National Steel Products

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 833 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

NATIONAL STEEL PRODUCTS
National Steel Products and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO. Cases 10-CA-14965, 10-
CA-14595, 10-CA-13132, and 10-CA-13053
September 30, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On July 30, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
George Norman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,'
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, National Steel
Products, LaGrange, Georgia, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order, except that
the attached notice is substituted for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In accordance with his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250
NLRB No. 11 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the back-
pay due based on the formula set forth therein
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that
contrary to existing practices they would no
longer be able to bring their grievances direct-
ly to management if they select the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to with-
draw their union authorization cards.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that
we will withdraw all of their existing wages
and benefits if they select the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative by telling
our employees that the Union would have to
start with a blank sheet of paper and bargain
from scratch.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees re-
garding their union membership, activities, and
desires and the union membership, activities,
and desires of other employees.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the
union activities of our employees by photo-
graphing the union representative as he distrib-
utes union literature.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our
employees' union activities by requiring our
employees who distributed union literature
outside the plant to sign in before being al-
lowed to enter the plant.
WE WILl. NOT create the impression of sur-
veillance of our employees' union activities by
informing them that we know who are for the
Union and who had signed union authorization
cards.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
reduction of existing benefits by telling them
that contrary to present practices, when work
is unavailable before shift ending time, they
would be sent home if they select the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that
their working hours would be reduced by tell-
ing them that contrary to present practices,
when their machines break down and they are
not repaired within 1 hour, they would be sent
home before shift ending time if they select the
Union as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative.
WE Wll.L NOT threaten our employees that
we will impose more rigid or more demanding
work schedules upon them if they select the
Union as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative.
WE WIll NOT threaten our employees with
discharge because of their activities on behalf
of the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to interfere with
future employment opportunities of our em-
252 NLRB No. 120
833
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees with other employers in the La-
Grange, Georgia, area because of their activi-
ties on behalf of the Union.
WE WIl.l. NOT threaten our employees that
we will withdraw their existing benefits by
taking away their paid breaks and holidays if
they select the Union as their collective-bar-
gaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
reprisals if they select the Union as their col-
lective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, coerce, or restrain our employ-
ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WiL. offer George Strozier immediate
and full reinstatement to his former position
(or, if such position no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent job), without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings suf-
fered by him as a result of his suspension and
termination, with interest.
WE WI.LL offer Ben Stargell promotion to
the Z-Line painter job (or, if such position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job),
without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges and make him whole for
any loss of earnings suffered by him as a result
of the failure to promote him to that position,
with interest.
Our employees are free to become and remain,
or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members
of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or
any labor organization, except to the extent that
such a right may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring union membership, as authorized by the
proviso of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
NATIONAL STEEL PRODUCTS
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE NORMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding, held pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein the Act, was
heard at LaGrange, Georgia, on November 26-29, 1979.
The issues raised by the pleadings' are, in substance,
I The Charging Party, the United Steel Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, won a representation election among Respondent's employees on
June 20, 1979, and was certified as the collective-bargaining represcnta-
tive for said employees by the Acting Regional Director on July 31,
1979, and affirmed by the Board on September 24, 1979.
The Charging Party's original charge, Case 10-CA 13053, was filed on
September 1, 1977. and the charge in Case 10-CA-13132 was iled by the
Charging Party on September 30, 1977. Those charges were filed during
an organizational campaign on the part of the Charging Party during the
fall of 1977. That campaign resulted in an election defeat for the Petition-
whether the Employer unlawfully discharged employee
George Strozier in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act; unlawfully discharged employee Mike Moore in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act; violated employee
Mike Moore's Weingarten rights in conducting his disci-
plinary interview in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act; unlawfully discriminated against employee Ben
Stargell in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act in fill-
ing various temporary vacancies on the Z Line Painter"
job: or violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in several in-
stances during the 1977 and 1979 union organizational
campaigns? Respondent has filed timely answers to all
the allegations contained in the consolidated cases admit-
ting jurisdictional facts and certain other allegations but
denied the commission of any unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the Act. During the hearing all
parties were represented by counsel and given full and
fair opportunity to present oral testimony and documen-
tary evidence in support of their respective positions.
Post-hearing briefs were filed by Respondent and the
General Counsel which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my ob-
servation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Texas corporation with an office and
place of business located at LaGrange, Georgia, where it
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of prefabricated
metal buildings. During the past calendar year Respond-
ent sold and shipped from its LaGrange, Georgia, facility
finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
customers located outside the State of Georgia. Respond-
er-Charging Party on November 10. 1977. On November 17, 1977, the
Petitioner-Charging Party filed timely objections to that election which
were subsequently consolidated by the Regional Director with the out-
standing charges in Cases 10-CA-13053 and 10-CA-13132 in his order
dated December 16, 1977. The hearing which was scheduled in his De-
cember 16, 1977, order was subsequently enjoined by U.S. Federal Dis-
trict Court Judge Charles Moye following the Board's refusal to turn
over various witness affidavits pursuant to the then applicable Fifth Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals decision i Robbins ire and Rubber Company v.
N.L.R.B., 563 F.2d 724 (5th Cir. 1977), reversed by the Supreme Court
on June 15, 1978, 437 U.S. 214. Following the Supreme Court's Robbins
Lire decision, Judge Moye vacated his order and the hearing in these
matters was rescheduled for February 5, 1979, pursuant to the Regional
Director's order dated November 3, 1978. That hearing was subsequently
indefinitely postponed and apparently mooted following the Petitioner's
,withdrawal of the petition in Case 10-RC-11211 on February 23, 1979,
and the parties' voluntary settlement of all matters alleged in Cases 10
CA-13053 and 1(0CA-13132. That settlement was approved by the Re-
gional Director on March 12, 1979. The Charging Party then filed
charges in Case l0-CA-14595 on April 23, 1979. 2 days prior to filing a
formal petition in Case 10-RC-11749 on April 25, 1979. Following an in-
sestigation of that charge the Regional Director issued a formal com-
plaint in Case 10-CA- 14595 and set aside the settlement agreement in
Cases 10-CA-13132 and 10 CA- 13053 and ordered a consolidated hear-
ing of all these matters in his order dated June 5, 1979 The charge in
Case l0-CA-14965 was filed by the Charging Party on August 29, 1979,
following its election victory on June 20 1979, but during the period the
Employer's request for review was still pending before the Board in
Washington. The new charge in Case 10-CA-14965 was consolidated
with all previous matters set for hearing on November 26 1979, pursuant
to the Regional Director's complaint, and order consolidating cases and
notice of hearing dated October 16, 1979
834
NATIONAI. SEFiL PRODUCTS
ent admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
11. HEt I ABOR OR(,ANIZAIION
United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein
the Charging Party or the Union. is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. Tl[ AL. EG(lI) UNFAIR I ABOR PRAC(I S
A. The Discharge o George Strozier
Employee George Strozier was hired by Respondent
on June 1, 1978, and discharged on April 25, 1979. The
complaint in Case 10-CA-14595 in paragraph 12 alleges,
and the answer admits, that Respondent on or about
April 25, 1979, discharged and thereafter failed to refuse
to reinstate employee George Strozier. Paragraph 13 al-
leges and the answer denies that George Strozier was
discharged because of his membership in and activities
on behalf of the Union.
Respondent contends that Strozier was discharged for
violation of company rule 18 following a whole series of
disciplinary incidents involving both the harassment of,
and altercations with, fellow employees. Respondent fur-
ther contends that the culminating incident leading im-
mediately to George Strozier's discharge was his behav-
ior in threatening and harassing employee Warner As-
berry on April 18, 1979.
George Strozier testified that on April 18, 1979, he
was having lunch with Warner Asberry, Walter Ellison,
Bo Turner, and just about all the blacks that work for
Respondent, "mostly the blacks that eat together."
While they were on their way back, about 5 minutes
before the end of the lunch break, Strozier said to As-
berry, "Warner, you're not speaking to me today." Stro-
zier told him that he usually spoke. Strozier asked, "Why
are you not speaking to me today? Are you still mad
with me and Walter Ellison because we didn't take you
to get some lunch last week? You still mad about that?
You ought to stop that, man-acting stuck-up and
having your funny ways. You ought to just quit that,
man, the way you do sometime."2 As they entered the
plant, they continued talking "just shooting the bull,"
something they did every day. Strozier said that some-
times Asberry is in a bad mood and sometimes in a good
mood and that on April 18 he was in a bad mood "for
some reason or other." Strozier then told him, "Man you
ought to quit that stuff. I said, I could kick your ass for
acting like that, you know." Asberry replied that he was
not worried about Strozier and told him, "I'll fuck you
up." Strozier started laughing and said, "You ain't going
to do nothing. I ain't worried about you." '
Strozier further testified that as they were going back
and having these words with each other Supervisor
Strouier explained that Asherry did not have a cal then and that on
that particular day. the week before Srozier and others ate at the plant
although they usually go elss.here According to Strozier, AsherrN got
mad because he fell hey cre lea.inlg and were not aking him along
with them as usual
' As they entered the plant they '.ere about 15 to 20 feet apart from
each other
Charles Jennings \was seen by Strozier about I or 2 min-
utes before the buzzer went off. Strozier said that Jen-
nings got up and was running around excitedly as if he
thought the two individuals were going to fight. Asberry
proceeded to his work station and Strozier proceeded to
his work station, Strozier then said to Asberry, "I ain't
worried about you." Asberry replied, "I ain't worried
about you either. You ain't going to do nothing." Stro-
zier said, "Go on." And Asberry replied, "Go on." And
about that time the buzzer rang. And that was the end of
the conversation between Strozier and Asberry. 4
Asberry's version is slightly different from Strozier's.
Asberry said that during the lunch break he was in the
parking lot near his car when he was approached by
Stroziers who asked him if he would take him for a ride
in his car. Asberry said he did not respond but, when he
was asked a second time, he told Strozier, "No, never."
At that point Strozier told Asberry he would kick his
ass. Asberry responded that he doubted it. As they start-
ed toward the cafeteria, Strozier said to Asberry, "uncle
tom, ass licker, honkey lover." Asberry corroborated
Strozier's testimony that during the entire conversation
they were 10 to 12 feet apart. Asberry said he was not
worried and he told Strozier he was not worried about it
and continued walking. Strozier then brought up the
color of Asberry's car. He asked him, "why didn't you
get black." (The color of the car was red.) Asberry said
that he proceeded to his work station and that Strozier
came behind him. Asberry said Strozier hollered to him
to come back and Asberry told him he must be crazy.
Strozier than told Asberry that he was going to slap him
if he came back because he figured his brother slapped
Asberry in the past and Asberry did nothing about it and
that Strozier knew if he slapped him Asberry again was
not going to do anything about it. Asberry then went
back to his work station but Strozier did not follow him.
Asberry next went to his foreman, Earl McClellan, he
testified, "I told him that me and George had been in an
argument and I wanted him to say something to him-
say something about it, you know do something about it
because George had been aggravating me all the time.
So I was tired of it, and so I told him. And he asked me,
he said, 'Do you want me to get involved?' I said, No,
not really, 6 but say something to George. Just say some-
thing to him, and he asked me, Earl said, 'you want me
to get involved,' and I said, No, not necessarily-and I
then started up the aisle towards the conrac crane run-
ning my job."
Asberry said that Strozier came to him and told him
"What he was going to do to me. He said after work-
after we get outside the gate, it's going to be different.
You're going to have to show me different than now,
you know what he was telling me he was going to whip
my ass, I reckon, or something like that. And I ignored
Supervisor Jennings, according to Strozier hlistened to them and henl
w·ent hack Io the office Stro7ier surmised that Supervisor Jennings .,enl
in to tell his superiors in the office that there was going to he a big fight
rand that it bsas b uloi l up from that
Asbrr5 had hought a n car recently
assume Asherry nmeant hb his negative response that he did not
sailt Foreman McClellan to take anll official actio including reportinlg it
to lte front office
X35
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS B()ARD
him. I just said, uh-huh, just like that. And then I went
on back down the aisle and he went on back to his sta-
tion. He was hollering from his station at me some words
but I couldn't quite hear him." Asberry said that at the
time he was hollering Strozier must have been 15 or 20
feet from him.
Asberry said he also spoke to Rance Sprayberry and
Sam Oliver, the personnel director and manager of fac-
tory operations, respectively, Asberry reported to them
what occurred. He said that they called him in to their
office. 7
According to Asberry, his relationship with Strozier
started to sour when they were playing basketball to-
gether. Asberry said that Strozier "just didn't have the
attitude to play basketball," that he "didn't have the
sense to play" and that he "just didn't have it in basket-
ball, but he played anyway." And at the time they did
not get along. Asberry told Oliver and Sprayberry about
the basketball experience and why he quit. He said that
Strozier's attitude which had an effect on all the players.
He said that he also reported the plant incident to Plant
Manager Roberts at Roberts' initiative.
Asberry corroborated the testimony of Strozier that
they were going to lunch together almost daily and that
they would go in different cars and take turns driving.
He said that he was the last one out on a particular day
before the April 18 incident, that the others were already
outside, and that he thought that maybe they were going
to lunch as they did every other day. When Asberry
came out they told him that they were not going to
lunch. Asberry testified as follows, "So I just wondered
why they changed their minds all of a sudden, you
know, because I thought they were going in my car
before then. So, things changed, so I got to ride with
somebody else and went on." Asberry also stated that
from that time on it appeared to him that Strozier started
disliking him because Strozier told him in the cafeteria a
couple of times after that not even to speak to him. As-
berry said that is why he acted the way he did when
Strozier asked him for a ride in his car.
Asberry admitted that he held it against Strozier for
not taking him to lunch with them but it was not all his
fault. He said, "I figured they had to have something
against me to dislike me being with them, you know.
The way I seen it, I figured they had been saying some-
thing-had been talking things over before I came out-
side." Asberry was asked:
Q. Didn't it really amount to a kind of game that
you two were playing with each other about who
struck John and who did this or whose responsible
for this? Wasn't that sort of a game?
A. You could put it like that because all of us
was acting silly.
At or about 3 p.m., Foreman McClellan came to Stro-
zier and told him to go to Personnel Director Spray-
berry's office. Sprayberry and Operations Manager
Oliver were there. Sprayberry told Strozier that Asberry
? Significantly, Asberry did not go to them on his on. They called
him in, probably after receiving a report from Foreman McClellan or
Jennings, or both.
had come and told them that Strozier had threatened
him.' Strozier asked why Asberry was not there and
Oliver told him that they had already talked to Asberry.
Strozier asked them to talk to Asberry and get the
straight of it. Oliver replied that Strozier should not
worry about it. Strozier then told him that he knew that
they had been trying to get rid of him for a long time
and now had come up with this scheme. Strozier told
them they were trying to make a big issue out of nothing
and accused them of trying to get rid of him because of
his union activities.9
Plant Manager Roberts testified that George Strozier
spoke out aggressively during a company campaign
meeting on or about April 10, 1979. The record further
establishes that Strozier initiated a second, private meet-
ing the following day with Roberts in which he repeated
many of his complaints and criticisms of his job and em-
ployees he worked with. Roberts denied that Strozier's
discharge was related in any way to his demeanor or
content of his statements during either of these meetings.
Concerning the meeting that Strozier had with Rob-
erts, Strozier said the following:
Mr. Roberts, he got right in my face, you know,
like he got right in my face. He was trying to con-
fuse me, you know, trying to use some psychology
on me saying, would you settle for a Volkswagon if
you could afford a Cadillac? I said no, I said I
wouldn't do that. He said well, that's what I'm
trying to say. We're in a better position now, you
know as far as the Union, we don't need a Union.
I said, Mr. Roberts, the employee should make
their decision, and you should let the-you're going
to let the Company decide that. Then he got start-
ed-he got mad, and he said, 'I'm through.' You
know, he didn't want to discuss anything. I said
Okay, thank you for your time."
As noted above. Asberry as called in to Sprayberry's office by
Sprayberry and Oliver Asberry did not voluntarily go to the office to
report the incident.
9 As previously indicated, Strozier started working for Respondent in
June 1978 and at the time of his discharge on April 25, 1979. had worked
his way up to be production welder under the supervision of Foreman
Clyde Jennings. Strozier signed a union card on December 18, 1978, and
on April 10, 1979, the welding employees had a meeting concerning the
Union with Plant Manager Roberts. During that meeting Strozier chal-
lenged Roberts on what Roberts was telling them about the Union Rob-
erts was annoyed and told Strozier that he did not think Strozier was
happy with the Company. Strozier told Roberts "that was what Roberts
wanted him to do. Quit, but he was not going to quit." The next day
Foreman McClellan, who was also present at the April 10 meeting, threw
a broom at Strozier and told him to sweep. Strozier went to see Roberts
and told him of McClellan's actions and asked Roberts "why McClellan
bypassed all the other welding tables that were not doing anything to get
to him to sweep the floor." Roberts told Strozier that it was a racial
thing that they were having since the Union had been there and that
Strozier was upset about it. Strozier denied being upset and told Roberts
that he had come there to discuss the Company's problems. Roberts re-
plied that the Company was running smoothly until the Union came in
Strozier said one of the problems was supervisory favoritism and, because
of it, certain people did not get raises who deserved raises He again told
Roberts that he knew Roberts was trying to get rid of him but he was
not going to quit. Roberts again told Strozier that he was not happy
there Strozier said that Roberts became angry and the conversation
ended.
836
NATIONAL STEEL PRODUCTS
On the afternoon of April 18, following the Asberry
"run-in," Foreman McClellan recommended to Plant
Manager Roberts that Strozier be temporarily suspended
pending a full investigation of the facts. Acting on
McClellan's report Roberts instructed Personnel Man-
ager Sprayberry to suspend Strozier pending his further
investigation of the incident. Strozier was thereafter in-
terviewed and suspended for 3 days by Personnel Man-
ager Sprayberry on the afternoon of April 18, with
instructions to contact Roberts the following Wednesday
morning for a final decision concerning his job status.
Roberts stated that he reviewed the entire personnel file
of Strozier including the previous disciplinary repri-
mands issued to Strozier contained therein prior to
making his final decision to discharge Strozier. Roberts
said he reached his decision to discharge Strozier on ap-
proximately Monday, April 23, 1979, without talking to
Strozier directly. He subsequently communicated this de-
cision in a very brief telephone conversation 3 days later
when Strozier called in pursuant to Sprayberry's earlier
instructions.
Employee Eddie B. Gholston testified concerning the
Strozier-Asberry incident of April 18, 1979. He said that
around 12:25, just before lunch, "the lunch bells wound
for him to come in back to work." Asberry, Strozier,
Turner, Williams, and he, while walking, heard Strozier
say to Asberry, "Warner, you don't get mad anymore
because I didn't take you to the store, because you have
your own car." When Warner did not reply Strozier re-
peated his statement. Gholston heard very little else of
the conversation. But he testified that on April 23, his
foreman came to him and told him that Plant Manager
Roberts wanted to see him in his office. Upon entering
Robert's office, Gholston was asked by Roberts what he
had heard between Strozier and Asberry. Gholston told
Roberts substantially the above. Gholston continued,
"Roberts asked me: said, George is a pretty big fellow. I
said, Yes, and he asked me; said, Do you think George is
going to jump on Warner? I said No, if he wanted to
jump on him, he would have and I also told Mr. Rob-
erts; I said George is always talking but he never picked
on nobody. Not as I knows of and Mr. Roberts said that
George had had several run-ins with several people in
the plant; and I told him I didn't know anything about
that and that's all that was said about that."
Strozier stated emphatically that during his conversa-
tion with Asberry, Asberry was not operating the crane
at the time. Strozier said he was standing still waiting for
work and that he was standing still resting on the crane.
About 2 hours after the incident between Strozier and
Asberry, Strozier called Asberry. Strozier's testimony:
You're still mad, man and he said no, man, don't
worry about it. I said, well, man, you know how
we carry on. I said, you know, you shouldn't be
acting like that, man, because as long as we've been
knowing each other, we shouldn't be acting like
that-as many favors as I've done.
It was shortly after that Strozier was called into the
office and questioned about the incident.
B. The "Run-in" With Foreman Jerry Short
Strozier was asked on cross-examination about the
problem he had with Foreman Jerry Short. Strozier said
he spoke to Sam Oliver about it and told Oliver that
Short was "putting too much work on him." He said
Short gave him extra work that he was not supposed to
be doing but he did it because Short knew Strozier was a
good worker and would not decline. Strozier also stated
that at the time he was afraid of his job so he did it. He
did just what Short told him to do. He said Sam Oliver
told him that he knew Strozier was a good employee and
that he was glad that Strozier came to him and talked to
him. Oliver told Strozier he was going to put him back
on first shift to be a crane operator and that if he did a
good job the first week he would get a raise and if he
did a good job the second week he would get another
raise. Strozier got both raises. Strozier said that he had
asked Oliver to get off the second shift with Foreman
Jerry Short also because he had personal problems at
home. He said that he was glad to transfer from the
second shift for both reasons.
C. The "R un-in" With Pierce Stockham
Strozier received a written warning for the "run-in"
he had with Pierce Stockham. It appears that while Stro-
zier was operating a crane Stockham brought some mate-
rial to Strozier with the smaller crane Stockham was op-
erating. Strozier was to pick up that material with his
crane and deliver it to another point. The material in
question was hot-stacked metal parts which had a tem-
perature over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. It caused skin
burns when touched. Strozier testified that Pierce had
placed the steel stacks, which he transported one stack at
a time, too close together "making it very difficult for
Strozier to place the crane's chain up under the steel to
pick it up without burning his arms. So, he asked Pierce
if he would mind placing the steel stacks a little farther
apart so he would not burn his arms as he had several
times in the past. Stockham got upset, cursed, and said,
"Don't you tell me how to run my damn job." Strozier
replied, "I'm not trying to tell you how to run your job,
Pierce. I just would like for you to move this steel a
little bit farther apart because I won't burn my arms be-
cause this stuff is hot." Strozier testified:
And, so he got all mad and started getting hot
and about that time he put his hand in his pocket
and so I know Pierce carried a knife. I thought he
was going in his pocket to get his knife. About that
time, Charlie Johnson came by and asked what was
the problem. I told Charlie Johnson that I asked
Pierce to move the steel apart because I won't burn
my arm and he said; Well let's go to the office.
Let's go to the office and get it squared away. So
we went to the office.
We go to the office, Sam Oliver told me to have
a seat and he said: he asked me if I'd ever been out
with Ben Stargell. If I'd ever drunk beer with Ben
Stargell. I said; No. Me and Ben Stargell we asso-
ciate but, you know, I see him here and there but I
hardly never drink, you know. And, he said; Well,
837
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
anyway, Pierce was sitting there like he didkn't
know what was going on.
And, Ben said-Ask me what the problem-I
said; Sam, you know, I'm running a crane. I'm
doing a good job. He said; that's right. You're
doing a hell of a good job. I know you're doing a
good job. I said; Wait a minute; I asked Pierce
would he mind moving his steel apart and I showed
Sam my arm that was burnt already. I said; My
arms already burned up from the steel. I asked
Pierce would he mind moving the steel apart where
I can fit my chain in.
So anyway, I said; No, I hadn't drunk beer with
Ben anyway. He said; Well, anyway, what's the
problem out there with you and Stockham or
Pierce. So I said; Sam, you know, I got a hard job
out there. I work all the time back up and down
through there. And I said-He said; You're doing
your job. I'm proud of you. I appreciate what
you're doing for me. I said; Well, all I asked Pierce
to do was move-I said; the next time he stacks up
would he mind just moving that stack a little bit
farther apart because that stuff is hot. I mean, it
would be burning hot too when it comes off that.
He got all mad and told me I don't tell him how to
run his damn job because he runs this machine. I
said; I told Pierce I am not trying to tell you how
to run your job. I just ask you would you mind
moving the steel apart. He got mad and started talk-
ing like he went in his pocket and, you know he
carries a knife. He always got it popping out, you
know, so I thought he was going in the pocket after
his knife. That's when I got out on top of the steel.
About that time, Charlie Johnson came down
through there. Charlie said; What's the problem? I
said; Charlie, I just asked Pierce would he mind
moving the steel because I won't burn my arm. This
stuff is hot, man. Charlie said; Well, let's go to the
office. ' o
Strozier testified further that this was the first time he
ever had any problem with Pierce Stockham, that in
fact, that was the first time he ever said anything to
Stockham. He also stated that the other times when the
stacks were too close and he had burned his arms Pierce
Stockham had been the person who had stacked them.
Strozier was asked whether after he told Oliver his
story if Oliver asked Pierce Stockham to give his expla-
nation of what had happened. Strozier said that Oliver
did not ask Stockham. He told Stockham to leave and
then turned to Strozier and said, "Strozier you got a rep-
rimand." Strozier replied:
The way you explained it to me like this regular
procedure, you know, this ain't nothing just some-
thing, you know, we do. Just go on and sign this.
It's just a reprimand. I said-Okay. I went on and
signed it and then I didn't know anything about it. I
didn't know what it was. I thought it was just a
regular procedure. I didn't know it was going to
'' Charles Joh non was acting foreman in the abclnce of Earl McClel-
lan
damage me as far as my job by the way Sam ex-
plained it to me. Then like it's just a regular proce-
dure. Just go ahead and sign it. There ain't nothing
to it. So,- went on and signed it. He didn't give
Pierce one.
D. The Carl Fowler "Run-in"
The Fowler "run-in" occurred after the Stockham
"run-in." On cross-examination George Strozier testified
as follows concerning the Carl Fowler "run-in:"
Q. Okay what happened between you and Mr.
Fowler?
A. Well, me-Carl Fowler-it was several people
involved. Me, Carl Fowler, Walter Ellison,
Donnie-I don't know Donnie's last name-Donnie
the dude that was helping Carl. We didn't have
anything to do. All of us were called up. We were
standing around talking, shooting the bull and ev-
erybody was talking about what they were going to
do this and that day, you know. I said: Well-I
said: Carl, you got it made now ain't you. I said:
You're kissing Sam's ass now. I said: You got it
now. You're going to get the Carl Fowler job
since-I mean Paul Scrubs. He left that day, you
know. There was a top position called the filler.
Carl was in line next to get that job so I said: Carl,
you're going to get top filler pay now since Paul
Scrubs has done left. He said: "Aw, man, I might
get it." I said-He said: " ain't sure." He said, "I
don't know, you know." I said: Aw, man, you
know you're going to get it and so about that time
Walt came over and said I had to get some more
steel. I went and got some more steel and about an
hour later they called me to the office and Carl was
already in the office.
Q. Do you know how he got there? Did you see
anybody from management come out and get him?
A. No, I didn't pay any attention because I was
working.
Q. Was this the first time that you had said to
Carl Fowler the phrase you had used, kissing Sam's
ass, the first time you had said to Carl Fowler.
A. No. That's the first time I said it to Carl
Fowler.
Q. The first time you used the phrase to him'?
A. Right.
Q. You had been-you hadn't been telling him
that a couple of days, several times a day: saying
that to him bugging him about that?
A. No. This happened every day. We always tell
each other we kiss and you know folks' ass, you
know, just try to hold our jobs. I have been told
that. I have told other people that.
Q. So, the two of you were just kidding back and
forth?
A. Right. We were just bull shitting and he was
just in a bad mood that day. I guess h was trying
to get serious because he was trying to get that top
pay job and he was trying to impress Sam, I guess.
838
NATIONAL STEEL PRODUCTS
Q. Then I interrupted you. You went in the
office and saw Carl Fowler there. What happened?
Whose office are you talking about?
A. Sam Oliver.
Q. Who else was there?
A. The only ones there was me, Carl Fowler,
Sam Oliver.
Q. How about Clyde Ginn. Was he there?
A. I think Clyde-yeah, I think Clyde was up
there with me.
Q. Did Mr. Oliver give you a chance to explain
what had happened?
A. I told him exactly what happened. I told him
that we was.
Q. I am sure you did and, did you-did Mr.
Fowler have a chance to explain what had hap-
pened?
A. He didn't say. Let me see. I can't recall what
Carl said but I told Sam-I said: That me and Carl
play all the time. We bull shit. He plays with Walt.
The thing about it was all of us joked together.
That day I don't know why he took what I said so
seriously. He is, and told Sam and Sam said-told
me that-asked me-he asked me what I told Carl
or said to Carl. I just told him that he is in a bull
manner, that he is kissing your ass and Sam said:
"Well, Carl's not kissing my ass. Not in the sense
you put it." I said: "Well, Sam, you know how we
are. We're always bull shitting. He said: "Well, I
know but still you shouldn't have told him that." I
said: Well, Carl you know how we always joke
around. He said: And Carl didn't-give no kind of
comments.
Strozier said he was shocked when he went in the
office and he wondered why he was in there. He said
that Carl Fowler had laughed off what he had said to
him about the job and Sam Oliver. Strozier was given a
written reprimand by Sam Oliver for that "run-in" with
Carl Fowler. Strozier said it appeared funny to him that
everything was written up when he got there; that this
particular reprimand was already written up and handed
to him by Oliver for him to sign.
Following that episode Strozier and Carl Fowler got
along well together and there were no hard feelings
shown by either side, according to Strozier. There was
another incident in which Strozier while doing welding
work next to Mike Tucker, who according to Strozier
was very bossy, probably because Tucker had a little
more seniority than Strozier, went to Foreman Clyde
and asked Clyde to move him and they were moved
apart. Strozier was not reprimanded for that incident. "
E. The Discharge of Michael Moore
The complaint in Case 10-CA-14965 alleges in para-
graphs 9 and 10, and the answer denies, that Respondent
denied the request of employee Michael Moore for union
representation during an interview which Moore had
reasonable cause to believe would result in disciplinary
II Without his knosledge. Stroile r rceied a xw arning for failuire to
punch it otl leax ing the plani abhiut i x cek before his discharge
action; and Respondent conducted the interview with
Moore, notwithstanding the fact that Respondent had
denied his request for representation. Paragraphs 11 and
12 of that complaint alleged that Respondent discharged
Michael Moore because of his union activities.
Moore started work for Respondent in August 1978 as
a material handler and was promoted to assistant ma-
chine operator. He signed a union card on April 4, 1979,
and on June 20, 1979, the day of the Board-conducted
election, Moore handed out union leaflets at the plant
gate in the presence of Plant Manager Roberts.
Moore testified that there was a notice posted above
the timeclock in all the departments with the work
schedule for the week of July 4, 1979. On July 2, Moore
went to his foreman, Earl McClellan, and spoke to him
about being off that following Saturday, July 7. Accord-
ing to Moore, McClellan replied that in all probability
they would not be working, "but he would arrange it
where I could be off in the event they were. And I went
ahead and made the assumption that I would be off and
made plans." 2 Moore stated that on the morning of July
6, McClellan told him that the schedule had been
changed and that they would be working Saturday and
that Moore could not have off.
Moore went to see Sam Oliver, the production man-
ager, and requested time off. Moore showed the tickets
in his possession for the drag races to Oliver. Oliver told
Moore that he could not grant Moore time off because
other employees had also asked for the same time off,
and it was not fair to them or to Moore to let him off
and not them.
After lunch, he went back on the floor and talked to
Ronnie Johnson, who was acting foreman at the time,
and requested time off. Johnson said that if Moore would
come in and work a half-day he would do his best to get
Moore off the rest of the day. The following day, Satur-
day, Moore did come in and worked a half-day. While at
work that morning, Moore was approached by Acting
Foreman Johnson and was told that Oliver would not go
along with letting him have the afternoon off. Johnson
then said, "I can't let you off." According to Moore,
Johnson stated further, "In the event that you leave
anyhow, you will probably be subject to a three-day sus-
pension and a reprimand." Moore told him he had al-
ready made a commitment and he had to go and at noon
that day Moore clocked out.
Moore reported back to work on Monday morning.
He clocked in and at or about 9:50 a.m. Johnson came to
Moore and told him that Oliver wanted to see him in his
office. Moore asked Johnson if it was in regard to his
leaving early Saturday and Johnson replied in the affirm-
ative.
12 Moore had bought to sets of tickets to the funny car and national
title series of the Atlanta International dragway races for July 7 and .
Ihe) consisted of a general admission ticket and a pit pass for each day
As explained hy Moore. the pit pass was necessary because a friend of his
had entered a car in the race and Moore hd agreed to assist him in the
pit during the race Apparently Moore was to spend his time in the pit
and the friend ac.otlllpailrilng him was to urse the general admission pass
839
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moore testified that at that point, he requested that
Larry Mallory, one of the temporary stewards,'a accom-
pany him to the office "since it was disciplinary action."
He said that Johnson said that the Company did not rec-
ognize the Union and that Moore was not allowed a
union steward. Moore said that he was going under pro-
test. He then proceeded to Oliver's office, and in ap-
proaching Oliver, Moore asked for a union steward.
Oliver told him the company "doesn't recognize the
Union. We can't allow you to have one."
According to Moore, Oliver then showed him his ti-
mecard from Saturday and asked him if that was a mis-
take. Moore replied that it wasn't a mistake, but it was a
mistake in his leaving. Oliver then handed Moore a "quit
notice" which Moore had given Johnson on Friday. 24
Moore told Oliver he would not quit; that he would
like to withdraw his quit notice; that he was willing to
take the 3-day suspension and reprimand if necessary;
and he would sign any type of reprimand Oliver wanted
to write up. Oliver told Moore he no longer had a job
there and to turn in the company property to the tool
shed. He said that Oliver then said, "Get out of here! If
you're not out by 10:00, I'll have the sheriff's department
escort you out." Moore stated Johnson had granted him
time off and told Oliver that he was aware of McClel-
lan's conversation on July 2. Oliver told him that John-
son did not have the authority to grant Moore time off.
Acting Foreman Johnson testified that he was notified
by Foreman McClellan that inasmuch as they would be
off July 4 they would be working that Saturday and he
informed all the individuals in the department of that
fact including Moore. Johnson said that Moore asked
him several times to get off Saturday. Johnson told
Moore that he would not be able to be off Saturday be-
cause there were other employees who were asking to be
off Saturday and they could not be off. Johnson said he
also told Moore that he did not have the authority to
give him permission to be off.
Johnson denied ever giving Moore permission to be
off and he said that other employees asked to be off and
he also denied their request. The other employees were
Pierce Stockham, John Chelsey, and Warner Asberry.
Johnson said he talked to Moore on Friday and Moore
asked him what would happen if he did not come in the
next day, Saturday, to work. Johnson testified that he
told Moore that he would probably get a 3-day suspen-
sion or he might lose his job if he did not show up Satur-
day and work all day. Johnson further testified that
Moore replied that he would come in, but he did not tell
him he would leave at noon.
Johnson said on that particular Saturday all the em-
ployees in the department, including Moore, showed up
at 7 a.m. On that morning Moore approached him and
asked if Johnson would let him off, and Johnson replied,
"No. Everybody has to work 10 hours today. That was
the schedule. I said, if I'd let you off, everybody else
" On June 26. 1979, the Union sent Respondent a telegram notifying it
of the names of the temporary union stewards.
14 Moore had given Johnson a written 2-week notice of resignation be-
cause of, according to Moore, the constant harassment which he had re-
ceived from Johnson that week That was the first and only indication of
harrassment from Johnson in the record.
would be wanting off. And Sam had already informed
me that you would be working Saturday." He said that
Moore's response was that he would be working Satur-
day. He said that Moore's response was that he would
just take his chances. He said that Moore left at noon but
everyone else worked the full day that Saturday.
Johnson also denied, emphatically, that Moore asked
for a man named Larry Mallory to accompany him to
the office. He said that Moore asked for no one. Johnson
also denied that Moore asked for a union representative
during the meeting with Sam Oliver. He said that he did
not at any time hear Moore ask for a union representa-
tive. Johnson was asked if, during the meeting with
Oliver, Oliver told Moore to get out by 10 o'clock and if
he did not he would call the guard and have him arrest-
ed, or anything like that. Johnson replied that that was
not said during the meeting. He said that Oliver's words
were, after discussing the quit notices, "I think it would
be better if you go ahead and quit now. You can go
ahead and get your stuff and go ahead and leave." Then
he and Moore walked out.
Johnson further testified that the first time he saw the
quit notice was on Friday, July 6. He said that, as he and
Moore were walking down the bay that they worked in,
Moore handed him a yellow piece of paper (the quit
notice). Moore did not say anything at the time. Johnson
said he asked Moore what it was and Moore replied, "it's
a quit notice." Johnson said he made no effort to find out
why he wanted to quit. Johnson denied that he told
Moore to come in Saturday morning and that Johnson
would try to get Moore off for the afternoon. He also
denied asking Sam Oliver if Moore could take off on
Saturday. Johnson further stated that Oliver had told
him that nobody would be off Saturday.
Johnson gave Oliver the quit notice on Saturday and
then accompanied Moore to Oliver's office on Monday,
upon Oliver's request. At the meeting Oliver told Moore
that he had walked off the job Saturday and Oliver then
showed him the "quit notice" and asked Moore if he had
written it. Moore said he had and that it was a foolish
thing that he had done, walking off the job. Oliver told
Moore that inasmuch as he had written the quit notice
he might as well go ahead and quit then. Oliver then
told Moore to get his materials, turn them in, and leave.
Moore got his things together, turned them in, and left.
Johnson said that just before Moore left he shook hands
with Johnson and said, "I know I done a foolish thing
and I regret it." Moore told Johnson that he knew John-
son had nothing to do with it and that it was his own
fault.
Sam Oliver testified that Moore had first spoken to
him on Thursday about being off on Friday. He said that
Moore received permission to talk to him; came to his
office and told him that he had made plans to go to the
races and would like to be off Saturday. Oliver told him
that he had no backup people to move into the spot if he
let Moore off and that he needed him. He said that
Moore said, "Okay." He would be in to work.
Oliver said that he and the entire crew were in Satur-
day morning. He did not recall whether anybody had
called in sick but he did not believe so. He said every-
840
NATIONAL STEEL PRODUCTS
thing was going as he had set it up; that Moore was
working that morning but not in the afternoon. Oliver
further stated that after returning from lunch Saturday,
and noticing that Moore was not there, he approached
Acting Foreman Johnson, who told him that Moore had
punched out and had left at noon. The next time Oliver
talked to Moore was on Monday morning when he re-
quested that Moore be brought into his office to find out
why Moore had told him he was going to work and in-
stead clocked out without telling anybody.
Oliver said he asked Moore why he had clocked out at
noon that Saturday. And Moore replied,"it was a pretty
dumb thing I had done. I've really messed up." Oliver
told him, "Well, you certainly have messed up. You left
your job without being relieved. In fact you walked off
the job." Oliver then told Moore, "You gave notice
you're going to quit." Moore responded in the affirma-
tive.'5 Oliver asked Moore if he wanted to make it effec-
tive as of then and Moore said he did. Oliver then told
Moore to clear the tool room and clock out. 16 Sam
Oliver also denied that Moore had at any time made a
request for a union steward or a union representative.
F. The Alleged Refusal To Promote Ben Stargell
Because of His Union Activities
Ben Stargell started working for Respondent in Janu-
ary 1976. He is a trim painter under the supervision of
Foreman Charles Jennings. Stargell signed a union card
on July 21, 1977. About a month later he was ap-
proached by Industrial Engineer William Biggers at his
work station who told Stargell that everybody upstairs
thought that Stargell was a big union worker. Stargell
responded, "No, man." Biggers volunteered that he did
not think Stargell was a big union man. Stargell asked
Biggers if he wanted to know if Stargell had signed a
union card because, if he did want to know, the answer
was "Yes." Biggers asked Stargell if he had ever worked
in a union shop before. Stargell told him "No." Biggers
then asked Stargell if he wanted to get his union card
back he could write Estes Riffes' boss in North Carolina
and request to get the card back. He asked Stargell if he
wanted the address and Stargell told him he did. About
an hour or so after that, Biggers slipped a piece of paper
to Stargell with the Union's North Carolina address on
it.
In September 1977, Stargell approached Foreman Jen-
nings and told him he would like the job of zee-line
painter during the absence of regular zee line painter,
Quinton Rice, who was then hospitalized. Jennings told
Stargell that he planned on putting Jimmy Traylor back
on the job because he was the only one with experience.
Later, Stargell saw new employee David Traylor per-
forming Rice's job. Stargell asked Jennings why they
had given David Traylor the job after Stargell had asked
for it. Jennings told Stargell that David Traylor was
1S Oliver testified that he swould have fired Moore een if he had not
submitted a quit notice He said it was company policy to fire individuals
who either alked off the job or refused to %work overtime He men-
tioned the names iif four former employees who were fired under similar
circumstances
16 Oliver denied telling Mcoore that he'd better clock out by 10 o'clock
or he would have a police guard there to get him out
hired for the job. Stargell told Jennings that he had more
seniority and that he was looking for a better job. Jen-
nings told Stargell that Stargell should not have signed a
union card. Stargell told Jennings that he felt that Jen-
nings was doing him wrong because he had signed the
card and that he felt he should have gotten the job
anyway. He also told Jennings that he felt he was being
used because he had signed a union card.
Jennings then went to the office and about a half hour
later returned to where Stargell was working and told
Stargell that he was sorry about what he said previously
about the Union just1 7 and that he did not know what
else to say. Jennings then told Stargell that he would
train Stargell as a backup painter in Stargell's spare time.
Foreman Jennings testified that David Traylor was not
hired by him but was sent to him by Personnel Manager
Rance Sprayberry. He said that Jimmy Traylor, who had
been working on the zee-line painting job for 2 or 3
days, had to be sent back to the spray booth where he
was needed. He said that David Traylor worked with
Jimmy Traylor for the 2 or 3 days before David took on
the zee-line painting job. Jimmy Traylor and David
Traylor were cousins.
Jennings testified that Ben Stargell had talked to him
about the zee-line painter's job a couple of months before
David Traylor was put on the job. He said that Stargell
asked him that if the job ever came open, he thought
maybe he would like to train for it, "like to try it out."
When he was asked why he did not select Stargell for
the job, Jennings responded that at the time he had
nobody to back up Stargell and that he would also have
had to train Stargell for the new job.
Jennings said that the day after he put David Traylor
on the zee-line painter job Jennings went to the flashing
paint area where Stargell was working to make a routine
check and that Stargell asked Jennings why David Tray-
lor was put on the job. Jennings responded he had to
have someone run the paint booth while Quinton Rice
was in the hospital. When Stargell asked Jennings why
he was not put on the job, Jennings told him that he did
not have a backup man for Stargell. Stargell responded
that he did not feel that that was the reason and then
told Jennings that he had heard that Rice was not
coming back to work. Jennings said that Rice was
coming back to work and that everything was okay.
Stargell said, "Us blacks around here just don't have a
chance."
Jennings then went to Sprayberry's office and told him
about the conversation with Stargell and Sprayberry told
Jennings to explain to Stargell that the job was tempo-
rary: that Stargell would be put on the job if he wanted
it; but when Rice returned from the hospital he would
have to go back to his regular job. Jennings told Stargell
and Stargell responded, "No, that's all right. Just forget
it. I don't want it." David Traylor continued to perform
the job until Rice returned from the hospital. David
Traylor was on that job approximately 2 months.
i1 The zee-.ine painting job was posted in 1978 At the time. Stargell
told Foreman Jennings he Was going to bid on the Job and Jennings told
him not to do, that because he would get Stargell a raise
841
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LAB()OR RELATIONS BOARD
Jennings testified that after several months Quinton
Rice had to return to the hospital for another operation.
He said that before reassigning Jimmy Traylor to that
job on a temporary basis he asked Ben Stargell if he
would like to have the job on a temporary basis and
Stargell refused it.' 8 Foreman Jennings was then asked
whether in his conversations with Stargell the Union
came up. Jennings said that it did not. On cross-examina-
tion Foreman Jennings admitted that he knew that
during the union campaign at the Respondent's place of
business that Jimmy Traylor and David Traylor were
against the Union and Ben Stargell was for the Union.
IV. THE 8( A)( ) ALL.EGATIONS
The complaint alleges that one of Respondent's super-
visors threatened employees that they would no longer
be able to bring their grievances directly to management
if they selected the Union as their bargaining representa-
tive.
In that connection, the General Counsel offered the
testimony of Press Operator Donnie Hinkle who stated
that during a meeting called by Plant Manager William
N. Roberts in August 1977, he was told along with other
employees that if employees had problems on the floor
they would not be able to go to their foremen or plant
manager but would have to go through the Union.
Hinkle testified that the then existing procedure in the
plant was for the employees to go to their foremen.
Plant Manager Roberts testified that he told the em-
ployees that if the Union should come into the plant they
would have to go through a grievance procedure and
that they would no longer be able to come directly to
him with a problem. He said they would have to go to
their stewards, then to their supervisor, next to the oper-
ations manager, and finally to the plant manager.
Welder Jimmie Harper testified that during a meeting
of plant employees in August 1977 Personnel Director
Rance Sprayberry told the employees that if the Union
came in the employees could no longer go to him with
their grievances but would have to go to the steward or
president of the Union.
The complaint alleges that Respondent solicited its
employees to withdraw their union authorization cards.
Donnie Hinkle testified that during the August I meeting
described above Plant Manager Roberts told the employ-
ees that some employees had come to him expressing a
wish that they had not signed cards and wanted to get
the cards back. Roberts followed up that statement by
telling the employees to write Union Organizer Riffe's
boss and to go to Personnel Manager Sprayberry's office
to obtain the address. Welder Jimmie Harper corroborat-
ed Hinkle's testimony and Plant Manager Roberts ad-
mitted the above.
'" Jimmy Traylor was put back on the zee-line painter's job on a tcm-
porary basis then he was removed from it and another employee was put
on the job. That employee had absentee problems and another employee
was transferred to that job. In no case did any employee gel an increase
in pay when he went to the zee-line painter job on a temporary basis.
Rice finally returned to the job after his second hospitalization, but Rice
then requested, and was granted, a transfer to a lighter job The job was
then put up for bid but Stargell apparently did not bid for it. The job
went to one of three individuals who had bid for it.
Forklift operator Timothy Moncus testified that in
August 1977, during a plant meeting, Personnel Director
Rance Sprayberry told the employees that certain em-
ployees had come in requesting how to get their union
cards back. Sprayberry told them that anyone who
wanted the address could get it from him. Stargell also
testified that during a conversation with Industrial Engi-
neer Williams Biggers, Biggers asked him if he wanted
his union card back and suggested he write to Estes
Riffe's boss in North Carolina and request that it be sent
back to him. Stargell said he wanted the address so Big-
gers gave Stargell a slip of paper with the Union's North
Carolina address on it.
A. Threat of Loss of Benefits
The complaint alleges that Respondent threatened its
employees with the withdrawal of all their existing
wages and benefits if they selected the Union as their
representative, by telling them that the Union would
have to start with a blank sheet of paper and bargain
from scratch.
To support that allegation the General Counsel offered
the testimony of press operator Donnie Hinkle who
stated that during the meeting in August 1977 Plant
Manager Roberts displayed a blank sheet of paper while
he told the employees that negotiations would start out
with zero. Roberts testified as follows:
I said, well, you start with a blank piece of paper.
You start talking about benefits, wages, working
conditions, and you may end up with more than
you have now, or you may end up with less or any
combination thereof.
B. Interrogation
The complaint alleges that Respondent's supervisor in-
terrogated its employees regarding their union member-
ship, activities, and desires, and the union membership,
activities, and desires of other employees.
To support that allegation the General Counsel offered
the testimony of Alvin Perkins who testified that he was
first employed with Respondent on August 22, 1977, and
during his breaktime signed a union authorization card.
On that day, Production Manager Sam Oliver called
Perkins and two other employees into his office, who
with Perkins had started work for Respondent that day,
and told them that he wanted them to know how the
Company felt about the Union. Oliver said that he un-
derstood one or two of them had already been ap-
proached by union representatives and that one or two
of them had already signed a card.' Oliver told them
that Respondent did not want a union. He said that
during negotiations if the Union wanted a 10-cent-an-
hour raise, Respondent would give them the raise but
would take away a break, or if the Union wanted a
break, Respondent would take away a paid holiday.
The General Counsel also offered the testimony of
forklift operator Timothy Moncus to support the allega-
," The complaint also alleges this statement to he creating the impres-
sion of surveillance
842
NATIONAL STEEL PRODUCTS
tion of interrogation contending that the invitation to
them by Plant Manager Roberts during the August 1977
meeting to get information as to how they might get
their union cards back was a technique or device which
enabled Respondent to find out which employees were
union sympathizers.
Moncus also testified that during August 1977, in the
presence of employee William Broom, while the employ-
ees were looking for parts, Foreman Charles Jennings
asked them what they thought about the Union. Jennings
also told them that if they were under a union there
would be no more standing around and it would be their
job to find the parts without his help as he was then
doing.20 In support of an allegation of a threat for loss
of benefits the General Counsel offered the following:
Moncus testified that Foreman Jennings pointed to a ma-
chine that employee Eddie Gholston was running, stating
that if the machine broke down and was not repaired
within an hour, under a union contract that man would
be sent home for the rest of the shift. Jennings also stated
that the employees would be subjected to a job classifi-
cation and if the work in a particular classification was
completed, the employees would be sent home.
Painter Ben Stargell testified that during August 1977
Industrial Engineer William Biggers came to him at his
work station and told him that everybody upstairs
thought that Stargell was a big union worker. 2 ' Stargell
denied that. Biggers asked Stargell if he had ever
worked in a union before and also asked him if he would
like to get his union card back.
C. Surveillance by Photography
The complaint alleges that Respondent surveilled the
union activities of its employees by photographing the
union's representative as he distributed union literature.
International Representative Estes Riffe testified that
on August 30, 1977, he was standing in front of Re-
spondent's plant distributing a union leaflet together with
employees Eddie Gholston and Charles Spitner. Plant
Manager William Roberts drove up next to Riffe,
stopped his car, pulled a camera up in his hands, and
took a picture of Riffe. Roberts later came back with
Personnel Manager Rance Sprayberry and took some ad-
ditional pictures. Roberts testified that the pictures he
took turned out to be blank.
D. Surveillance by Requiring Signing In
The complaint alleges that Respondent's first-shift
plant security guard surveilled its employees union activ-
ities by requiring those employees who distributed union
literature outside the plant entrance to sign in before
being allowed to enter the plant.
To support the allegation the General Counsel offered
the testimony of metals applicator Charles Fetner who
testified without contradiction that during August and
September 1977 he handed union leaflets to employees as
they entered the plant gate. After handing out the leaf-
21 This testimony is also offered by the General Counsel to support al
allegation in the complaint of a threat of reprisal.
2: The complaint alleges this statement to he creating an impression ,of
surveillance
lets and as he entered the plant a guard required him and
others who had been handing out union leaflets to sign
in. Fetner testified that employees reporting for work
during the week had not previously been required to
sign in. This was the first time that he was required to
sign in.
E. Creating the Impression of Surveillance
The complaint alleges that Respondent created an im-
pression of surveillance of its employees' union activities
by informing them that it knew who was for the Union
and who had signed union authorization cards.
In support of this allegation, the General Counsel of-
fered the testimony of employee Alvin Perkins who
stated that Production Manager Sam Oliver told him and
two other employees that he understood one or two of
them had already been approached by union representa-
tives and that one or two of them had already signed
union cards.
The complaint alleges that Supervisor Earl McClellan
created the impression of surveillance of its employees'
union activities by telling employees that it knew the
names of employees on the in-plant union organizing
committee. In support of that allegation the General
Counsel presented the testimony of structural fabricator
Walter Ellison who testified that on April 25, 1979,
Foreman Earl McClellan came to him and stated he be-
lieved Ellison was messing up. Ellison asked McClellan
what he meant by that and whether he meant the Stro-
zier incident. McClellan replied in the negative and told
Ellison that he knew Ellison was a member of the plant
organizing committee. That testimony was also offered
in support of the allegation of threat of reprisal.
F. Threats of Discharge Because of the Employees'
Union Activities
The complaint alleges that Respondent Production
Manager Sam Oliver threatened employees with dis-
charge because of their activities on behalf of the Union.
In support of that allegation, the General Counsel of-
fered the testimony of employee Timothy Moncus who
testified that in August 1977, during a shipping depart-
ment meeting conducted by Production Manager Sam
Oliver, Moncus asked Oliver if Respondent knew who
was trying to bring the Union in and Oliver replied,
"You bet we do." Oliver also said, "They" would not be
around here if the Union did not come in, and "They"
would not be able to get a job in this area.
Also in support of that allegation the General Counsel
presented the testimony of metal applicator Charles
Fetner who testified that during the middle of August
1977 Oliver called Jimmie Harper, Donnie Hinkle, and
him into Oliver's office. Oliver told them in the presence
of Foreman Jennings and Personnel Director Sprayberry
that there have been complaints on the floor that they
had been harassing people and trying to get them to sign
union cards on company time. Fetner and the others
denied harassing employees and asked Oliver to produce
names. Oliver declined, telling them the informers prefer
to remain anonymous. Oliver also stated to them that if it
843
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
happened again he would "zap" them. Employee Hinkle
corroborated Fetner's testimony.
The above testimony was also offered to support the
allegations of the complaint that Production Manager
Sam Oliver threatened to interfere with the future em-
ployment opportunities of employees with other employ-
ers in the LeGrange, Georgia, area because of activities
on behalf of the Union.
In support of an allegation that Respondent threatened
its employees with discharge if they joined or engaged in
activities on behalf of the Union, the General Counsel of-
fered the testimony of employee Walter Ellison, who tes-
tified that on April 2, 1979, Foreman McClellan came to
his work area and talked to him and employee Donnie
Gay. McClellan told them that if the Union came in he
could get more work out of the employees and that with
the rate of production of some of them they would not
make it under the Union. McClellan also stated that if
the Union came in Respondent would be priced off the
market at the high wages the Union was asking the
Company to pay the employees. That testimony was also
offered to support the allegations in the complaint that
the statement by McClellan is a threat to close the plant.
The General Counsel offered the testimony of loader-
checker William Phillips to support the allegation of the
complaint that Respondent's supervisors threatened em-
ployees with reprisals if the employees joined or engaged
in activities on behalf of the Union. Phillips testified that
on June 20, 1979, the day of the Board-conducted elec-
tion, Foreman Cleary asked if Phillips liked the Union
and told him that if the employees voted for the Union
to come in it would be harder on the employees. Also in
support of that allegation, the General Counsel offered
the testimony of assistant machine operator Michael
Moore who testified that on June 20, 1979, he passed out
union leaflets at the plant gate. Foreman McClellan came
to him later that morning while Moore was working and
asked Moore if Moore had strong enough feelings to
support the Union to really publicly acknowledge this
support.22 Moore replied that he just had by handing out
leaflets. McClellan told Moore that in the event the
Union came in the employee-employer relationship
would change drastically. He told Moore that before,
employees could come in and talk individually one-on-
one to their supervisors to work out problems, but after-
wards, he would be limited in his discussions with fore-
men and would have to go through the steward in the
event the employee had a problem. McClellan told
Moore that McClellan would in turn become much like a
security agent and would have to police the employees
to make sure they were not loafing during the course of
the day.
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
A. The Discharge of George Strozier
As previously indicated, Respondent contends that
Strozier was discharged for violating company rule 18,
following a whole series of disciplinary incidents involv-
z The complaint alleges this statement by McClellan to be interroga-
tion.
ing both the harassment of and altercations with fellow
employees. Respondent further contends that the culmi-
nating incident leading immediately to George Strozier's
discharge was his behavior in threatening and harassing
employee Warner Asberry on April 18, 1979.
1 reject Respondent's contention. I believe that the
reasons given for the discharge of George Strozier are
pretextual and that George Strozier's discharge, as con-
tended by the General Counsel, was because of his mem-
bership in and activities on behalf of the Union. I base
that conclusion on the following. With respect to the
Warner Asberry incident the record reveals that Warner
Asberry, Walter Ellison, Bo Turner, and George Stro-
zier, all black employees, formed a sort of social group
of employees within the plant who ate lunch together
and engaged in other social activities.
Asberry himself admitted that their actions were child-
ish and silly. Asberry stated that during the entire inci-
dent they were no more than 10 to 12 feet apart. There
was no immediate threat of any fisticuffs or body con-
tact. Asberry said he went to Foreman Earl McClellan
and asked his foreman to talk to Strozier. His foreman
asked Asberry if he wanted the foreman to get involved.
Asberry replied, "No, not really but say something to
George, Just say something to him." McClellan asked
again, "Do you want me to get involved?" Asberry re-
plied, "No. Not necessarily." It appears to me that
McClellan's actions following that, contrary to Asberry's
wishes, in reporting the matter to his superiors and the
action of the superiors in calling in Strozier and, in
effect, using that incident as a basis for discharging him,
albeit there are other incidents none of which standing
alone would justify the discharge of Strozier, would
seem to indicate that a case was being built that Strozier
could not get along with people.
However, the case against Strozier collapses when the
other incidents are analyzed such as the Stockham inci-
dent in which Strozier alone was blamed even though he
had a legitimate complaint concerning the stacking of
hot metals by Stockham, resulting in Strozier burning his
arms. When Strozier mentioned it to Stockham he over-
reacted to the point where Strozier thought Stockham
was going to pull a knife on him.
Concerning the Carl Fowler incident I believe Stro-
zier's testimony. Fowler, Ellison, Strozier, and others en-
gaged in kidding or banter with each other and they did
not mean anything by it. Strozier, according to his testi-
mony, in the past had been on the receiving end of such
kidding from his fellow employees as well as the "giving
end." He alone was reprimanded for that conduct but I
do not believe and certainly Respondent did not believe
that that conduct, standing alone, merited the punish-
ment of discharge.
As for the Jerry Short incident I do not place any
blame on Strozier for that inasmuch as Strozier was
being overworked and that apparently such was ac-
knowledged by Sam Oliver who used Strozier's com-
plaint as a reason for transferring him to the second shift.
The actions of Respondent towards Strozier when
considered in the context of Plant Manager Roberts' atti-
tude towards Strozier, as evidenced by Roberts own tes-
844
NATIONAL STEEL PRODUCTS
timony, convinces me that Respondent was out to get
Strozier.23 Roberts testified that Strozier spoke out ag-
gressively during the company campaign meeting on
April 10, 1979, and later at a private meeting with Rob-
erts, Strozier repeated the complaints about his job and
working conditions. Roberts' attitude during that meet-
ing, as related by Strozier, revealed that Roberts was
anxious to get rid of Strozier, a strong union adherent
who apparently annoyed Roberts. I credit Strozier's ver-
sion of the events in each instance where there is any
conflict between his version and that of Roberts. Roberts
was not candid or straightforward in his testimony. I
therefore conclude that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) in discharging George Strozier,
B. The Michael Moore Discharge
Even though employee Michael Moore signed the
union card and handed out union leaflets at the plant in
the presence of Plant Manager Roberts, I do not believe
that his discharge was pretextual or because he was a
union adherent engaging in union activities with the
knowledge of Respondent. Michael Moore received
ample notice along with other employees that they
would be required to work overtime on the Saturday in
question. Even though he and his foreman made several
efforts to get him excused so that he could attend "funny
races," respondent refused to excuse him. Respondent
also refused to excuse others who had requested time off
on that day. Moore went so far as to write out a "quit
notice" stating that he did so because he was being har-
assed by his foreman. I do not believe him. I believe he
wrote out the "quit notice" because he realized he would
be fired for his walking off the job and therefore chose
to resign rather than to be fired. Michael Moore was not
a credible witness. I believe Acting Foreman Johnson,
McClellan, and Oliver concerning that incident. I do not
believe that Moore asked that he be accompanied by the
temporary steward on the occasion of his interview
where he could reasonably anticipate disciplinary action
would be taken. I believe Respondent's witnesses that
they did not receive a request from Moore for such rep-
resentation. I shall recommend dismissal of the allega-
tions of the complaint relating to the alleged unlawful
conduct involving Michael Moore. Alpers' Jobbing Com-
pany, Inc., 231 NLRB 449 (1977); Bankers Dispatch Corp.,
233 NLRB 300 (1977); T. F;: E. Industries (a Division of
Dayca Inc), 231 NLRB 612 (1977).
C. The Ben Stargell Incident
Foreman Charles Jennings, when approached by Ben
Stargell concerning a promotion to the zee-line painter
job, albeit on a temporary basis at the time, which even-
tually turned out to be a permanent opening, told Star-
gell that Stargell should not have signed a union card.
Even though a half hour later Jennings, stated to Stargell
that he was sorry about what he had said about the
Union, I find Respondent refused to promote employee
Ben Stargell because of his membership and activities on
:' Employee Gholston, who witnessed much of what went on between
Asberry and Strozier, testified that he did not believe that Strozier would
have "jumped on" Ashberry
behalf of the Union and because he engaged in concerted
activities with other employees for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid and protection in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.
VI. THE AI.IEGEI) 8 (A(1) CONDUCT
I find that Respondent's conduct referred to in section
IV, above, to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
For the most part the testimony of the General Counsel's
witnesses was not contradicted. Moreover, to the extent
that the testimony was contradicted by the witnesses of
Respondent, I credit the witnesses of the General Coun-
sel who in each instance were straightforward, unhesi-
tant, and, in certain instances, were corroborated by their
fellow employees.
Accordingly I find that Respondent's threats to its em-
ployees that contrary to present practices, they would no
longer be able to bring their grievances directly to man-
agement if they select the Union as their bargaining rep-
resentative; solicitation of its employees to withdraw
their union authorization cards; threats to its employees
that Respondent will withdraw all of the existing wages
and benefits if they select the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative, by telling its employees that
the Union would have to start with a blank sheet of
paper and bargain from scratch; interrogation of its em-
ployees regarding their union membership activities and
desires and the union membership activities and desires
of other employees; surveillance of the union activities of
its employees by photographing the union representative
in the presence of employees as he distributed union lit-
erature; surveillance of its employees union activities by
requiring those employees who distributed union litera-
ture outside the plant entrance to sign in before being al-
lowed to enter the plant; creating an impression of sur-
veillance of its employees' union activities by informing
them that it knew who was for the Union and who had
signed union authorization cards; threatening its employ-
ees with the reduction of existing benefits by telling them
that contrary to present practices when work is unavail-
able before shift ending time they will be sent home if
they select the Union as their collective-bargaining rep-
resentative; threatening its employees that their working
hours would be reduced by telling them that contrary to
existing practices when their machines breakdown and
are not repaired within I hour, they will be sent home
before shift ending time if they select the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative; threatening its em-
ployees that it would impose more rigid and more de-
manding work schedules upon them if they select the
Union as their collective-bargaining representative;
threatening its employees with discharge because of their
activities on behalf of the Union; threatening to interfere
with the future employment opportunities of its employ-
ees with other employers in LaGrange, Georgia, area be-
cause of their activities on behalf of the Union; threaten-
ing its employees that it will withdraw their existing
benefits by taking away their paid breaks and holidays if
they select the Union as their collective-bargaining rep-
resentative; and threatening its employees with reprisals
if they select the Union as their collective-bargaining
845
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL L.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative, to be violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, and I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist that and like conduct. 7'he Kerie
Company, a Subsidiary of Harvey Hubbell, Inc., 236
NLRB 1084 (1978); Tufts Brothers. Incorporated, 235
NLRB 808 (1978); General Electric Wiring Device. Inc.,
182 NLRB 876 (1970).
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
1. National Steel Products Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act by threatening its
employees that contrary to existing practices they would
no longer be able to bring their grievances directly to
management if they select the Union as their bargaining
representative; threatening its employees that it will
withdraw all of their existing wages and benefits if they
selected the Union as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative, by telling its employees the Union would have
to start with a blank sheet of paper and bargain from
scratch; interrogating its employees regarding their union
membership, activities, and desires, and the union mem-
bership, activities, and desires of other employees; sur-
veillance of the union activities of its employees by pho-
tographing the union representative as he distributed
union literature; surveillance of its employees' union ac-
tivities by requiring those employees that distributed
union literature outside the plant entrance to sign in
before being allowed to enter the plant; creating an im-
pression of surveillance of its employees' union activities
by informing them that it knew who was for the Union
and who signed union authorization cards; threatening its
employees with reduction of existing benefits by telling
them that contrary to existing practices when work is
unavailable before shift-ending time they will be sent
home if they select the Union as their collective-bargain-
ing representative; threatening its employees that their
working hours would be reduced by telling them that
contrary to present practices when their machines break-
down, and they are not repaired within I hour, they will
be sent home before shift-ending time if they select the
Union as their collective-bargaining representative;
threatening its employees that it will impose more rigid
and more demanding work schedules upon them if they
selected the Union as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative; threatening its employees with discharge be-
cause of their activities on behalf of the Union; threaten-
ing to interfere with the future employment opportunities
of its emloyees or other employers in LaGrange, Geor-
gia, area because of their activities on behalf of the
Union; threatening its employees that it would withdraw
their existing benefits by taking away their paid breaks
and holidays if they selected the Union as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative; and by threatening its em-
ployees with reprisal if they selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
4. Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, by sus-
pending then discharging, and failing and refusing to re-
instate its employee George Strozier because of his mem-
bership in, and activities on behalf of, the Union and be-
cause he engaged in concerted activities with other em-
ployees for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection; refusing to promote its
employee Ben Stargell because of his membership in, and
activities on behalf of, the Union and because he engaged
in concerted activities with other employees for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and
protection.
5. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
with respect to those allegations in the complaint specifi-
cally involving employee Michael Moore.
THI REMI:I)Y
Inasmuch as it has been found that Respondent has
committed unfair labor practices, it will be recommended
that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist there-
from and to take certain actions necessary to effectuate
the purposes of the Act. I have found that Respondent
discharged George Strozier and refused to promote Ben
Stargell for reasons which offended the provisions of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. I shall therefore rec-
ommend that the Respondent make them whole for any
loss of pay which they may have suffered as a result of
the discrimination practiced against them. The backpay
provided herein with interest thereon to be computed in
the manner prescribed in F. HW. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977)24
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and the entire record, and in accordance
with Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the follow-
ing recommended:
ORDER 2 5
The Respondent, National Steel Products Company,
La Grange, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening its employees that contrary to existing
practices they would no longer be able to bring their
grievances directly to management if they select the
Union as their bargaining representative.
(b) Soliciting its employees to withdraw their union
authorization cards.
(c) Threatening its employees that it will withdraw all
of their existing wages and benefits if they selected the
Union as their collective-bargaining representative, by
24 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heaing Co., 131) NL RB 716 (1962).
25 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulatons, be adopted hy the Board and
become its finings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
846
NATIONAL STEEL PRODUCTS
telling its employees that the Union would have to start
with a blank sheet of paper and bargain from scratch.
(d) Interrogating its employees regarding their union
membership, activities, and desires, and the union mem-
bership, activities, and desires of other employees.
(e) Engaging in surveillance of the union activities of
its employees by photographing the union representative
as he distributes union literature.
(f) Engaging in surveillance of its employees' union ac-
tivities and requiring those employees who distributed
union literature outside the plant entrance to sign in
before being allowed to enter the plant.
(g) Creating an impression of surveillance of its em-
ployees' union activities by informing them that it knows
who was for the Union and who had signed union au-
thorization cards.
(h) Threatening its employees with the reduction of
existing benefits by telling them that contrary to present
practices, when work is unavailable before shift-ending
time, they will be sent home if they select the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative.
(i) Threatening its employees that their working hours
would be reduced by telling them that contrary to exist-
ing practices, when their machines breakdown, and are
not repaired within 1 hour, they will be sent home
before shift-ending time if they select the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
(j) Threatening its employees that it will impose more
rigid and demanding work schedules upon them if they
select the Union as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive.
(k) Threatening its employees with discharge because
of their activities on behalf of the Union.
(I) Threatening to interfere with future employment
opportunities of its employees with other employers in
the LaGrange, Georgia, area because of their activities
on behalf of the Union.
(m) Threatening its employees that it will withdraw
their existing benefits and take away their paid breaks
and holidays if they select the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative.
(n) Threatening its employees with reprisals if they
select the Union as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive.
(o) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer George Strozier immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former position or, if such position no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of earnings
suffered by him as a result of his suspension and termina-
tion in the manner set forth in the section herein entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Offer Ben Stargell promotion to the zee-line paint-
er job or, if such position no longer exists to a substan-
tially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
him whole for any loss of earnings suffered by him as a
result of the failure to promote him to that position, in
the manner set forth in the section herein entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its offices and places of business in La-
Grange, Georgia, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 2 6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being duly
signed by Respondent's authorized representatives, shall
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Respondent shall take
reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
writing, within 20 days of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
26 In the event that this Order is inforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
847