QIC Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 63 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

QIC CORPORATION
QIC Corporation and Teamsters Union Local No. 7,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case
7-CA-10370
June 27, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY
AND PENELLO
On September 26, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Robert E. Mullin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Gen-
eral Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
The Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions, cross-ex-
ceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the
rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administra-
tive Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Or-
der,2 as modified herein.
The Respondent excepts to the Administrative Law
Judge's finding that it violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by maintaining a rule which prohibited solicita-
tion "during working time." In the absence of any
evidence that the rule was adopted for a discriminato-
ry purpose, or that it was discriminatorily enforced, or
that it was communicated or applied in such a way as
to inhibit solicitation during an employee's free time
during the workday, such a rule would not be unlaw-
ful.' Since no such evidence was adduced here, we
find that the no-solicitation rule did not violate Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act and will modify the recom-
mended Order accordingly.4
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified
below and hereby orders that Respondent , QIC Cor-
poration,, Stevensville , Michigan , its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order , as so modified.
1. Delete paragraph 1(c) and reletter the remaining
paragraph.
2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(b) and relet-
63
ter the remaining paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Make whole Dorothy Aldrich and Janet Cul-
breath for any loss they may have suffered between
the date of their discriminatory discharge and the date
of the misconduct which bars their reinstatement.
Backpay for the foregoing employees otherwise shall
be computed in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
1 In adopting the Administrative Law Judge 's conclusion that Respondent
discharged Robinson for engaging in protected concerted activity , we do not
rely on his finding that Garland testified he could not recall, but did not deny,
a conversation with Robinson on April 13, 1973, in which he acceded to her
request to withdraw her resignation previously submitted . We also note that
the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding that criminal charges were
filed by the "Company" against the strikers; they were filed by nonstrikers.
2 The-General Counsel excepts to the Administrative Law Judge 's failure
to recommend that employees Dorothy Aldrich and Janet Culbreath be
awarded backpay at least from the date of their unlawful discharge until the
date of their subsequent misconduct . While we agree with the Administrative
Law Judge that Aldrich and Culbreath engaged in misconduct which pre-
cludes their reinstatement , we find merit in the General Counsel's exception
that those two employees are entitled to backpay from the date of their
discharge until the date of such disqualifying misconduct. See Pepsi Cola
Bottling Company of Lumberton, Inc., 203 NLRB No 37. We will modify the
recommended Order accordingly
3 Essex International, Inc, 211 NLRB No. 112. If a rule prohibiting solici-
tation "during working time" is applied in such a way as to inhibit solicitation
during an employee's nonworking time, Member Penello would find unlaw-
ful the application of the rule , but not the rule itself.
a In reaching his finding , the Administrative Law Judge relied in part on
The Ohio Masonic Home, 205 NLRB No. 65. Chairman Miller and Member
Penello distinguish the instant case from The Ohio Masonic Home on the
grounds that the rule in the latter case was an oral prohibition of solicitation
and distribution "on company time" as well as "on working time."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Team-
sters Union Local No. 7, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, or any other union, by
discharging or otherwise discriminating against
our employees because of their union or concert-
ed activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively, or otherwise unlawful-
ly, interrogate our employees as to their union
activities.
WE WILL offer Marilyn Robinson, Alma Allen,
Sandra Christopher, Cathy Cloinger, and Wilda
Swope immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without preju-
212 NLRB No. 9
64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make them and Dorothy Aldrich and
Janet Culbreath whole for any loss of pay suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination against
them.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist the above-named Union, or any other
labor organization, - to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
QIC CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington
Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-
226-3200.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E. MULLIN. Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard on August 14 and 15, 1973 , in St . Joseph, Michi-
gan, pursuant to charges duly filed and served,' and a com-
plaint issued on June 18, 1973. The complaint presents
questions as to whether the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent conced-
ed certain facts with respect to its business operations, but
it denied all allegations that it had committed any unfair
labor practices.
At the trial, the General Counsel and the Respondent
were represented by counsel. All parties were given full
opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
file briefs. At the conclusion of the trial, oral argument was
had by counsel for the General Counsel and the Respond-
ent. The Respondent also submitted a brief. Upon the entire
1 The original charge was filed on May 10 , 1973 An amended charge was
filed on May 29, 1973
record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
i THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Michigan corporation with its princi-
pal office in St. Joseph, Michigan, is engaged in the business
of assembling electronic equipment and related products at
two plants, one located in St. Joseph (known as plant No.
1) and the other about 1-1/2 miles distant at Stevensville
(known as plant No. 2). Most of the events here in question
occurred at the latter location. During the last calendar
year, a representative period, the Respondent manufac-
tured, sold, and distributed products valued in excess of
$90,000. Of this amount, products valued in excess of
$50,000 were furnished to the Heath Company which, in
turn, annually purchases and receives goods and supplies
valued in excess of $50,000 from points located outside the
State of Michigan and annually sells products and supplies
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located
outside the State of Michigan. Upon the foregoing facts, the
Respondent concedes, and I find, that QIC Corporation is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters Local Union No. 7, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein called Union, or Teamsters, is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of the Act.
111 THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Sequence of Events
The Respondent, incorporated in March 1973, has a com-
plement of from 8 to 13 employees at each of its two plants.
During all times material herein Henry J. Lott was the
corporate president and Michael S. Garland was the man-
ager at plant No. 2. QIC was engaged at that time in assem-
bly work on a subcontract basis for the Heath Company. In
the spring of 1973, all the production employees in the
Stevensville plant were assembling oscilloscopes, automatic
fine tuners for television sets, stereo high-fidelity audio
equipment, and high voltage power supplies. Heath provid-
ed all the parts and QIC supplied the labor, with the latter
company deriving its entire income from the work per-
formed for Heath.
On or about April 9, 1973,2 the Respondent effected a
change in the method of computing the piece work rate for
those who were paid on that basis. This immediately pro-
voked much employee dissension. In a meeting with Man-
ager Garland on April 13, the employees expressed their
dissatisfaction with the changes made and with various
other aspects of their working conditions. The next day,
seven of them went to a competitor and inquired as to job
2 All dates hereinafter are for the year 1973 unless otherwise specified.
QIC CORPORATION
prospects there. On April 16, three of them were discharged.
The next morning, all seven of these employees began pick-
eting the plant. On April 18, the four employees who joined
the dischargees on the picket line were dismissed. On April
19, the Teamsters informed the Respondent by telephone
and telegram that it represented a majority of the employees
and requested recognition as their bargaining agent. The
strike lasted 3 weeks and was then abandoned. None of the
seven employees involved has been reinstated.
B. The No-Solicitation Rule
For some while prior to the events in question the Re-
spondent had in effect a series of general conduct rules
which it posted on bulletin boards throughout the plant.
The posted notices stated that corrective discipline for vio-
lation of any of the rules would range from a verbal repri-
mand to disciplinary suspension and that serious infractions
or repeated violations might cause immediate discharge.
Rule 8, which bans solicitation, prohibits "Solicitation of
any kind by any employee for any purpose during working
time in any part of the building or plant property." (Empha-
sis supplied.) The Board has held in similar cases that the
use of the term "working time" in this context is ambiguous
in that it can readily be interpreted by the employees as
banning solicitation at any time during the course of the
working day. Farah Manufacturing Company, 187 NLRB
601 (1970), and Campbell Soup Company, 159 NLRB 74
(1966). In Farah, the Board held that a rule so phrased "may
be readily understood as prohibiting the distribution of
union literature by employees on their own time in any part,
of the plant premises, including nonworking areas , during
the course of the working day." (187 NLRB at 602.) In
Campbell, the Board held that a rule against distribution
"during employees' working time" and another against so-
licitation "during Company working hours" were both un-
lawful, because such "adjective phrases . . . are so broad
and indefinite as to embrace activities of nonworking em-
ployees during the times that others are working." (159
NLRB at 82.)
In the present case, it appears that the rule in question is
as ambiguous as those which were held unlawful in both
Farah and Campbell. Consequently, the holding of the
Board in that line of cases must be applied here. "The risk
of ambiguity must fall on the framer of the rule and not on
the employees who are placed under its proscription." Avon
Convalescent Center, Inc., 200 NLRB No. 99 (1972). Accord-
ingly, it is found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining a no-solicitation rule
which the employees might reasonably interpret as banning
union solicitation during their nonwork time in any part of
the plant. The Ohio Masonic Home.' 205 NLRB No. 65
(1973), and cases cited, supra.
C. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1); Find-
ings and Conclusions with Respect Thereto
1. Preliminary facts
In the spring of 1973 the Respondent had about eight
production employees at the Stevensville plant. All were
65
women. Most of them were paid on a piece rate, but one or
two were paid by the hour. On or about April 9, the Compa-
ny instituted a new wage structure that affected primarily
those paid on a piece rate. Some of the latter were working
on a component known throughout the record as a "102"
and the others on what was known as an "AFTS." Plant
Manager Garland testified that although the change in rate
for the latter component would allow the employee in-
creased pay for an increase in production, the employees
considered the new rate established for assembling the 102
as a reduction.
Prior to the rate change, there had been considerable
dissension among certain of the employees about problems
connected with parts shortages. Prior to starting on the
assembly of a component, a stock clerk issued the produc-
tion worker the necessary parts. Since some of the products
required hundreds of parts, the stock clerk sometimes spent
several hours in carefully counting out the required pieces
that the assembler would need for her job. One of the latter,
Monnie Justen, frequently complained that the stock clerks
had miscounted and not given her sufficient pieces to com-
plete her work. Dorothy Aldrich and Janet Culbreath, the
stock clerks who were responsible for the issuance of the
parts, were indignant whenever Justen voiced these com-
plaints because they felt that Justen was taking parts out of
the plant and assembling units at her home.' Since Justen's
complaints required them to spend additional time either
recounting the original number issued, or in issuing,more
pieces to supplement the original number, Aldrich and Cul-
breath frequently complained to Manager Garland about
what they characterized as "thievery" on Justen's part. In
February, and as a result of Aldrich's allegations, ,Garland
endeavored, but without success, to resolve the differences
between Justen and those in the stock parts room. Aldrich
was extremely vocal in protesting the management's failure
to rectify what she charged was stealing by employee Jus-
ten.4
After the Respondent changed the piece rate on the 102
assembly, Aldrich, although paid on salary herself, took up
the cause of the dissident piece workers who felt they were
being subjected to a wage cut. Garland testified that in the
week subsequent to April 9, Aldrich's activities caused the
employees to band together. According to Garland, the pro-
duction workers sided with Aldrich and "the cause was then
a common one on their side as far as not only the ...
thievery, but the 102 thing."
On the afternoon of April 13, a Friday, the employees had
an impromptu meeting with Garland. At the hearing, coun-
sel stipulated that during this meeting, Aldrich acted as
3 It appears that, for a short while after the plant opened, employees were
permitted to do some of the assembly work in their own homes
4 According to Garland, at the time of the dispute in February he told
Aldrich and Justen that both of them "were doing a very good job." He
further testified that although Aldrich and Culbreath, as stock clerks, were
very irritated by Justen's complaints and attributed the shortages to theft on
her part, the Company was not greatly concerned because even if the charges
were true and Justen had taken some parts, those items by themselves did
not constitute anything of great value. Garland's casual attitude as to this
matter and his explanation for this indifference were difficult to comprehend.
Whether Justen was, in fact, assembling units at home and had the
Respondent's permission to do so is a question that is not answered by the
record.
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spokesman for the employees and that while it was in prog-
ress they and Garland discussed thievery within the plant,
the new wage rate and break periods for the employees.
There was wide discrepancy in the testimony of the witness-
es as to the length of this meeting . Garland thought that it
lasted about 30 minutes. Several of the employees 5 credibly
testified that it lasted between 1 and 2 hours. Garland testi-
fied that at the meeting no one mentioned union activities
to him. On the other hand, he conceded that in their com-
plaints about the Respondent's change in the piece rate, one
of the employees, he thought it was Aldrich, stated that the
Company was able to effectuate such a wage cut only be-
cause the Stevensville plant was a nonunion shop. It is ap-
parent from the credible testimony of several employees
present that Aldrich made more than a passing reference to
their need for a union. Thus, Alma Allen testified that Al-
drich told Garland "we needed a union and we was going
to try to get one." Wilda Swope testified that Aldrich stated
that "we should try to get a union in because of the way they
was cutting our wages," and Janet Culbreath testified that
Aldrich told Garland that "we was going to try to get a
union in there if things didn't straighten up in the shop."
That evening employees Aldrich, Allen, Culbreath,
Swope, Christopher, Cloinger, and Robinson decided that
on the next morning they would go to a plant known as
Don's Specialty and inquire about job prospects there.
Don's was located in a nearby town and was engaged in
subassembly contract work for Heath, just as was the Re-
spondent.
On the morning of April 14, a Saturday, Aldrich and the
six above-named employees went to Don's. There, in a brief
conversation with the owner, they were informed that as the
result of a telephone call which he had received he would
be unable to hire them. Immediately after leaving Don's
premises, Aldrich telephoned the Respondent's plant. When
Garland answered, she told him that she and the other six
employees with her had just met with Don 6 who informed
them that he would be unable to hire, them because of a
message from a source he did not identify. In her protest to
Garland on this occasion, Aldrich implied that the tele-
phone call to which Don referred was a communication
from the Respondent.
Thereafter that weekend the seven employees framed a
list of grievances which they typed up and signed. On April
16, and at the beginning of the shift that Monday morning,
Culbreath presented this document to Garland, asked that
he give it to President Lott, and told him that the employees
wanted an answer within 8 hours. Garland said nothing, but
took the paper and turned it over to Lott.
The list of employee grievances reiterated much of what
had been covered at the meeting in the plant that preceding
Friday. Thus, the signatories requested, inter alia, that the
Respondent reinstate the former piece rate for those work-
ing on the 102, that all stockroom employees receive the
same rate, that employees known to have committed thiev-
ery be dismissed, that President Lott stop checking on em-
ployees, that all employees be notified of any benefits given
5 Eg, Alma Allen, Cathy Cloinger, and Janet Culbreath
6 The last name of the owner of Don's Specialty does not appear in the
record
anyone of their number, and that the employer and the
employees prepare a written "agreement book" (sic). In
their petition, the signatories described themselves as an
"employee's committee."
2. The discharges of Aldrich, Culbreath and Robinson.
On the afternoon of April 16, President Lott summoned
Marilyn Robinson, Dorothy Aldrich, and Janet Culbreath
to his office and told them that they were being terminated.
A few days earlier Robinson had informed Garland that she
was giving 2 weeks' notice that she planned to resign. Both
Aldrich and Culbreath credibly testified that on the morn-
ing of April 13, they were present when Robinson told
Garland that since she had been unable to find another job,
she wanted to withdraw her resignation whereupon Garland
acceded to this request? On Monday afternoon, however,
Lott told Robinson that since he had heard she planned to
resign he would let her go immediately. He gave her no
other reason for the termination.8
About midday on April 16, Aldrich had another ex-
change with Justen about a parts discrepancy. Thereafter
she went to Garland and told him, according to Garland,
that "she was quitting, she was fed up with this Monnie
Justen and this thieving thing...." Garland testified that
at the lime Aldrich was crying and very emotional. He
further testified that on an earlier occasion about a month
before Aldrich had come to him with a similar declaration
and given him a week's notice that she was quitting. In that
instance, however, according to Garland, he reassured her
that she was doing good work and that "after a couple of
days she cooled down . . . and told me that she would just
as soon stay there and I says well, fine." Aldrich testified,
credibly and without contradiction, that on April 16, when
she complained to Garland that Justen had again accused
her unjustly of shorting her 50 parts on a "set-up," she told
Garland that if he did not take action to eliminate this
continuing problem she was going to quit because she could
endure no more. According to Aldrich, Garland assured her
that as soon as President Lott returned to the plant that
afternoon "everything will be settled." 9
Lott testified that after he informed Robinson of her
termination, he told Aldrich that since she had quit he was
giving her her final pay checks. Lott conceded that Aldrich
protested that she had not quit and thereupon "made pretty
much of a scene about it." 10 Culbreath, who was present,
credibly testified that when Lott told Aldrich she was being
terminated, she asked the reason and he told her that it was
because she had quit. According to Culbreath, Aldrich
thereupon denied that she had done so and when she again
asked the reason for her dismissal, Lott concluded the con-
versation with the statement that he did not have to give her
a reason. Immediately thereafter the Respondent's presi-
dent turned to Culbreath and handed her her final pay
' Garland testified that he could not recall this conversation He did not
deny that it could have occurred
8 Sometime during the spring of 1973 Robinson married and her name
became Marilyn Morgan However, since Robinson was the only name used
at the heanng, that usage is maintained throughout this Decision
The quotation is from Aldrich's credible testimony
10 The quotation is from Lott's testimony
QIC CORPORATION
checks while telling her that she was being discharged for
absenteeism.
The termination of the three employees occurred in Lott's
office at the end of the shift that afternoon. While Lott was
engaged in the discharge proceedings, Allen, Christopher,
Cloinger, and Swope, the four other employees who had
signed the grievance petition, appeared at the office door
and witnessed the dismissal of their coworkers. All four of
these employees credibly testified that after Lott discharged
Culbreath, he turned to them and declared that "the compa-
ny no longer needs you either," whereupon they left the
premises."
3. The strike
On the morning of April 17, Aldrich, Culbreath, and
Robinson, along with Allen, Christopher, Cloinger, and
Swope, appeared at the plant entrance carrying picket signs.
President Lott testified that early that morning he saw these
seven individuals outside the plant with signs bearing the
caption "QIC on Strike" and other banners with similar
inscriptions. The picketing of the plant entrances continued
for approximately 3 weeks, after which it was discontinued.
Aldrich testified that she first contacted the Teamsters on
the evening of April 13. It appears from the record, however,
that the Teamsters did not participate in the original picket-
ing. According to Aldrich, it was the employees themselves
who initially prepared the picket signs and organized the
picket line. At some point later that week, the Teamsters
secured authorization cards from the employees. On about
April 19, by telephone and telegram, the Union notified the
Respondent that it represented a majority of the production
workers at the Stevensville plant and requested recognition
as the collective-bargaining agent of a unit made up of those
employees. At the same time the Teamsters offered to prove
its claim to a majority by submitting the authorization cards
to an impartial third party for examination and counting.
President Lott testified that after getting the Union's tele-
phone call on April 19, he left his office and went into a
room at the plant where three technicians and one tester
were at work. Lott conceded that thereafter he questioned
the four employees as to whether any of them had heard talk
of a union and that all of them responded that they had
heard nothing of a union recently."
Lott testified that on April 18 he discharged Allen, Chris-
topher, Cloinger, and Swope for having failed to notify the
Company that they would not be at work. Lott conceded
that he knew that all of them were on the picket line. Gar-
land similarly acknowledged that all of the pickets he saw
had signed the grievance petition which Culbreath present-
ed to the management on the preceding Monday. Checks
for these four employees, dated April 19, and their W-2
forms, were mailed to each of them that week. When under-
going cross-examination at the hearing, lant Manager
Garland was asked why he thought these last described
11 Lott denied that he discharged these four employees at this time. He
conceded, however , that he subsequently fired them for not calling in to work
the following day.
12 Lott testified that one of the technicians told him that many months
earlier, and at plant No . 1, he had heard some discussion about a union.
67
individuals were striking. In response, he stated that he
assumed it was because of the discharge of three of their
coworkers on April 16 and because of the list of grievances
which the seven employees had presented to him that same
day.
4. The Respondent's contentions as to the discharges;
concluding findings
Lott and Garland testified that they made the decision to
terminate Aldrich, Culbreath, and Robinson on Saturday,
April 14, and that they reached this conclusion after Aldrich
telephoned Garland that morning to tell him that she and
six of her colleagues had been rejected in a bid for employ-
ment at Don's Specialty. Garland testified that at that point
he and Lott decided to terminate Aldrich because she had
solicited employees for a competitor, because "She also .. .
had sided with the # 102's [piece workers] at the meeting on
this pay thing against the Company's system, although she
was not affected," and because of her abuse of break peri-
ods. Garland testified that the decision to discharge Cul-
breath was based on her absenteeism and her association
with Aldrich. At one point he testified that the decision to
terminate Robinson was based on the fact that several days
earlier she had given 2 week's notice of an intention to
resign . Later, however, he testified that Robinson was dis-
charged for the same reasons as Aldrich and Culbreath.
The objection that Aldrich was abusing her break periods
was not borne out by the record. The employee conceded
that she often extended her break periods, but she also
testified credibly that in February and March when Gar-
land admonished all the employees to adhere to the time
limits on breaks he assured her that she could continue as
she had in the past. It was equally clear that the absenteeism
charge against Culbreath was without foundation. Cul-
breath returned to the plant early in March after having
been on maternity leave. Subsequent to her return and be-
fore her termination she was absent a total of approximately
10 days. However, she credibly testified that in each in-
stance when she was absent she telephoned Garland and
secured his permission to be off that day. Garland acknowl-
edged that Culbreath had, in fact, done so, and also that, in
this connection, as a matter of policy with respect to absenc-
es of the female employees he constantly assured them that
their "family would come first...." Garland further con-
ceded that he had no complaint about the work , habits of
either Culbreath or Aldrich. According to Garland, "they
worked like dogs. They worked good. I have no complaint
about their work...."
Lott testified that on April 14 he was concerned with
Aldrich because on the preceding day he observed her con-
ferring with the other six employees who eventually signed
the list of grievances and that he considered this activity as
being solicitation in violation of the Company's no-solicita-
tion rule. He further testified that he also was concerned
because Aldrich had led a group of employees over to
Don's, a competitor. Lott conceded that prior to their termi-
nation he never discussed the Respondent's reasons for
these discharges with Aldrich, Culbreath, or Robinson. It
was evident that both Lott and Garland put all three of
these employees in the same category. As to Aldrich and
68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Culbreath, Lott testified that they worked "side by side"
and "they often actedjointly in stirring up troubles." Gar-
land similarly characterized Aldrich and testified that she
was constantly "causing trouble and ... going to get ev-
erything riled up." At the hearing, Garland conceded that
terminating Robinson on April 16 was earlier than she in-
tended to quit, and went on to say that she was dismissed
for "a combination of the ... the same reasons the other
girls [Aldrich and Culbreath] were let go."
Although Lott and Garland testified that the decision to
discharge these three employees was made on Saturday,
April 14, no notice to that effect was given to them when
they reported for work on April 16, the following Monday
morning. At the latter time, as found earlier, Culbreath
presented the management with the list of grievances which
she and the other six employees had signed and demanded
an answer from the Respondent within 8 hours. At the end
of the day the employees received the Company response
when Lott notified Culbreath, Aldrich, and Robinson of
their dismissal and told the remaining four petitioners that
"the company no longer needs you either."
If, as Lott and Garland testified, the decision to discharge
Aldrich, Culbreath, and Robinson was reached on April 14,
it seems unlikely that the announcement would have been
delayed until the end of the shift on the following Monday.
The Respondent's pay period began on Monday and ended
on Friday. Had the decision been made on the preceding
Saturday, it would appear more likely that the three affected
individuals would have been so informed at the time they
reported for work on Monday morning so that their sever-
ance from the payroll would have been effectuated as of the
preceding Friday, the end of a pay period, rather than on
Monday afternoon and I day into the next period.
On the basis of the foregoing findings it is my conclusion
that, notwithstanding the likelihood that the dissatisfaction
of Lott and Garland with Aldrich, Culbreath, and Robinson
was discussed over the weekend, the decision to discharge
them was not made until after Culbreath presented the em-
ployees' list of grievances on Monday morning and de-
manded an answer to their petition before the end of the
day.
Although the Respondent conceded that it had no com-
plaints about the work performed by Aldrich and Cul-
breath, Garland objected to Aldrich because she was
"causing trouble" and Lott objected to Culbreath because
she and Aldrich "often actedjointly in stirring up troubles."
The "troubles" to which both referred, however, were large-
ly the protected concerted activity in which both had en-
gaged during the preceding week when the seven employees
protested about the Respondent's cut back in the piece rate
and, on April 13, under Aldrich's leadership, banded to-
gether to complain about that and other working condi-
tions. It was at this meeting that Aldrich told Garland that
the employees needed a union and that they were going to
get one. Lott testified that he felt that Aldrich's action that
afternoon constituted a violation of the company rule
against solicitation, a rule that earlier herein was found to
be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. He further alleged
that Aldrich was guilty of disloyalty when she and her co-
workers sought employment on April 14 at the plant of a
competitor. In support of this contention, however, the Re-
spondent offered no evidence of any conduct by Aldrich or
the other employees which exceeded the bounds of protect-
ed concerted activity and which constituted disloyalty with-
in the meaning of any decided cases.13 The employees were
bound by no contract to remain with the Respondent and,
as a result, were free at any time they wished to exercise
economic self-help and seek better payingjobs. On the find-
ings set forth above, it is the conclusion of the undersigned
that the Respondent's decision to discharge these three em-
ployees was not reached until the morning of April 16 when
Culbreath, on behalf of herself and the six others, presented
to Garland their list of grievances and gave the Respondent
8 hours to submit an answer to their demands. The efforts
of Aldrich, Culbreath, and their coworkers to secure a hear-
ing from the Respondent's officials during the latter part of
the preceding week and on the following Monday were
considered "troublemaking" by President Lott and Manag-
er Garland. Under the standards established by the statute
here involved, hovever, these efforts were also protected
concerted activity. On the foregoing findings it is my con-
clusion that the primary motive for the dismissal of Aldrich
and Culbreath was the Respondent's aversion to this con-
certed activity. Consequently, by their discharge, the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Metal Plating
Corporation, 201 NLRB 203 (1973); Southern Pine Electric
Cooperative, 104 NLRB 834, 835, (1953) enfd. 218 F.2d 824
(C.A. 5, 1955), cert. denied 350 U.S. 830; N.L.R.B. v. Ken-
nametal, Inc., 182 F.2d 817, 818-819 (C.A. 3, 1950).
A week earlier, Robinson had first given 2 weeks' notice
that she planned to resign and then, as found above, on
April 13, she told Garland that she wanted to withdraw that
request. On cross-examination, Garland conceded that the
cause of her discharge on April 16 "was a combination of
... the same reasons the other girls [Aldrich and Cul-
breath] were let go." Since it has already been found that the
latter were discriminatorily terminated, it is my further
conclusion that by the discharge of Robinson the Respon-
dent likewise violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The Respondent denied that it discharged Allen, Cloing-
er, Christopher, and Swope on the same afternoon that it
terminated Aldrich, Culbreath, and Robinson. Lott testified
that the former were terminated on April 18, for having
failed to notify the Company that they would not be at
work. At that point these four employees had been picketing
the plant for 2 days. President Lott conceded that on April
17 and 18 he had seen all four of them on the picket line with
their strike banners. Plant Manager Garland acknowledged
that he knew these employees were striking and that he
13 Thus, there was no evidence that Aldrich disparaged her employer's
product (N L R B v Local Union No 1229, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, 346 U S 464, 475-478 (1953), Patterson-Sargent Co, 115
NLRB 1627, 1629-1631 (1956)), promoted an unlawful boycott of the
Respondent's merchandise (Hoover Company v N L R B, 191 F 2d 380,382
-390 (C.A 6, 1951)), unlawfully interfered with the Respondent's commer-
cial interests (N L R B v Red Top, Inc, 455 F 2d 721, 727-728 (C A. 8,
1972)), or pilfered its office files (N L R B v Clearwater Finishing Co, 203
F 2d 938, 939 (C A 4, 1953)) Nor was her conduct in any manner similar to
the unprotected activities of the licensed employment agent involved in
Boeing Airplane Co v N L R B, 238 F.2d 188, 189-195 (C A 9, 1956)
QIC CORPORATION 69
assumed they were doing so because of the three discharges
on April 16 and because of the grievances which the,em-
ployees had submitted on that same date. Under these cir-
cumstances, it is clear that the employees were engaged in
protected concerted activities and, on the basis of the testi-
mony offered by the Respondent's principal witnesses, that
the Company was well aware of this fact. Consequently,
Lott's termination of Allen, Christopher, Cloinger, and
Swope constituted a discharge for striking. It is well estab-
lished, and the undersigned finds, that by such action the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v.
Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9, 13-18 (1962);
N.LR.B. v. Tyler Pipe & Foundry Co., 410 F.2d 1061, 1062-
1063 (C.A.D.C., 1969); N.L.R.B. v. City Yellow Cab Com-
pany, 344 F.2d 575, 582 (C.A. 6, 1965); N.L.R.B. v. Greens-
boro Coca Cola Co., 180 F.2d 840, 843-844 (C.A. 4, 1950);
Carter Carburetor Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 140 F.2d 714, 718 (C.
A. 8, 1944); N.L.R.B. v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Choco-
lates Co., 130 F.2d 503, 505 (C.A. 2, 1942).14
Two other employees, Wanda Shagonaby and Sylvia
Spaulding, made brief appearances on the picket line. At the
time Shagonaby was on sick leave and Spaulding was on
vacation. Neither was discharged. In its brief, the Respond-
ent contends that this was because it knew that both of these
employees had valid excuses for not being at work. As to
Allen, Christopher, Cloinger, and Swope, however, the Re-
spondent argues that they violated a plant rule requiring
that the Company be notified of a projected absence and,
as a consequence, they were lawfully discharged for violat-
ing this rule. There is no merit to this argument. In Washing-
ton Aluminum, supra, the Supreme Court considered, and
rejected, a similar argument by the employer in that case.
There the employees involved walked off the job in protest
over the abnormal cold that prevailed in their shop on a
particular January day when the furnace was not working.
The employer argued that they were not discharged for their
protected concerted activity in walking off the job, but rath-
er for their violation of a shop rule requiring that they secure
permission from their foreman before leaving their work. In
rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court stated:
Section 10(c) of the Act does authorize an employer to
discharge an employee for "cause" and our cases have
long recognized this right on the part of an employer.
(See, e.g., Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.,
301 U.S. 1, 45) But this, of course, cannot mean that an
employer is at liberty to punish a man by discharging
him for engaging in concerted activities which § 7 of
the Act protects. And the plant rule in question here
purports to permit the company to do just that for it
i4 The complaint also alleged that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) by
these discharges . However, it was not established that the Respondent was
aware that the Teamsters had arrived on the scene until the demand for
recognition was made on April 19. Since this was at least a day after President
Lott terminated the four strikers, the'record does not support the allegation
that the ternnnation of these employees also violated Sec. 8 (aX3). On the
other hand, whether their discharge is found to be a violation of Sec 8(a)(3)
or (1), the Board has held that the same remedy is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Nemec Combustion Engineers, 100 NLRB 1118, 1119
(1952), enfd. sub nom. N.LR B v. Martin, et al., 207 F 2d 655 (C.A 9, 1953),
cert denied 347 U.S. 917.
would prohibit even the most plainly protected kinds
of concerted work stoppages until and unless the per-
mission of the company's foreman was obtained. [370
U.S. at 16-17.1
Earlier, it was found that on April 19, and subsequent to
the Union's demand for recognition, President Lott ques-
tioned several of the employees who were then in the plant
as to whether they knew anything about the Union. In view
of the fact that at that point the Respondent had discrimina-
torily discharged a total of seven employees for having en-
gaged in protected concerted activity, I conclude that Lott's
inquiry was coercive and a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
D. Eligibility of the Strikers for Reinstatement
As employees who were discriminatorily discharged, all
of the seven here involved are entitled to their former jobs,
or substantially equivalent positions, unless by misconduct
during their concerted activity they forfeited that right. The
Respondent contends that some, at least, engaged in such
prohibited conduct. These cases will now be considered.
As found earlier, the picketing extended over a 3-week
period. President Lott testified that during that time the
nonstriking employees often had difficulty getting to work
and that on many occasions he had to call the Berrien
County sheriff to the scene. Lott's testimony, however, was
lacking in specificity and it was largely unsupported by the
testimony of other witnesses for the Respondent. Plant
Manager Garland testified "I don't remember too much
difficulty [entering and leaving the plant] ... I don't re-
member standing there and them [the pickets] obstructing
me.... " James Keller was a supervisor at plant No. 1 and
in the course of his duties often visited the Stevensville
factory. He testified that while the strike was in progress he
was at the latter plant on 20 or more occasions, but that he
never had any trouble crossing the picket line and that no
one yelled or cursed at him as he did so. It is my conclusion
that the record does not support the Respondent's conten-
tion that the pickets either individually, or collectively, en-
gaged in unprotected concerted activity by blocking ingress
or egress at the plant during the strike.15
Lott also testified that the strikers spread tacks on the
driveway. However, he conceded that he had no knowledge
as to any individuals who might have been responsible. The
strikers who testified credibly denied having thrown any
tacks on the roadway. Supervisor Keller, who, as found
earlier, visited the plant more than 20 different times during
the strike, testified that he never saw any tacks on or about
the entrance. Only employee Deckert testified that he had
seen tacks on the premises. According to Deckert, about 2
weeks after the strike began he found some tacks in the
plant parking lot and he and employee Osgood picked them
15 It appears that during the course of the strike a variety of criminal
charges were filed by the Company against the strikers and also by the
strikers against certain nonstrikers At the trial of the present case, the parties
stipulated that in July 1973, and as the result of an agreement between
Counsel for the Respondent and Business Agent Reynolds, all of these
charges and countercharges were dropped
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
up. Deckert's testimony, however, did not implicate any
specific striker. Consequently, the undersigned concludes
that the record fails to establish that any employee involved
in this case was responsible for placing tacks on or about the
plant premises.
As often happens during the course of a strike, some of
the pickets shouted a variety of epithets at their nonstriking
colleagues. This, apparently, occurred more frequently dur-
ing the early days of the picketing. Manager Garland testi-
fied that subsequent to the outset of the strike the Union
assumed direction of the picket line and thereafter the pres-
ence of the organizer was, as he described it, "a quieting
factor." In any event, among the strikers, Allen and Swope
credibly denied that they had engaged in any name calling
or the shouting of obsenities. Christopher and Cloinger
credibly testified that their vocalizing was limited to des-
cribing the nonstrikers as "scabs," "pigs," "bitches" and
"sons-of-bitches." Culbreath acknowledged that she had
shouted obscenities at most of the employees who entered
the plant, characterizing them as "sons-of-bitches," "bitch-
es," and "bastards." Aldrich similarly conceded that she
often shouted obscenities at the nonstrikers. There was also
testimony that Culbreath made obscene hand gestures to
some of those entering or leaving the factory.16
In an often quoted passage in Longview Furniture Compa-
ny, 100 NLRB 301, 304 (1952), enfd. as modified 206 F.2d
274 (C.A. 4, 1953), the Board stated:
Although the Board does not condone the use of abu-
sive and intemperate language it is common knowledge
in a strike where vital economic issues are at stake,
striking employees resent those who cross the picket
line and will express their sentiments in language not
altogether suited to the pleasantries of the drawing
room or even to courtesies of parliamentary disputa-
tion. Thus, we believe that to suggest that employees in
the heat of picket line animosity must trim their expres-
sion of disapproval to some point short of the utteranc-
es here in question, would be to ignore the industrial
realities of speech in a workday world and to impose
a serious stricture upon employees in the exercise of
their rights under the Act.
See also, Republic Steel Corp v. N L.R.B., 107 F.2d 472, 479
(C.A. 3, 1939), cert. denied 309 U.S. 684; Terry Coach Indus-
tries, Inc., 166 NLRB 560, 564 (1967), enfd. 411 F.2d 612
(C.A. 9, 1969); Hugh H. Wilson Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 414
F.2d 1345, 1356, fn. 20 (C.A. 3, 1969), cert denied 397 U.S.
935 (1970). Similarly, in the present case, I conclude that,
with the exceptions noted later as to Aldrich and Cul-
breath, the vulgar, obscene statements that were made by
certain of the pickets, notwithstanding their at times offen-
sive character, do not justify the Respondent's refusal to
reinstate them.
16 Culbreath likewise testified that at times she called out to the employees
who crossed the picket line that she would "whip their ass " At the hearing
she credibly testified that she was 5 feet 1 inch tall and that she weighed 94
pounds in view of her obviously diminutive stature it would not appear that
whatever she said on the picket line, regardless of its stridency, could have
sounded ominous to anyone who saw her at the time the remarks were
uttered
For a time after the strike started, Lott and Garland were
harassed with crank telephone calls. Both handled the situa-
tion by securing unlisted numbers. Keller testified that dur-
ing the first week of the strike he received a telephone call
in which a man whom he could not identify asked that
Keller relay a message to Garland that someone was going
to beat him up. Keller further testified that in mid-July he
received another anonymous telephone call, this time from
a woman in which he was asked to tell both Garland and
Lott that they were to be beaten. None of the Respondent's
officials was able to identify any of these callers.
The Incidents Involving Aldrich and Culbreath
James L. Deckert, a technician who worked throughout
the strike, testified that over a period of 9 weeks he received
a series of five telephone calls at night and while at his
home, from one whom he recognized as Janet Culbreath.
Thus, Deckert testified as follows:
In the first call, about one week after the strike began,
Culbreath called Deckert "a no good slob," as well as a
series of obscene characterizations, and declared "I'm going
to kill you." Deckert testified that he did not consider this
language serious and at the time "thought it was funny."
In the second call, about a week later, Culbreath opened
the conversation with the statement "Hi, Jim-How would
you like to die tonight?" Thereafter, she called him a "bas-
tard" along with several other appellations of a more ob-
scene character and concluded with the question "How
would you like to have a bomb in your car?" Deckert testi-
fied that, in contrast with his reaction to the first call, on this
occasion he was alarmed by the conversation and reported
the matter to the Berrien County Police Department.
About 2 weeks later, Culbreath called again. On this oc-
casion, however, Deckert hung up the receiver as soon as he
recognized her voice.
Shortly thereafter, Deckert received another telephone
call from Culbreath and this time she asked that Deckert
accompany her to a restaurant. Deckert declined and closed
the conversation.
At some point during the strike Deckert swore out a
misdemeanor complaint against Culbreath charging her
with having damaged his car as he was entering the plant
driveway. In July he asked that this charge be dropped.
Deckert testified that a short while later he received a very
brief telephone call from Culbreath in which she stated
"Thank you for dropping the charges, you bastard."
Culbreath denied that she had ever telephoned Deckert
or that she had ever had any of the conversations which he
attributed to her.
Deckert was a credible witness. His narrative as to the
series of telephone conversations was replete with details
which withstood a searching cross-examination. There was
no apparent reason for Deckert to fabricate the testimony
which he gave against his coworker and the manner in
which he testified had a persuasive ring of conviction. Al-
though Culbreath was a generally credible witness, as has
been found earlier in this decision, as to this issue , it is the
conclusion of the undersigned that in this instance Deckert
was the more credible, that the telephone conversations
occurred substantially as he testified, and that Culbreath
QIC CORPORATION 71
was the other party involved.
Douglas Osgood, another technician and a nonstriker,
testified that on about April 21 and after the strike began,
he and his fiancee were at a shopping center in the area
when Aldrich and Culbreath appeared behind them. Ac-
cording to Osgood, both Aldrich and Culbreath followed
him and his fiancee to his car, all the while making obscene
gestures and remarks. Osgood testified that as he and his
friend were leaving the parking lot, Aldrich and Culbreath
followed him in an automobile, sounding their horn and
bumping into the back of his car.
Both Aldrich and Culbreath denied having seen Osgood
at the shopping center and they denied having engaged in
any of the conduct which he attributed to them. In this
instance , however, Osgood was the more credible. It is the
conclusion of the undersigned that the incident in question
occurred substantially as Osgood described it.
During the latter part of June, and after the strike had
ended, Aldrich encountered Martha Jenkins, a tester at the
plant and an employee who had worked during the strike,
as the latter was leaving Ron's Super Market. Aldrich testi-
fied that on this question she told Jenkins "some day I was
going to come back into QIC and go to work and . . . when
I do, Martha, you'll never walk across another damn picket
line." Aldrich further testified that she concluded the con-
versation by telling Jenkins that "she had better get in her
car . . . before I change my mind.... " Jenkins corrobo-
rated the foregoing version of what Aldrich said to her. She
also added that during the conversation Aldrich stated
"Martha, I'm going to whip your ass all over Benton Har-
bor...
Aldrich was a large woman, substantially larger than Jen-
kins. In view of her size, and her obvious animosity, even
as she recounted the incident while a witness in the case at
bar, Aldnch's threats to Jenkins of a whipping or beating
were not to be taken lightly. Earlier herein Culbreath's
threats of violence on the picket line were found innocuous.
Her threats to Deckert, however, are not to be considered
in the same light. Questions such as "How would you like
to die tonight?" "How would you like to have a bomb in
your car?" and statements such as "I'm going to kill you,"
made over the telephone and in a night time call to the home
of an employee, are obviously menacing in the extreme. The
other incident wherein Aldrich and Culbreath were in-
volved in an attempt to embarrass nonstriker Osgood, by
itself, might not justify denial of reinstatement rights. How-
ever, when considered in the light of Aldrich's admitted
threat of physical violence against Jenkins and the ominous
telephone threats which Culbreath made to Deckert, it is my
conclusion that by all of such conduct both have forfeited
their right to return to work for the Respondent. Firestone
Tire & Rubber Co. v. N.L.R.B., 449 F.2d 511, 512-513
(Whitehead) (C.A. 5, 1971); Kohler Company, 148 NLRB
1434, 1452 (1964), enfd. 345 F.2d 748 (C.A.D.C., 1965),
cert. dewed 382 U.S. 836; The Philip Carey Manufacturing
Company, 140 NLRB 1103, 1132 (1963), modified and
enfd. 331 F.2d 720 (C.A. 6, 1964).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the
Union is a labor organization, all within the meaning of the
Act.
- 2. By discharging Dorothy Aldrich, Alma Allen, Sandra
Christopher, Cathy Cloinger, Janet Culbreath, Wilda
Swope, and Marilyn Robinson, thereby discouraging pro-
tected concerted activity, the Respondent has engaged, and
is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by maintaining an unduly broad rule against solicita-
tion and by interrogating employees concerning union ac-
tivities.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. By certain unprotected activity in which they engaged
during the course of the strike and thereafter, Dorothy Al-
drich and Janet Culbreath forfeited their rights to reinstate-
ment.
6. The General Counsel has not proved by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights safeguarded by the Act, except by the specific acts
and conduct found herein to have been violative.
THE REMEDY
4
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that the Re-
spondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily ter-
minated Marilyn Robinson on April 16, 1973, and Alma
Allen, Sandra Christopher, Cathy Cloinger, and Wilda
Swope on April 18, 1973, the Administrative Law Judge will
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to offer them
immediate and full reinstatement without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered from
the time of their discharge to the date of the Respondent's
offer of reinstatement. The backpay for the foregoing em-
ployees shall be computed in accordance with the formula
approved in F. W. Woolworth, Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest computed in the manner and amount
proscribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716,
717-721 (1962). It will also be recommended that the Re-
spondent be required to preserve and make available to the
Board, or its agents, on request, payroll and other records
to facilitate the computation of backpay due.
As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respon-
dent are of a character striking at the root of employee
rights safeguarded by the Act, it will be recommended that
the said Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from
infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120
F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941).
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the
undersigned hereby issues the following recommended:
72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER17
QIC Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employees because of their union or concerted activities.
(b) Coercively, or otherwise unlawfully, interrogating its
employees as to their union activities.
(c) Maintaining a rule forbidding employees from engag-
ing in solicitation during their nonwork time in any area of
its premises.
(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 any labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid, or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Marilyn Robinson, Alma Allen, Sandra
17 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
Christopher, Cathy Cloinger, and Wilda Swope immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or, if any of
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges and make them whole in the manner set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary,
or appropriate, to analyze the amount of backpay due.
(c) Post at its plant in Stevensville, Michigan, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being duly signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by it for a period of
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar
as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
18 In the event that the Board's 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 be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "