Pioneer Astro Metallics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1965

156 N.L.R.B. 468 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer to Ronald King immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, and will make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
SIDLES COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-In the event the above-named employee is presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States we will notify him of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provi-
sions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1200 Rialto
Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, Telephone No. Baltimore
1-7000, Extension 731.
Pioneer Astro Metallics, Inc. and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 31-CA-46 and 31-CA-51. December 30,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 4, 1965, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued
his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
156 NLRB No. 54.
PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
469
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , 29 U.S .C. Sec. 151, et seq . On February 25, 1965, United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , filed a charge in Case No . 21-CA-
6509 against Pioneer Astro Metallics, Inc., the Respondent herein, alleging viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 5) of the Act. On March 8, 1965, the Union in
Case No. 21 -CA-6545 filed another charge against the Respondent , alleging viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. Upon such charges a complaint was
issued on May 4, 1965, and the Respondent filed an answer on May 14, 1965.
The complaint alleges a refusal to bargain in good faith based on a number of
enumerated grounds, and alleges that the Respondent discharged George Olson
because he joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other union activity or con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection . The complaint also contained a few allegations of independent violations
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In substance , the answer denies the commission of
the unfair labor practices and alleges that Olson was terminated for producing
excessive scrap that cost the Respondent several thousand dollars.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Los Angeles , California, on July 7 and 8,
1965, before Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway . At the close of the hearing
the parties waived oral argument but requested time within which to file briefs. A
date was fixed , and thereafter briefs were received from the General Counsel and
the Respondent.
From my observation of the witnesses , and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent at all times
material herein has been, and is , engaged at its place of business located in Haw-
thorne, California , in the manufacture of machining components and subassem-
blies, and, during its normal course of business , Respondent at its Hawthorne, Cali-
fornia, plant annually purchases and receives materials valued in excess of $50,000
directly from suppliers located outside the State of California . Respondent 's answer
admits and I find that at all times material herein the Respondent has been and is
engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that all Respondent 's production and maintenance employ-
ees employed at its Hawthorne , California , plant, including shipping and receiving
employees, truckdrivers , and warehousemen , excluding all office clerical employees,
professional employees , guards, watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act. The Respondent 's answer takes issue with
this allegation claiming that the unit should exclude shipping and receiving employ-
ees and working foremen. On October 7, 1964, Respondent executed a consent-
election agreement , in which the appropriate bargaining unit was defined as set
forth in the complaint . I find that the unit described in the complaint is appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.1
i No evidence was adduced by Respondent in support of its allegation that shipping and
receiving clerks or "working foremen" should be excluded from the unit.
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Union's majority in the appropriate unit
Following the execution of the aforementioned consent-election agreement, an
election was conducted by agents of the National Labor Relations Board on
October 28, 1964, and on November 5, 1964, the Regional Director certified the
Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respects to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment. I find that on and after
November 5, 1964, the Union was and still is the exclusive representative of the
employees in the aforesaid unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
3. History of bargaining
Following certification of the Union, Henry Rapuano, a staff representative of
the Union, on November 12, 1964, wrote a letter to Respondent expressing a desire
to negotiate an agreement and requesting information concerning the following
matters:
1. Name, seniority date, classification, and rate of pay for each production
and maintenance employee.
2. Number of paid holidays now in effect.
3. Amount of current social security program, if any, including the cost and
type of benefits.
4. Amount of vacation benefits now being given to the employees, if any.
5. Shift differentials, if any, and other benefits now in effect being given to
the employees by your Company.
The Respondent received this letter on November 13, 1964, but did not reply thereto.
Advised by the Union's bargaining committee that Albert Hinz, a labor relations
consultant, who represented the Respondent at the hearing, was in the plant the day
before the election, Rapuano, on or about November 20, 1964, telephoned Hinz
and asked him if he was working for the Respondent. Hinz said he was.2 Rapuano
told Hinz that he had sent a letter to Respondent requesting certain information.
Hinz asked if Rapuano had not yet received the information. Rapuano said that
he had not. Hinz said that he had told the Respondent to send the Union that
information and that he would call the Respondent and see if he could get the
Respondent to send the information. Still not having received the information by
November 26, 1964, Rapuano telephoned Hinz again and told him that the Union
had not yet received the information. Hinz said that he did not know whether or
not he was working for the Respondent, because the Respondent had not yet paid
him, but he would get in touch with Respondent and see if the information could
not be sent to Rapuano.
Rapuano next telephoned Hinz on December 7, 1964,3 and again told Hinz that
the Union had not received the requested information. Hinz said that he could not
understand this and that he would again get in touch with the Respondent to get
the information. Rapuano requested Hinz to set a date for a negotiating meeting
but Hinz replied that he could not do that until he had talked with the Respondent.
Hinz again gave Rapuano to understand that there was some doubt as to whether
or not Hinz was retained by the Respondent since they had not paid him. Rapuano
told Hinz that if the requested information was not received, he would have the
Union file charges with the Board. Hinz said that perhaps that would move the
Respondent.
Rapuano consulted with James Carbray, an International representative of the
Union, about filing a charge. Upon Carbray's advice, Rapuano, on December 9,
1965, wrote to the Respondent reminding it that the Union had not received the
'Hinz did not testify. Findings of the conversations between Rapuano and Hinz are
based on Rapuano's undenled testimony.
3 Rapuano Was obliged at times to refer to notes to refresh his recollection of dates
and sequence of events at times. Respondent attacks Rapuano's credibility because, on
cross-examination, Rapuano testified that he had made the notes which he used to refresh
his recollection only a week before the hearing. Rapuano was not asked and did not
testify that his notes had been made strictly from memory rather than from data supplied
by calendar notations or other records. In any event, he testified that his memory was
refreshed by the notes and he appeared to testify from memory after refreshing his
recollection. Rapuano's occasional reference to his notes does not, in my opinion, detract
from his credibility.
PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC. 471
requested information, repeating its request for the information, and requesting a
meeting to facilitate negotiations. No reply being received to this letter, Rapuano,
a week later, again telephoned Hinz, told him that the Union had not received the
requested information, and that Carbray would file charges against the Respondent.
The Union filed charges against the Respondent on December 21, 1964.4 Toward
the end of December 1964, Respondent compiled the information sought by the
Union. The exact date of delivery thereof to the Union is undisclosed. Among
other information set out in the one page of information delivered by the Respondent
was a list of employees as of December 29, 1964, so it is reasonable to infer that
delivery to the Union's office was made thereafter. This information was received
by Rapuano, personally, after the first of the year 1965.
Upon receipt of the foregoing information, Rapuano telephoned Hinz and acknowl-
edged receipt. Hinz asked Rapuano to withdraw the charge which had been filed.
Rapuano agreed to drop the charge if a meeting was held. Hinz said that the
Respondent was expecting the Respondent's owner (Keppen)5 from Chicago and
he could not set any meeting date earlier than January 19, 1965.
On that date, Hinz met with Rapuano, Business Agent Rubenstein, and the employ-
ees' negotiating committee, composed of George Olson (the alleged discriminatee
herein) and Duane Arlt. The union representatives produced a proposed contract
and spent several hours reading and explaining its proposed agreement section by
section. Hinz asked about wage rates which were not included in the Union's draft
agreement. Rapuano said that the Union was proposing the same rates as those at
another company (U.S. Beryllium). At Hinz's request, Rapuano furnished a copy
of these rates. Hinz may have asked a few other questions but did not take any
position on the Union's proposals. In fact Hinz said he had no authority to make
concessions or agree to the Union's proposal but he would take their proposals to
the Respondent who would make counterproposals or whatever it decided to do.
Hinz said he expected to see the Respondent's president the following week. Before
the meeting broke up, committee member Olson told Hinz that the employees were
also asking the reinstatement of Maurice Brown who had been terminated out of
seniority shortly after the Union had been certified and that Brown along with him-
self (Olson) had been the ones who had organized the Union. Hinz said he under-
stood that the man who had done the organizing had quit. Olson said that was not
true and the employees wanted Brown's reinstatement agreed to as part of the contract.
About 10 days later, on January 29, 1965, Rapuano telephoned Hinz, who told
Rapuano that he had met with President Keppen and with Plant Manager Earl
Adams, that Keppen had returned to Chicago (where Respondent or Keppen had
another plant) and would get counterproposals together and mail them out by the
following Tuesday, February 2, and that he should receive them by February 4.
Hinz promised to mail the counterproposals to Rapuano as soon as he, himself,
received them.
Having received no word from the Respondent, Rapuano, on Monday, Febru-
ary 15, 1965, sent the Respondent a letter by certified mail (with a copy to Hinz)
stating that the Union had been unable to obtain any information concerning a date
for a meeting to continue negotiations and that, if no reply was received by the
Union by Friday, February 19, 1965, the Union would file an unfair labor practice
charge. On February 18, 1965, Plant Manager Adams telephoned Rapuano and
said that he was then with Hinz and that they were preparing some counterproposals
to submit to the Union. Rapuano asked Adams when they could meet with him.
Adams consulted Hinz, and then told Rapuano that Hinz would meet with him
that day. Hinz confirmed this to Rapuano, according to the latter's credited testi-
mony, saying that he would come to Rapuano's office that afternoon. Rapuano
waited at his office until 5 p.m. that day, but Hinz did not arrive. Adams testified
that, within 3 days after the Union had presented its proposals, the Respondent had
met and had drawn up a counterproposal on wages, although he was not sure if
they were ever drawn up in their final form. Asked if he had directed anyone to
present these wage proposals to the Union, Adams answered, "Hinz." To the next
question, "You directed Mr. Hinz to present these wage proposals to the Union?"
Adams replied, "I don't direct Mr. Hinz. He's pretty much-he's hired and paid
by us to handle this problem." Adams also testified that on February 24 he had
been "on the telephone" with Carbray and had told Carbray that Hinz would be
up that afternoon with the proposal and that Hinz had told him (Adams) that he
4 Carbray dated his signing of the charge December 18, 1964 , a Friday.
s Rapuano used the word "owner." Keppen is president of the Respondent. The ex-
tent of his financial interest does not appear.
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had met with Carbray. There is no corroboration of this hearsay testimony as to a
meeting between Hinz and Carbray and I do not base any finding thereon. I con-
clude that Adams apparently was confused in his testimony and was thinking of
the telephone call he had made to Rapuano on February 18.
On the day after Adams' conversation with Rapuano, February 19, Rapuano
telephoned Hinz. Hinz told Rapuano that he would be meeting with the Respond-'
ent that afternoon, but he also told Rapuano that he had not yet been paid by the
Respondent and until he was paid he was not going to do any work for them.
Rapuano gave Hinz the telephone number of the place he expected to be and asked
Hinz to telephone him there after his meeting with the Respondent. Hinz did not,
however, call Rapuano.
A few days later, Rapuano again telephoned Hinz and again Hinz told Rapuano
that he was not going to do anything for the Respondent until he was paid. The
Union filed a charge of refusal to bargain on February 25, 1965.
On March 3 6 Rapuano met with some of the employees, and Rapuano told them
of the filing of the charge. The possibility of a strike was discussed but no decision
was then reached, the employees deciding to discuss it further among themselves
before reaching a decision.
On March 4 Manager Adams called Olson to his office to question him about the
possibility of a strike. This incident will be related in greater detail in a connection
with the account of Olson's discharge, hereinafter, but it is pertinent here to relate
that Adams, in his conversation with Olson, expressed animosity toward unions.
Among other things, Adams, at this time, told Olson that Hinz had drafted or was
drafting a counterproposal and that he wished Olson would so inform the employees
in order to forestall the talk of a strike.
Except for a call by Rapuano to Hinz on March 5, the day after Adams spoke
with Olson, in which Rapuano protested Adams' questioning of Olson and Adams'
antiunion expressions, no further contacts appear to have been made between the
Respondent and the Union thereafter until May 6, 1965, more than 21/2 months later.
During Rapuano's absence from town (attending a negotiating meeting with another
company in New York), Hinz telephoned another union representative and arranged
a meeting for May 6. At that meeting, Hinz delivered to that representative (Con-
way, subdistrict director of the Union) a "Company reply to Union Proposals."
This consisted of a 11/3-page list of proposed deletions, changes, or additions to the
Union's proposed contract. No reference was made therein to wages. Hinz, at this
meeting, apparently agreed to telephone Conway on May 12 but did not do so.?
Rapuano returned to Los Angeles from New York for a few days (May 13-17) and
while in Los Angeles, Rapuano, on May 17, 1965, wrote the following letter to Hinz:
I tried to reach you by phone Friday, May 14th, 1965, but was unsuccessful.
I left a message with your Secretary to have you call me at home ME 0-2917
Saturday, May 15, 1965, and received no phone call from you. I again called
your office on Monday, May 17th and your Secretary informed me that you
were not available.
You told Mr. Conway that you would call him on Wednesday, May 12th,
1965. Mr. Conway informed me that you did not call.
The Union's sole intent is to have the Company sit down and negotiate an
Agreement between Pioneer Astro Metallics and the Steelworkers Union The
employees at the plant do have the right under the Federal Law and expect the
Union and the Company to sign a labor Agreement on their behalf
Please contact Miss Newland at this office so arrangements can be made for
a meeting as soon as possible.
A copy of this letter was sent to Manager Adams. Rapuano testified that he daily
telephoned Newland from New York while he was there to learn if the Respondent
had made any effort to reach him. He was informed that it had not. After his
d Rapuano gave the date as the day after the filing of the charge. Olson gave the
date of the meeting as March 3. Olson's memory of this date appeared clearer than
Rapuano's.
Conway went to the hospital with a heart attack about May 16. Although at home
by the time of the hearing, he was not in condition to return to work and he was not
called to testify. He reported to Rapuano his meeting with Hinz and the promised tele-
phone call when Rapuano returned to Los Angeles for a few days between May 13 and 17.
Although Conway's report to Rapuano was hearsay, it is consistent with the history of
Hinz' prior failure to communicate as promised. As stated before, Hinz, himself, did
not testify.
PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC. 473
return to Los Angeles, Rapuano wrote another letter to Hinz (with a copy to
Adams ) on June 3, 1965, stating that he had received no reply to his letter of May 17
and again requesting a date for continuing negotiations . Rapuano received no reply.
4. Concluding findings
The sum of the evidence discloses that the Respondent ignored or avoided con-
tact with the Union for the better part of the 6 or 7 months in which the Union
sought to negotiate with the Respondent . In that time , the Union made at least 8
or 10 telephone calls and wrote 5 letters in an effort to set the negotiating machin-
ery in motion . The Respondent wrote no letters in reply and failed to respond
even verbally to most of them . Before May 6, 1965, the only times when the
Respondent took any initiative at all to communicate with the Union was when it
was threatened with unfair labor practice charges.
The information sought by the Union in its first letter was not furnished until a
week or more after a charge was filed in the latter part of December 1964. When
the information was finally furnished , it was delivered with no covering letter. The
evidence does not even disclose whether or not it arrived by mail. It is notable that
the Respondent consistently abstained from the use of the mail to make written
replies to the Union . Although the information which the Union requested in its
letter of November 12, 1964, appears to be of a sort that could readily have been
produced or reproduced-most of it from a personnel record, or perhaps records, in
existence-the Respondent offered no explanation for the delay of more than 6 weeks
until after a charge was filed with the Board before supplying the requested
information.
The Respondent finally agreed to a negotiating meeting to be held on January 19,
1965, but only after requesting a withdrawal of the aforesaid charge and after the
Union agreed to withdraw the charge on condition that there be a meeting.
The only time before May 6, 1965, that the Respondent took the initiative to
make a telephone call was on February 18, 1965, after the Union had written the
Respondent threatening to file another charge if no reply was given by February 19.
In the February 18 call , Adams promised a counterproposal and an immediate
meeting with Hinz, a promise which was not kept.
The history of the Respondent 's counterproposals also is one of delay and broken
promises . Hinz had first indicated on January 29, 1965, that Keppen was going to
secure wage rates and prepare counterproposals and that President Keppen would mail
them from Chicago by February 2 so that they would be received by Hinz by
February 4. Hinz promised to forward them to the Union as soon as he had received
them. This promise was not kept , presumably because no counterproposals were
prepared . The next mention of counterproposals was in Adams ' telephone call to
Rapuano on February 18, 1965. In this conversation no mention was made of
counterproposals prepared by President Keppen . Adams claimed that he and Hinz
were at that time preparing them. On March 4, 1965, Adams told Olson that the
counterproposals were being prepared by Hinz. But counterproposals were not
actually given until May 6, months later. No explanation was given for the lengthy
delay.8 After the Respondent finally did present counterproposals at a meeting
between Hinz and Conway on May 6, 1965 , the Respondent failed thereafter to
communicate with the Union or to respond to Rapuano 's telephone calls or letters
requesting negotiating meetings.
A conclusion is warranted on all the evidence , and I find that the Respondent,
after undue delay, furnished the information requested by the Union in its letter of
November 12, 1964, and eventually presented counterproposals only "for the record"
and not with any genuine intent to negotiate an agreement . The Respondent at no
time displayed a genuine inclination to negotiate an agreement . On the contrary, it
gave every appearance of resorting to evasive and stalling tactics with a fixed inten-
tion of avoiding an agreement.
Part and parcel of this picture was the lack of any authority vested in Hinz to
negotiate a contract . The Respondent 's position appears to be that, because a nego-
tiated agreement reached with union representatives would be subject to ratification
by the union membership so, too, it would not be essential that Hinz have final
authority to consummate an agreement . This argument is based on an assumed
premise that Hinz had authority to negotiate an agreement which would be subject
8It is noted , however , that the counterproposals were presented on the day after the
Respondent and Hinz had received service of a copy of the complaint and notice of
hearing.
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to ratification by the Respondent. The evidence does not bear this out. Hinz
acknowledged at the January 19, 1965, meeting that he could not make any con-
cessions but could only present the Union's proposals to the Company. The evi-
dence indicates that Hinz could not even set a meeting date without first consulting
with the Respondent. When, in January 1965, Rapuano asked Hinz to set a date
for a meeting, Hinz said he could not do this until he had consulted with the
Respondent. As herein related, Adams testified that he did not "direct" Hinz to
deliver counterproposals because Hinz was hired to "handle this matter" for the
Respondent. This hardly jibes with what Hinz was telling Rapuano and the Union's
bargaining committee. On the other hand, it is insufficient to prove that Hinz was
authorized to negotiate an agreement.
It is not necessary here to define the degree of authority that should be vested in
a negotiating representative; it suffices to point out that an employer's good faith is
put in serious doubt where the authority granted to his bargaining agent is no more
than one to convey proposals of the Union to the Respondent and proposals of the
Respondent to the Union, especailly where, as here, all letters from the Union
requesting bargaining dates are ignored and where the employer, when pressed for
a meeting, makes unkept promises.9 Failure of an employer to give his designated
bargaining agent authority to negotiate even a tentative agreement tends to impede
the bargaining process, and, when such authority is withheld, it suggests a design to
delay and to frustrate attempts of a union to reach an agreement. This I find was
the case here, and I find, under all the circumstances, that the withholding of author-
ity from Hinz to negotiate an agreement is an indication of bad-faith bargaining on
the part of the Respondent.
Also demonstrating the Respondent's bad faith is Respondent's apparent intent
not to take any initiative or responsibility for carrying on negotiations. Rapuano
testified that in every telephone conversation he had with Hinz, the latter had prom-
ised to call him but never had. Even after having given counterproposals, the
Respondent failed to respond to a single request of the Union thereafter for a nego-
tiating meeting. Considenng all the evidence in this case in conjunction with the
Respondent's antipathy for unions, as expressed by Adams, I conclude and find that
Respondent had a fixed determination from the outset not to perform its statutory
duty to bargain in good faith with the certified representative of its employees 10
By failing and totally evading its statutory duty to bargain with the Union, the
Respondent has not only refused to bargain within the meaning of the Act but has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise -of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. Discrimination
1. Olson's employment and union activity
George Olson was hired by the Respondent as a jig borer on May 25, 1964,11 at
a rate of $3.30 an hour, later being raised to $3.40. Employees were given grades of
A, B, C, along with their job title, with wage rates highest in the A grade. Olson
was graded A Sometime in mid- or late February 1965, in a conversation between
Olson and Superintendent Kinane, the latter remarked, according to Olson, that he
had no complaints about Olson's work. I observed that Kinane attended the hear-
ing, but he was not called as a witness to refute Olson's testimony. -
Olson was one of the principal organizers of the Union at Respondent's plant and
was an observer for the Union in the election that was held on October 28, 1964.
Thereafter he was one of the members of the Union's negotiating committee. Every
time Rapuano wrote a letter to the Respondent, prior to Olson's discharge, the letter
showed on its face that a copy was sent to Olson. In the previous subsection hereof,
I have related Olson's statement to Hinz at the only negotiating meeting held during
Olson's employ, the one that was held on January 19, 1965. At that time, Olson
voiced a demand for reinstatement of Maurice Brown, the inspector who was alleged
to have been an organizer for the Union and who was terminated by the Respondent
soon after the Union's certification by the Board, allegedly out of seniority.
9 N.L R.B. v. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO (Fitzgerald Mills Corpora-
tion), 313 F. 2d 260 (C.A. 2).
'O Han-Dee Spring & Mfg. Co, Inc, 132 NLRB 1542; Bewley Mills, 111 NLRB 830.
"In the list of employees and dates of employment furnished by Respondent to the
Union, it appears that of 24 employees in the appropriate unit on December 29, 1964, all
but 5 had been hired during the year 1964. The plant was relatively new
PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC. 475
It will be remembered that, in February 1965, the Union threatened to file another
refusal-to-bargain charge with the Board if the Union did not hear from the Respond-
ent before February 19 regarding a meeting, that, although the Respondent tele-
phoned the Union on February 18 (the day before the deadline) and agreed to a
meeting by its representative, Hinz, with the Union on the afternoon of the same day,
Hinz failed to appear for the agreed meeting, that the Union on February 25 filed
a charge of refusal to bargain, notice whereof was received by the Respondent on
March 1,12 and that on March 3 the employees were notified of the filing of the
charge and began to discuss whether or not they should strike. The Respondent
became aware of the talk about a strike and, on March 4, 1965, Manager Adams
summoned Olson into his office. Adams testified that he selected Olson because
Olson was the Union's representative in the plant. Superintendent Kinane was also
present when Olson came to Adams' office. Adams asked Olson what the trouble was
in the plant. Olson said he knew of no trouble. Adams said he heard there was talk
of a strike and asked if there was going to be one. Olson said he would know of it
if there were going to be one but that none was scheduled for the shop then or in the
near future. After Kinane had been reassured that there was not going to be a strike,
he left the room. Adams then asked Olson why he though he needed someone else
to do his bargaining for him, that he ought to be intelligent enough to do his own.
Adams said that he did not see why the employees or Olson needed anyone to do
this sort of thing for him. According to Olson's testimony, Adams said that he did
not think anything (meaning, I infer, "well") of unions, that they did not want any-
thing but the employees' money, and he testified that Adams had called them "crooks
and bums and thieves . . . a bunch of dirty b- and no good s-o-b's." Adams
denied using the above-quoted words but testified that he believed he had called them
"grafters or leeches or something of that nature." The conflict in testimony as to the
epithets is relatively unimportant. By either account, Adams' epithets were deroga-
tory. Olson disagreed with Adams' low evaluation of unions saying that he thought
unions had done a lot of good. According to Olson's account, Adams said that
unions were a good thing 30 years ago but that "now-a-days" they were all corrupt,
that there was nothing good about them, that he thought they were outdated and
should not be around any more. Adams, himself, testified that he told Olson that as
far as he was concerned the Union was just after dues and that unions were of no
value in doing the employees of Olson's standing any good. But he testified that
he also told Olson that the Union was an advantage to the employee and employer at
some places, naming Mattel Toy Company, Harvey Aluminum, and a couple of other
(unnamed) companies, and he testified that he told Olson of an experience he had
had of losing wages because of a strike. Although neither Olson nor Adams men-
tioned it in their testimony, Adams, in his affidavit to the Board, stated that he had
asked Olson the reason for the unrest in the plant and that Olson had said "it did
not look like" the Respondent was trying to negotiate a contract with the Union. If
this had, in fact, been said, that would explain Olson's testimony that Adams told him
that he (Adams) and Hinz were drafting some kind of counterproposal to be submit-
ted to the Union and that he wished Olson, at breaktime or lunchtime would tell the
men so that this talk that was going on in the plant would stop. Olson agreed to do so.
On the following morning, March 5, as previously related, Rapuano telephoned
Hinz to complain of Adams' questioning of Olson and of Adams' vilification of the
Union. That evening, between 4 and 5 p.m., Foreman Koudela called Olson away
from his machine, according to Olson (Koudela did not testify), and said, "George, I
am going to have to lay you off." Olson asked, "What do you mean, lay me off?"
Olson asked if that meant he was terminated. Koudela replied, "I don't know.
That's what they told me." Olson asked Koudela if he did not think he should find
out. Koudela said he would, and returned in 10 minutes and told Olson that he was
being terminated.13
2. Conclusions
a. Respondent's explanation of Olson's discharge
The Respondent justified Olson's discharge on the alleged ground that Olson had
made an excessive amount of scrap. As proof of this, Respondent did not offer
'a Notice of the filing of the charge was sent on Friday, February 26; March 1 was
a Monday.
13 Olson testified that at this time Iioudela gave him another paycheck, but be had
not mentioned an earlier one in his testimony.
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the testimony of Olson's foreman, Koudela, or of his superintendent, Kinane, or of
any inspector from Respondent's quality control department; it relied on the testimony
of Plant Manager Adams and some "discrepant material reports."
At the hearing, Adams testified that the decision to discharge Olson was made by
the Respondent's president, Keppen, the day of, or the day before, Olson's discharge,
after Adams had had a meeting with President Keppen. Because Adams had, on
March 30, 1965, executed an affidavit in which he attested to the circumstances of
Olson's discharge, because that affidavit was made within a month after Olson's dis-
charge, and because it was to some extent at variance with his testimony or the
implications of his testimony given at the hearing, I will contrast these accounts of
Olson's discharge and the reasons therefor where there is a disparity. In his affi-
davit,14 Adams stated that Keppen made the decision to discharge Olson on March 5
(the day of Olson's discharge), that on the morning of March 5 Adams had received
a telephone call from Litton ( meaning Litton Industries, a customer), that he had
spoken with Chuck Palistrine of that company who informed Adams that he was
"rejecting more parts, more housing sets," that Palistrine sent back three of them,
that the holes were bored off location and oversized, that this was the operation that
Olson performed,'5 that there was no discrepant material report on these three parts,
that the only checking done on these parts is by the machine operator, that the three
parts rejected were worth $940 apiece,'6 that Respondent was not yet sure they were
scrapped, that Respondent's "cost on them was $1500 apiece" (this was unexplained),
and that Respondent was trying to salvage them. At the hearing, on direct testimony
under examination by Respondent's representative, Adams did not allude to the hous-
ing sets allegedly rejected by Litton on March 5. I conclude that the reason he did
not do so is because he was unable to establish that Olson was connected with the
three parts allegedly mentioned by Palistrine, if, indeed, such parts were mentioned
at that time at all. The evidence as a whole leads me to believe that Adams had a
tendency to assert as fact things about which he had only an impression from having
heard or read something of the facts he was testifying to.
Adams gave testimony in respect to five discrepant material reports that bore
Olson's name as the operator who worked on the parts described. Contrary to the
statement in his affidavit that "the only checking done on these parts is by the machine'
operator," Adams testified that it is mandatory under the quality control manual "set
up and approved by all major subcontractors and NASA ... and other Government
agencies" to make discrepant material reports, that a discrepant part (because of the
flow time through the shop) might not be discovered until that particular part gets
into final inspection, even though there was a line inspection. From this and other
evidence, it is apparent that a part is inspected not merely by the machine operator
but by line inspectors and by a final inspection before the part is submitted to the
customer . It is understandable, therefore, why Adams did not, in his direct testi-
mony, follow the explanation given in his affidavit. There should have been discrepant
material reports for any defective parts submitted to Litton. Furthermore, the only
discrepant material reports showing submission to Litton related to one part, not
three, as alleged in Adams' affidavit. There are in evidence discrepant material
reports which show that, despite the discrepancy described therein, the imperfect
part is, in some instances, submitted to the customer to determine if it can be used or
salvaged. The fact that a discrepant material report is made does not, therefore, mean
that scrap has necessarily resulted. It means only that an imperfection exists which
may or may not result in scrap.
In an attempt to prove that Olson made excessive scrap, the Respondent relied, at
the hearing on five discrepant material reports bearing Olson's name along with
Adams' unsupported testimony that Olson made excessive scrap. The unsupported
general testimony by Adams that Olson made excessive scrap does not persuade me
of the truth thereof. As previously stated, I find that Adams tended to make state-
ments of fact which were based on insufficient knowledge, but this testimony borders
on the reckless. Since the Respondent would be bound to have reports of discrepant
material worked on by Olson, the Respondent would not have had to rely upon such
a generality. I assume, therefore, that the Respondent preferred to let its case rest
mainly upon a generality for lack of other proof. In any event, because I do not
11 The affidavit is a Respondent 's exhibit.
ss It will be noticed that the "operation that Olson performed" is not the same as
saying that the mislocated holes and other work on the rejected parts were , in fact, the
work of Olson.
18According to Adams' testimony it was $950 and this would represent the selling
price rather than the cost of materials.
PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC. 477
credit all of Adams' testimony, particularly that portion which attempted to explain
the circumstances of bargaining and the cause of Olson's discharge, I would be reluc-
tant to credit his general statement of excessive scrap unsupported by more cogent
evidence. In this respect, I note not only the absence of documentary evidence of
an excessive amount but also the absence of testimony of those persons who would
most likely be familiar with Olson's work-inspectors, the foreman, or even the plant
superintendent. I would not expect the plant manager to have first-hand knowledge of
the day-to-day work of any employee. He would learn of such employee's work
through records or reports of supervisor or inspectors.
Looking at the discrepant material reports in evidence bearing Olson's name as the
operator, we find that Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, dated January 15, 1965, does not
show scrap. It does show that 1 hole (of about 80 bored in the piece involved) was
about 5/10,000ths over the tolerance permitted (it was .7508 instead of a high limit
of .7503). On this discrepant material report, on the line explaining "disposition,"
is noted, "Submit to Litton." Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, dated January 27, 1965,
apparently refers to the same part, which had been worked on at a later date. It
refers to a different discrepancy but is also shown as "submitted to Litton for salvage."
Olson testified that he had never been shown either discrepant material report before
and that neither one bore his signature, although, contrary to Adams, he testified that
it was not customary for the operator to sign or be shown the reports. He was
unable to identify the work done as his. The evidence does not disclose who wrote
Olson's name on the slips as the operator. The slips bore the name of Schaefer as
inspector and of John Koudela, the foreman. Neither was called as a witness.17 On
the discrepant material report form is a line for describing "operation causing scrap,"
which, I deduce, could better have been worded "operation causing discrepancy"
because the evidence indicates that some discrepant material is reworked or salvaged.
The operator last working on salvage would not necessarily have been the one who
caused the original discrepancy described in a discrepant material report. He could
have been assigned the job of correcting someone else's error, as Olson sometimes
was. The kind of part shown on both Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 was
housing assembly-not that which Olson customarily performed on the main operation
at that time. Olson did testify that probably the work shown on the second exhibit
was his because the discrepancy shown was like one he remembered, but he testified
that the part he was referring to was still on a machine being worked on on the very
day that he was discharged and was, therefore, not scrap. I find that Respondent's
Exhibits Nos. I and 2 fail to prove that Olson was responsible for the original dis-
crepancy shown therein. In any event, however, they do not on their face show
scrap; they show that the part was submitted to the buyer, and they do not show that
the buyer rejected them, as was the case disclosed by another of the discrepant mate-
rial reports in evidence, as described below.
On cross-examination, Adams testified that the three parts mentioned in his affidavit
as the one Palistrine told him were being rejected-all housing sets-may or may not
have included the part shown on Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2. But those
exhibits are the only discrepant material reports produced with Olson's name on
them which show discrepancies on housing assemblies. The other three exhibits
introduced by Respondent, all dated in October 1964, were for headplates rather
than for housing sets. Adams' affidavit contains no reference to headplates. There
is a statement in Adams' affidavit that the "two jobs that Olson scrapped in Jan-
uary, 1965, were in addition" to the three parts mentioned above. The two jobs
scrapped in January are not identified. If, in his affidavit, Adams meant to refer to
the part shown on Respondent's Exhibits Nos. I and 2, he was misrepresenting that
as scrap.
The remaining three discrepant material reports bearing Olson's name as operator,
Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 3, 4, and 6, are all dated October 29, 1964,16 the day after
the union election, at which Olson was an observer for the Union. Olson testified
that, at that time, Chief Inspector Joe Schaefer was making a log of a particular
job and asked Olson to verify the discrepant material reports bearing his name. He
did so as to Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 was
not produced by Respondent until Adams was on the stand for the Respondent.
17 Schaefer had left the Respondent 's employ several months before the hearing, but
It was not shown that he was unavailable as a witness. Koudela was still employed.
"Unlike other discrepant material reports in evidence, which are all handwritten, both
the dates and other customary entries on these three exhibits are typewritten.
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Olson was not questioned about it. This exhibit shows the same part number and
job number as appears on Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, but it shows a different serial
number. The significance of the serial number was not explained. Except for the
serial number, the part and the fault appear to be the same.
Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, in addition to the typed entries, bears the handwritten
notation, "Defective drill. Tried to salvage on concentricity." Olson testified on
cross-examination that he had not done the original work and had merely tried to
correct the fault after someone else had used a defective drill and it had been found
unacceptable. This exhibit shows that the part was submitted to the buyer but that
the latter would not accept it It then became scrap, presumably.
Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, in the space for the name of the operator, shows "Olson
& Paul." The reason given for the making of scrap on exhibit 4 was "Hole drilled
off location 10 Degrees. Location mis-read by operator and inspector." Olson iden-
tified Paul as Paul Boucher, an inspector who was charged with the responsibility of
standing at Olson's machine on that job to check 'the accuracy of Olson's set up and
work. Olson concededly made scrap in this instance. Olson testified that, in setting
up his job, he had misread a dial on the rotary table as to the location of one of the
holes, that the inspector had checked his setup and had then told him to proceed.
Since the hole was 10 degrees off location, the part was not salvageable. Olson testi-
fied that the making of scrap was characteristic of this lob according to Inspector
Brown, and he testified that inspectors and other employees had told him that he made
less scrap on the job than most other employees.
Although not specifically gone into on Adams' direct examination, the circum-
stances related in Adams' affidavit concerning President Keppen's decision on
March 5, 1965,19 to discharge Olson were inquired into on cross-examination, and
Adams, at this time, sought to tie to Olson a quantity of scrap unidentified by any
discrepant material reports. As related by Adams at the hearing, the story is that 2 or
3 days before Olson's discharge Adams and Piesident Keppen had gone through the
plant and found "an excessive number of pacts in the quality control bond [boardf]
room, which, so far as I [Adams] was concerned, was in hiding " Adams testified that
he and Keppen took these to Keppen's office and went through each individual part
to see if it was actually a scrap part or a part that could be salvaged and that they
found none that could be salvaged. A picture of the Respondent's president and
plant manager going through such parts, piece by piece, presumably measuring each
of numerous dimensions-a job more readily and effectively peiformable by quality
control inspectors-stretches credulity. According to serial numbers, Adams testified,
these parts ran back to 90 or 120 days. No discrepant material reports existed for
these, but in all parts, according to Adams, the defect was in the positioning of the jig
bore Adams never did give a direct answer to how he could determine who had done
the jig bore work on such parts. However, he testified that Keppen had asked him
who was running rear headplates and that he had told Keppen that "George [Olson]
is running this." Adams testified that he was not sure if there were another man on
rear headplates within the past 120 days of that time (March 4 or 5). For reasons
hereinafter stated I find such testimony incredible In this pile of scrap, according
to Adams, there were three front headplates and 15 or 16 iear headplates. Olson
worked principally on rear headplates. Adams testified that Schaefer, the head
inspector, was the man who should have make up discrepant material reports on these
parts but that he did not talk to Schaefer about it, although he "was sure" Keppen had,
because "I think everyone of us was confronted [by Keppen] at one time or another
through the week." Schaefer had left Respondent's employ somewhere around
February 15, 1965,20 and was not there within the period when Keppen allegedly
found the scrap, 2 or 3 days before Olson's discharge.
From all the foregoing, I conclude, Adams was attempting to make it appear that
Keppen ordered Olson's discharge because Adams had told Keppen that Olson was
responsible for the unidentified scrap. This testimony would portray Adams as a man
who would jump up to a conclusion on insufficient evidence. Yet when Adams was
later confronted with a discrepant material report on a rear head plate such as Olson
19In his testimony Adams modified this to say that Keppen ' s decision was made on
either March 4 or 5.
20 The February 15 date was based on Olson 's recollection Respondent 's representa-
tive offered a stipulation after he had asked Superintendent Kinane to telephone and get
the date and that Schaefer last worked on March 1, 1965 The General Counsel rejected
the offered stipulation. Respondent was offered time in which to prove the records but
chose to close without doing so.
PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC. 479
might have worked on but which did not show any operator's name, and when Adams
was asked if the inspector could not have assumed that Olson had done the work
shown, Adams replied: "I prefer that my people don't assume. I'd rather they left
it blank than to error." Adams conceded that someone besides Olson could have
made the mistake shown on that discrepant material report. Adams' original effort
to attribute all mislocated jig bore holes on read headplates to Olson alone was quali-
fied later. Some of the later testimony even belied Adams' earlier testimony that he
knew of no one but Olson who had worked on rear headplates. Adams admitted that
during November and December 1964, there had been a night shift on which certain
operators could have worked on rear headplates and he testified that Respondent never
got an acceptable part from the night shift and that the night shift had scrapped an
estimated five rear headplates. In this connection, these five rear headplates could
have been among those unidentified plates that Adams testified he and Keppen found
a few days before Olson was discharged.
As previously stated, Adams at one point testified that only Olson did jig bore work
on rear headplates so far as he knew. He testified that if anyone else worked on the
jig bore on rear headplates it was contrary to his instructions. The General Counsel
showed Adams a discrepant material report dated March 4, 1965, showing scrap
made as a result of mislocations of holes on the jig bore on a headplate, rear, by
Gordon Ellis, another jig bore operator (who usually did work on headplates, front).
Adams testified that Ellis' work on rear headplates was contrary to his orders, but
then testified that, "whether you could call it contrary or not" Superintendent Kinane
and Foreman Koudela "run the shop how and as they see fit .... If Mr. Ellis did
not have a front head plate to work on, I didn't want him to sit there and smoke a
cigarette." At one point Adams testified that discrepant material reports are made
out in triplicate and that he receives a copy of them each day they are made. He
could not estimate the total number that had been made, but Adams testified that
issuance of discrepant material reports was not an unusual occurrence, that Respond-
ent might go 3 or 4 days without one and then get five or six of them. I judge that
they are a weekly, if not daily, occurrence and that five or six a week would not be
unusual. But I also find that, from seeing these reports, Adams was charged with
knowledge that jig bore operators other than Olson had made scrap on rear headplates.
Although each of the discrepant material reports in evidence showing Olson's work
on read headplates was dated October 29, 1964, there is no evidence to show when
the discrepant material had been worked on by Olson. Since they were all type-
written and were all dated the same, I judge that they were all made on October 29,
1964, a date which could have been later than the date on which the work was done.
I also infer that these three reports were something made up specially, because all
other discrepant material reports in evidence or examined during the hearing were
made out by hand. I conclude that the reports dated October 29, 1964, could, so far
as the evidence shows, have covered work done at any time between May 25 and
October 29, 1964.
Olson, himself, testified that he believed he had made less scrap than others in the
shop. Although this belief was based on what he would hear around the shop and
was therefore not acceptable proof that he did make proportionately little scrap, there
are other known facts which tend to support his belief. Adams testified that anyone
who made too much scrap would not be around long. In his affidavit, Adams made
the statement that every time a part was scrapped "the operator is given a little pep
talk .... We try to impress upon him the value of the part." He also related in his
affidavit that three jig bore operators were discharged in late 1964 or in 1965 for
producing scrap on the jig bores. These were men named Southworth, Ransom, and
Landers. Southworth was not listed as employed as of December 29, 1964, on the
sheet of information furnished by the Respondent to the Union in January 1965.
Presumably he was discharged before that time. Ransom and Landers had both
been hired in October 1964. I infer from Adams' testimony that, at least as to
Ransom and Landers, they were not around too long, about 3 months at most. In con-
trast, Olson had been in Respondent's employ for more than 9 months. It would
appear that if Olson had made excessive amounts of scrap he would not have been
kept on for 9 months. He was obviously not discharged in October 1964, when the
Respondent, on the day after the union election, prepared three discrepant material
reports of scrap produced by Olson. If Olson were, in fact, so poor as to make
excessive scrap, October would appear to have been the time to discharge him.
Actually, the Respondent had no record of any scrap produced by Olson after
October 1964. The two discrepant material reports issued in January 1965, even if
480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
taken to be evidence of mistakes made by Olson (an unwarranted assumption in view
of the fact that Olson had more than once been called on to try to salvage a part on
which some one else had made a mistake) and that that could have been the case on
the part shown by these two exhibits), those reports are not proof that Olson made
scrap. At most, they would show a mistake which might be corrected. So not only
did Respondent fail to show any scrap made by Olson after October 1964, but the evi-
dence indicates that the Respondent considered Olson's work satisfactory, for in
February 1965, according to Olson's undenied testimony, Superintendent Kinane had
told Olson that he had no complaints on Olson's work.
On all the evidence, I reject the Respondent's asserted grounds for Olson's dis-
charge. Olson had for some time been known to Manager Adams as a prominent
union man-in fact he called Olson the Union's representative in the plant because
Olson had been the Union's observer at the Board-conducted election on October 28,
1964. Because he believed Olson to be the Union's representative in the plant, Adams,
on March 4, 1965, had sent for Olson when it was reported that employees were
talking about a strike and, after getting assurance that a strike was not imminent,
Adams had sought to convince Olsen that the employees did not need a union and
would be better off without one. Despite Adams' epithets and expression of low
opinion of the Union, Olson showed that he remained of the same mind-that the
Union would be of benefit. Considering the Respondent's dislike for unions, its
stalling bargaining tactics, the fact that the Union had just recently filed an unfair
labor practice charge of refusal to bargain, the timing of Olson's discharge on the day
after Adams had spoken to him about the Union, upon grounds that do not hold up,
and the fact that Olson was discharged on the same day that Rapuano had telephoned
Hinz to protest Adams' questioning of Olson and his vilification of the Union, I find
the evidence as a whole convincing, and so find, that Respondent discharged Olson,
not for producing excessive scrap, but because of his predilection for the Union and
his activities in and on behalf of the Union, thereby discriminating in regard to Olson's
hire and tenure of employment in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. I also find
that Adams' questioning of Olson about why he needed someone else to bargain with
him constituted interference with, restraint, and coercion of employees in their
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All Respondent's production and maintenance employees employed at its
Hawthorne, California, plant, including shipping and receiving employees, truck-
drivers, and warehousemen, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times on and after November 5, 1965, the date of the Board's certification
of the Union, the Union has been and still is the exclusive representative of all
employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union as hereinabove
found and by completely failing and refusing to bargain with the Union on and after
May 17, 1965, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
6. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of George
Olson, by discharging him on March 5, 1965, and by thereafter failing and refusing to
reinstate him, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
7. By interrogating an employee concerning his reasons for desiring union repre-
sentation as well as by the conduct described in paragraph 5 and 6, Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC. 481
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Pioneer Astro Metallics, Inc.,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or
in any other labor organization of Respondent's employees, by discharging or other-
wise discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment of any of its employees.
(b) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the unit
hereinbefore found appropriate.
(c) Interrogating its employees concerning their reasons for desiring union
representation.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza-
tions, including the Union herein, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities, except as provided in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of its employees in the appropriate unit herein found and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Offer to George Olson immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss he may have suffered by paying an
amount equal to that which he would have earned, in Respondent's employ, absent
the discrimination, between March 5, 1965, the date of his discharge, and the date of
the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings elsewhere during said period, the net
amount to be computed on a quarterly basis in accordance with the Board's customary
practice.21 Interest on said sum shall be paid at the rate of 6 percent per annum in
accordance with the principle established in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716.
(c) Notify said Olson if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States
of his right to full reinstatement, upon application, in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after
his discharge from the Armed Forces.
(d) 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 records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(e) Post at its Hawthorne, California, plant, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 22 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 31, shall, after having been duly signed by Respondent's representative, be
posted by Respondent 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. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to assure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
ri F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
'e In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United Stites
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Deci