Orb, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1978

235 N.L.R.B. 1280 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Orb, Inc. and Robert W. Meacham. Case 13-CA
16330
May 1, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND
TRUESDALE
On November 21, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
John F. Corbley issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,' find-
ings, and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Orb, Inc., Mer-
rillville, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in said
recommended Order.
Respondent contends that the Administrative Law Judge's interpreta-
tion of the evidence and his questioning dunng the hearing showed bias and
prejudice against it. Upon careful examination of the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision and the entire record, we are satisfied that its contentions
in this regard are without merit.
2 In agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the
Charging Party was unlawfully discharged, we do so for the following
reason: Respondent concedes, and in fact argues, that Meacham was
discharged in substantial part because of his alleged "insubordination"
which the Respondent equates with Meacham's going to the Union to
acquire a union card contrary to Respondent's president's instructions that
he would handle the matter for Meacham. However, Meacham's conduct
clearly was not insubordination, for the manner in which an employee
engages in protected activities is not, with exceptions not here relevant,
subject to his employer's control or guidance. Rather, Respondent's conduct
in discharging Meacham was unlawful discrimination against him for
engaging in a protected activity and also interfered with, restrained, and
coerced Meacham in the exercise of his statutory rights. Thus, the discharge
violated Sec. 8(aX3) and (I) of the Act. See Farah Manufacturing Company,
Inc., 202 NLRB 666 (1973).
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F. CORBLEY, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing
was held in this case on July 8, 1977, at Chicago, Illinois,
pursuant to: a charge filed by the Charging Party on
March 23, 1977, which was served on Respondent by
registered mail on March 24, 1977, and on a complaint and
notice of hearing issued by the Regional Director for
Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board on May
12, 1977, which was also duly served on Respondent. The
complaint alleges that Respondent discharged the Charg-
ing Party on March 21, 1977, because of the latter's union
or protected concerted activities thereby violating Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. In its answer to the complaint,
which answer was amended on the record at the hearing,
Respondent has denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
For reasons which appear hereinafter I find and con-
clude that Respondent has violated the Act as alleged in
the complaint.
At the hearing the General Counsel and Respondent
were represented by counsel. All parties were given full
opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to
introduce evidence and to file briefs. Briefs have subse-
quently been filed by the General Counsel and Respondent
and have been considered. Upon the entire record 1 in this
case including the briefs and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSiNESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
an Indiana corporation.
At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained
its office and principal place of business at 6746 Jackson
Street, Merrillville, Indiana, where it has been engaged in
the sales, installation and service of heating, air-condition-
ing, and refrigeration equipment.
During the last calendar year, prior to the issuance of the
complaint, a representative period, Respondent in the
course and conduct of its business operations described
above derived gross annual revenues in excess of $500,000.
During the same period, Respondent in the course and
conduct of these same business operations purchased and
received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points outside the State of Indiana.
i The transcript of the record in these proceedings has been corrected.
235 NLRB No. 177
1280
ORB, INC.
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
I1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Sheet Metal Workers Local 303, hereinafter referred to
as the Union, is, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II1. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Respondent's Hierarchy
At all times material herein, Noel Olebos, Respondent's
president, was an agent of Respondent, acting on its behalf,
within the meaning of Section 2(13) and a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the Act.
In its answer, Respondent denied that Mike Vernich,
Respondent's foreman, was a supervisor within the mean-
ing of Section 2(1 1) at all pertinent times herein. I disagree.
The Charging Party credibly testified without dispute
that, while he was employed, Vernich made the work
assignments to the employees and visited each job to make
sure the job was running right and if there were any
problems, Vernich would straighten them out. Olebos
admitted that he, Olebos, makes no work assignments but
that Vernich, who is his only supervisor, does. Olebos
further admitted that Vernich directs employees in their
work and that, in so doing, Vernich uses his own judgment.
I conclude, therefore, that Vernich assigns employees
which jobs to perform and responsibly directs them - all
in a manner requiring the exercise of independent judg-
ment - and that Vernich did so while the Charging Party
was still employed (prior to March 21, 1977). I, according-
ly, conclude that Vernich was, at all times pertinent hereto,
a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the Act.
B. Background and Sequence of Events
At the time of his discharge, on March 21, 1977, the
Charging Party had been employed by Respondent for
over 2-1/2 years. During the first 6 months or so of his
employment the Charging Party was employed doing
service (repair) work but quit after a disagreement with his
then supervisor, Rodriguez. The Charging Party, however,
was promptly rehired by Vernich and thereafter performed
some service work and also sheet metal work in installation
of heating and air-conditioning units in residential and
commercial buildings. He likewise did some sheet metal
fabrication work in Respondent's shop.2 While performing
sheet metal work, the Charging Party worked alongside a
sheet metal worker who was a member of the Union. The
Charging Party himself was not a member of the Union
2 The Charging Party's testimony that he performed some sheet metal
work, of the same type as a full journeyman, on commercial buildings is not
contradicted by Olebos, the only other witness to testify on this matter.
3 A full journeyman receives a higher rate of pay under the union
contract.
4 The findings as to this conversation are based on the credible testimony
of the Charging Party as essentially corroborated by Olebos with the
exception of the Charging Party's refusal of Olebos' offers of the residential
and did not become a union member until a few days
before his discharge, as will appear.
At least during the period June 1, 1976, through May 3,
1977, that is, the last 9 months of the Charging Party's
employment with Respondent, Respondent was signatory
to a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union.
Under that agreement bargaining unit work includes
fabrication, assembling, handling, installation, repairing,
and servicing of sheet metal work in air-veyor and air-
handling systems. However, since some service work
involves the handling of pipe and working with electrical
wires, service work is considered a gray area and some
service employees of contract signatories, including Re-
spondent, are not members of the Union.
Although the Charging Party has never participated in
an apprenticeship program, he had some 2 years experience
performing sheet metal installations and fabrications with
Respondent and 3 years prior experience at sheet metal
work and service for a nonunion contractor. Several times
during the course of his employment, the Charging Party
has requested Olebos and another former Respondent
official by the name of Patterson to obtain a union card for
the Charging Party. In some of these discussions the
Charging Party had indicated his willingness to accept a
residential journeyman's card (as opposed to a full journey-
man's card).3 Nothing, however, was done about the
Charging Party's requests.
On or about March 14, 1977, Vernich spoke with Olebos
and suggested to Olebos that Olebos talk to one of the
Union's business agents about getting the Charging Party a
union card. Vernich said that with such a card the
Charging Party could work in Respondent's shop alongside
the union people. (The Union's business agent, Targett,
testified, and I find, that if Respondent's union employees
worked alongside nonunion personnel the union employees
would be subject to union discipline.) The Charging Party
had, in fact, already worked outside the shop handling
sheet metal ducts in commercial buildings in the presence
of a union journeyman, but this had apparently never been
reported to the Union.
Also on or about March 14, 1977, the Charging Party
again went to Olebos and asked the latter if he had done
anything about the Charging Party's union card. Olebos
responded in the negative. The Charging Party pressed
Olebos and asked Olebos if Olebos was going to do
anything about it. Olebos then indicated his willingness to
obtain a residential card for the Charging Party. The
Charging Party stated he would not accept that card.
Olebos thereupon asked the Charging Party whether he
would do service work and the Charging Party declined
this offer also. The matter was then left with Olebos noting
that he, Olebos, had to leave town, but would look into the
matter.4
card and of the service work. Olebos stated he could not remember whether
the Charging Party's reaction to the residential offer was positive or
negative. Olebos did not mention the service work offer in his testimony as
to this incident. The date is based on the testimony of the Charging Party.
The date given by Olebos, March 17, was a date Olebos was admittedly
away from the office. In crediting the Charging Party I am not unmindful
that he also testified that he was uncertain whether he had communicated to
Respondent his change of mind from his previous intention of accepting a
(Conrinaued)
1281
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 16, 1977, Vernich visited Robert Targett,
business agent for the Union, and advised Targett that
Respondent had an employee working as a serviceman.
Vernich continued that there was not enough service work
so Respondent was proposing to use this individual on
sheet metal work. While Targett opined that the employee
would have to be cleared by the Union in that event,
Targett was also concerned whether the employee could do
the work. Targett thus specifically asked Vernich how
Vernich knew whether the individual could do the work.
Vernich replied that the individual had worked 3 years for
a nonunion contractor which was named. On hearing this,
Targett told Vernich to send the man down to the union
office as soon as possible. Vernich went out to a job where
the Charging Party was working and directed the Charging
Party to report to Targett at the union hall.
The Charging Party went, as directed, to the union hall.
There he met Targett and, after the Charging Party filled
out a number of papers for Targett, Targett gave the
Charging Party a temporary full journeyman's card (and
not the more limited residential journeyman's card men-
tioned by Olebos to the Charging Party in their conversa-
tion of March 14). At some point in the meeting with
Targett the Charging Party told Targett that the Charging
Party had been doing everything a journeyman did.
The full journeyman's rate at the time was $11.01 per
hour. The residential journeyman's rate in the new contract
(apparently negotiated in the spring of 1977) was $8.89 per
hour. The Charging Party as of March 15, 1977, had been
earning $8.39 per hour.
On or about March 17, 1977, Olebos, who was away
taking a course in heat pumps, telephoned Respondent's
office to see what had transpired in his absence. A girl in
the office informed Olebos that the Charging Party had
obtained a card from the Union. Olebos asked who had
sent the Charging Party to the Union and was told that
Vernich had done so. Olebos then asked to speak to
Vernich who told Olebos that the Charging Party's card
was a journeyman's permit. Olebos instructed Vernich to
give the Charging Party the next day (Friday) off and have
him come in on Monday, March 21.
On March 21, the Charging Party went to Respondent's
office and met with Olebos. Olebos asked the Charging
Party what had occurred in Olebos' absence. When the
Charging Party asked what Olebos meant, Olebos referred
to the union hall and card. The Charging Party told Olebos
that the Charging Party had gotten a card on the previous
Wednesday so that he could do sheet metal work. Olebos
reminded the Charging Party that Olebos had told the
Charging Party a week before that Olebos would look into
the matter and then inquired why the Charging Party had
not waited. The latter responded that he had waited for 2
years and nothing had happened. Olebos rejoined that the
Charging Party was not worth $11 an hour. The Charging
Party thereupon commented that "this was it" and Olebos
agreed. The Charging Party concluded by asking for the
increased journeyman's rate for Wednesday and Thursday
residential card. His testimony on the point, however, dealt with his claimed
change of mind a year before the events in question here and not the
incident of March 14, 1977.
5 These findings are based upon a composite of the testimony of the
and 2 hours show up time for Friday and Monday. Olebos
told the Charging Party to take the matter up with the
Union's business agent.5
The Charging Party then went to see Targett and told
Targett that the Charging Party had been fired. Targett
promptly called Olebos to inquire the reason for this
development. Olebos said the Charging Party was not
worth $11 per hour. Targett asked why, if this was so,
Olebos had sent the Charging Party to the Union's office in
the first place. Olebos answered that Olebos had not sent
the Charging Party to the Union's office. Targett also
asked Olebos if Olebos had spoken with Vernich but got no
satisfactory answer.
The Charging Party has not returned to work for
Respondent but Targett, after telling the Charging Party to
tear up his journeyman's card, was instrumental in obtain-
ing the Charging Party a serviceman's job with a different
employer under contract with a different union.
After the Charging Party's discharge, Camplan, another
employee of Respondent, has been given a residential
journeyman's card from the Union.
Concluding Findings
From the foregoing it is clear that Respondent dis-
charged the Charging Party and thereafter refused to
reinstate him in reaction to the latter's receipt of a
journeyman's card from the Union - a card which Olebos
feared would require Olebos to pay the Charging Party a
higher pay rate under Respondent's contract with the
Union.
Respondent in its brief raises essentially four points. It
argues that nowhere is there any indication in the record
that Olebos told the Charging Party or anyone else that
Olebos terminated the Charging Party for joining the
Union. Respondent argues further that there has been a
mistake of a material fact. That is, it says, Vernich intended
that the Charging Party go down to the union hall to obtain
only a limited residential card but that this was not made
clear to Targett, the union representative, by either Vernich
or the Charging Party and the latter was mistakenly given a
full journeyman's card. Next, Respondent urges that the
Charging Party lacked the skill and ability to become a
journeyman (at least without further experience). And,
lastly, Respondent urges that the Charging Party was
insubordinate to his employer by going to the union hall to
obtain a journeyman's card and thus by levering himself
into a 1/3 pay increase while Respondent's president was
out of town.
I find no merit in any of these contentions.
As to Respondent's argument that there is no evidence
that Olebos explicitly stated that the Charging Party's
discharge was caused by his union activities, it is well
settled that evidence of employer union animus or antiun-
ion motivation may be supplied on the basis of circumstan-
tial evidence.6 And an employer's decision to discharge an
Charging Party and Olebos which is essentially corroborative and consis-
tent.
6 E.g., Ri-Del Tool Mfg. Co., Inc., 199 NLRB 969 (1972).
1282
ORB, INC.
employee shortly after learning that the latter has joined a
union is probative circumstantial evidence in this regard.7
Further and contrary to Respondent, it is not certain that
Targett made a mistake in giving the Charging Party a full
journeyman's card (rather than a limited residential card).
Targett awarded the Charging Party the journeyman's
permit based on the statement by Vernich that Respondent
intended to use the Charging Party on sheet metal work
and the further statement by Vernich that the Charging
Party could do the work based, in part at least, on his prior
experience with a nonunion contractor." Moreover, the
Charging Party's testimony that, while he was employed by
Respondent, he performed at least some of the same work
as a journeyman on commercial buildings is unrebutted in
this record and I so find.
However, even assuming, arguendo, that Targett erred in
giving the Charging Party a full journeyman's card instead
of a residential journeyman's card, there was no necessity
to discharge the Charging Party to resolve this claimed
error. Respondent could have simply contacted the Union
and sought to change the Union's decision. It did not do
so. Or, further assuming, arguendo, that the Charging Party
was not performing journeyman's work on commercial
buildings requiring a full journeyman's card, as Respon-
dent apparently claims in its brief, Respondent could have
continued to assign him to service work or residential work
at the appropriate lower pay. For, as the General Counsel
correctly argues, an employee's possession of a full jour-
neyman's card creates no requirement that an employer
must assign him commercial journeyman's work. That card
only assures the employee full journeyman's pay if he is
assigned full journeyman's commercial work. It is not
uncommon in the labor community for a union member to
carry a higher rated card than the work he actually
performs. 9
As to the Charging Party's skill and ability, Olebos
conceded that the Charging Party could learn full journey-
man's sheet metal work and Olebos claimed that it was
Olebos' intention to let the Charging Party progress
eventually to that level albeit under the aegis of a
residential card. Olebos conceded that the Charging Party
was a good serviceman and got along well with his fellow
employees. For his part, the Charging Party testified
without contradiction that he did some of the same work as
a journeyman. However, elsewhere in his testimony, the
Charging Party also stated that he was mostly a helper, that
he had never supervised a job or worked independently on
commercial work outside of the presence of a journeyman.
The Charging Party also conceded that he has had no
apprenticeship and has not made the full range of fittings
in the shop which a journeyman should be able to make.
The Charging Party also admitted he was unfamiliar with
so-called SMACNA 0 standards for'sheet metal work.
7 N.L.R.B. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.. 242 F.2d 497, 502 (C.A. 2, 1957),
cert. denied 355 U.S. 829.
a Targett credibly so testified. Vernich whom I have found to be a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act did not testify.
9 I do not understand Targett's generalized testimony to be contrary. He
said some sheet metal journeymen do (lower rated) service work and receive
the journeyman rate. Since this would obviously be uneconomical as a
normal practice, I conclude that he must have been refemng to occasional
Olebos and Targett agreed in their testimony that a
journeyman should be familiar with SMACNA standards.
Hence, I conclude that the Charging Party does not
possess all the qualifications of a full-fledged journeyman
although he has done some of the work of a full-fledged
journeyman (e.g., handling of sheet metal ducts in commer-
cial buildings). But this conclusion leads only to the further
conclusion, previously adverted to, that Respondent could
have questioned the Union's decision to award the Charg-
ing Party a full journeyman's card. Again there was no
need to discharge him.
As to Respondent's argument that the Charging Party
was insubordinate in joining the Union and levering
himself into a 1/3 pay increase, the obvious import of this
contention is that Respondent was justified in discharging
the Charging Party for such "insubordination." This is the
crux of the case.
Contrary to Respondent, the Charging Party, as an
employee, has a free and untrammeled right to join a labor
organization under Section 7 of the Act. For Respondent
to discharge him for exercising that Section 7 protected
right and thereafter refuse to reinstate him for the same
reason are actions violative of Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the
Act" even where Respondent's specific purpose in so
doing was to avoid the increased costs of unionization. t2 I
find that Respondent has violated these sections of the law
by discharging the Charging Party and refusing to reinstate
him for this discriminatory reason.13
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring
in connection with the operations of Respondent described
in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
The recommended Order will contain the conventional
provisions for cases involving unlawful discharge in viola-
tion of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. This will require
Respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor
practices found and to post a notice to that effect which
will also state the affirmative action Respondent will be
required to take to remedy these violations. Thus, Respon-
dent will be directed to offer the Charging Party, Robert
W. Meacham, immediate and full reinstatement to his
former position, or if such position no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges. He will be made
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him by payment to
service assignments to individuals regularly employed as sheet metal
journeymen.
i0 Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association.
" Graphic Services Corporation, 224 NLRB 17(1976).
i2 Metromedia, Inc., 182 NLRB 202 (1970).
13 Inasmuch as Respondent's action in depriving the Charging Party of
work for the reason stated began with the latter's loss of work on March 18.
I find the discharge effective that day.
1283
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have
earned from the date of his discharge to the date he
receives the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, if any,
to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 286 (1950), with interest
thereon as required by Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977).14
It will be further recommended, in view of the unfair
labor practices in which Respondent has engaged (see
N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4,
1941)) that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from
infringing in any other manner upon the rights guaranteed
employees by Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Robert W. Meacham on March 18,
1977, and thereafter refusing to reinstate him, in each
instance because Meacham joined the Union, Respondent
has violated, and is violating, Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.
4. The above-mentioned unfair labor practices are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER '5
The Respondent, Orb, Inc., its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf
of, Sheet Metal Workers, Local 303, or any other labor
organization by discriminating in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment or any other term or condition of
employment of any of Respondent's employees in order to
discourage union membership or other concerted activities.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Robert W. Meacham immediate and full
reinstatement to his former position or, if such position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered as the result of his discharge in the manner set
forth in "The Remedy" section herein.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary or useful in complying with the terms of this
Order.
(c) Post at its place of business at Merrillville, Indiana,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."16
Copies of this notice on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by
Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days of the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
14 See, generally, Isis Plumbing A Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
t5 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 Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
16 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the chance to give
evidence, it has been decided that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act and we have been ordered to
post this notice.
The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as
employees, certain rights including the rights:
To self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representa-
tive of your own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, and
To refrain from any or all said activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge you or take any other
reprisal against you because you join, support, or
engage in activities in behalf of Sheet Metal Workers
Local 303 or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with any
of your rights set forth above.
WE WILL offer to reinstate Robert W. Meacham to
his former position, or if such position no longer exists,
1284
ORB, INC.
to a substantially equivalent position with full seniority
and all other rights and privileges as the Board has
found that he was discharged because of his union
activities.
1285
WE WILL make up all pay lost by Robert W.
Meacham as the result of his discharge plus interest.
ORB, INC.