is no defense if it is a pretext and not the moving cause ." N. L. R. B. v.
Solo Cup Company , 237 F. 2d 521, 525 (C. A. 8). G. R. Morrow denied that
he had any knowledge of Neuman's union activities . However, he admitted having
heard, some 2 weeks earlier , that the Union was trying to organize the plant, and
Lowe, who pointed out Neuman to him as the "cause of the whole deal," had
interrogated Navarro about Neuman's union activities the day before . For this
reason it is my conclusion , and I find, that Mr. Morrow did know about Neuman's
interest in the Union prior to ordering that the employee be discharged . Moreover,
in view of this knowledge on Mr. Morrow's part , Neuman's prominence in the
organizing campaign , the abruptness of his discharge , the unconvincing reasons ad-
vanced to explain it, and M. E. Morrow 's comment subsequent to the dismissal
that "no - union was ever going to organize that plant ," it is my conclusion
that Neuman was terminated , not for his loafing, but for his union activities.
Although Neuman clearly had no more than an average employment record and
the Respondent may have had some cause for dissatisfaction with his work, as the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit observed in a similar case, "it apparently
became intolerable only after he had joined the union ." N. L. R. B . v. Electric City
Dyeing Co., 178 F. 2d 980, 983 (C. A. 3). For the reasons set out above, I find
that by its discharge of Neuman the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
C. Conclusions as to the allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion
I further find, on the foregoing facts, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act by the conduct (1) of Superintendent Piester in questioning Cart as to
the identity of the union leader at the plant (Atlas Boot Manufacturing Co., Inc.,
116 NLRB 565, 572-573; Hammond Brick Company, 111 NLRB 1; St. Louis Car
Company, 108 NLRB 1523; Bowling Green Manufacturing Company, 108 NLRB
1608); and (2) of Foreman Lowe in questioning Navarro as to whether Neuman
had sought to persuade her to join the union (idem). On the other hand, I do not
find any coercive element in the testimony as to Piester's conversation with Nave
and Claver. As the record reflects this discussion, although Piester asked them
whether they had attended the union meeting the night before, and in his discussion
of the relative merits of organization suggested that the employees might lose some
benefits, he also conceded that the employees might gain other privileges. This
type of speech is plainly protected by Section 8 (c). Cf. Lanthier Machine Works,
116 NLRB 1029, 1037; Nocona Boot Company, 116 NLRB 1860, 1865-1866.
So, too, was the conversation which David had with Neuman in which he suggested
that the employee should carefully weigh the merits of a union and consider all that
the Company had done for its employees. These last two incidents involving Piester
and David were alleged by the General Counsel's complaint to have involved vio-
lations of Section 8 (a) (1). I disagree and will recommend that Section 8 (b)
of the complaint, which contains this allegation, be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the
Respondent discriminatorily discharged B. C. Neuman on March 21, 1957, I will
recommend that the Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any
loss of earnings that he may have suffered by payment to him of a sum of money equal
to that which he normally would have earned from the aforesaid date of his dis-
charge to the date of the Respondent' s offer of reinstatement , less net earnings
MIDWESTERN INSTRUMENTS , INC. 1697
during said period. The back pay provided for herein shall be computed in ac-
cordance with the formula stated in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
I will also recommend that the Respondent, upon reasonable request, make avail-
able to the Board and its agents all payroll and other records pertinent to an
analysis of the amount due as back pay.
Since I have found that the Respondent, by various acts, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act, and
particularly because the discriminatory discharge found herein goes "to the very
heart of the Act" (N. L. R. B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532, 536 (C. A. 4) ),
and indicates a purpose to defeat the self-organization of its employees, I am con-
vinced that the unfair labor practices committed are related to other unfair labor
practices proscribed and that the danger of their commission in the future is to be
anticipated from Respondent's conduct in the past. Accordingly, in order to make
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies
of the Act, I will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any man-
ner infringing upon the right of employees guaranteed by the Act. May Department
Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376, 386-392.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is, and at all times relevant herein was, engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of B. C.
Neuman, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent had engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent did not interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the
manner alleged in subsection (b) of paragraph 8 of the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management Relations
Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local Union No. 584, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organiza-
tion of our employees, or in any other manner discriminate in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment.
WE WILL offer to B. C. Neuman immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any seniority or
other rights previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination against him.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their attendance at union meet-
ings or as to whether they have been solicited to join a union.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members
of any labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by a
lawful agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment.
MIDWESTERN INSTRUMENTS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
476321-58-vol. 119-108