Quaker Mfg. Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 1059 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

QUAKER MFG CORP 1059
Quaker Mfg Corp and Roy Manypenny Case 8-
CA-9417
June 17, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND WALTHER
alleged that the above-named employees were discharged
because of their activities on behalf of United Steelworkers
of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and that
Respondent by its agents and supervisors illegally interro-
gated employees concerning their union activities and
coercively informed employees to refrain from discussing
the Union with other employees Respondent filed an an-
swer denying the commission of unfair labor practices
Issues
On April 2, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Julius
Cohn issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Quaker Mfg Corp, Sa-
lem, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order
1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board s established policy not to over
rule an Administrative Law Judge s resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products Inc 91
NLRB 544 (1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3 1951) We have ca-efully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
Whether Respondent discharged Roy Manypenny and
Charles Marple because of their activities on behalf of the
Union or because of their poor work performance and
other bad work habits
Whether Respondent by its agents and supervisors un-
lawfully interrogated employees
Whether Respondent through its agents and supervisors
unlawfully directed employees to refrain from discussing
the Union with other employees while in the plant or other-
wise becoming involved in union activities
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs The General
Counsel and Respondent submitted briefs which have been
carefully considered
Upon the entire record' of the case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Respondent, an Ohio corporation, maintains its office
and place of business in Salem, Ohio, where it is engaged in
tool contracting and die stamping In the course and con-
duct of its business, Respondent annually ships products
valued in excess of $50,000 from its plant in Salem, Ohio,
directly to points located outside the State of Ohio The
complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Re-
spondent is a Company engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
DECISION The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JuLIUS COHN, Administrative Law Judge This case was
heard at Salem, Ohio, on December 9 and 10, 1975 Upon
a charge filed August 28 and served September 4, 1975, the
Regional Director for Region 8 issued the complaint in this
proceeding on October 10, 1975, alleging that Quaker Mfg
Corp, herein called the Respondent or Company, violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discriminatorily dis-
charging Roy Manypenny, the Charging Party herein, and
Charles E Marple and further by committing various vio-
lations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act More specifically it is
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background
In its plant at Salem, Ohio, Respondent conducts die-
stamping operations and Roy Manypenny, the Charging
Party, has been employed in the pressroom as an operator
i After the close of hearing the General Counsel moved to correct the
transcript There being no opposition thereto and as the corrections relate to
minor errors and accord with my own recollection the motion is hereby
granted
224 NLRB No 144
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
since 1968 According to management witnesses, Many-
penny, an excellent operator and a good employee for
many years, had worked his way up to the top rated classi-
fication among press operators on the night shift In 1973
Manypenny sustained an injury to his back which ulti-
mately necessitated surgery and as a result he was unable
to work for several months During that period he received
certain medical and surgical benefits as well as sick pay
from the Respondent's insurance program About the same
time, in accordance with his request, Respondent lent Ma-
nypenny $1,000, interest free, which he repaid by payroll
deductions in about a year In 1974 Manypenny, through
his attorney, instituted a claim for workmen's compensa-
tion because of his injury, and also wrote to the Company
requesting that it lend him $10,000 In this letter he asked
that, because of his back condition, he be given light work
on the press Henry Ickes, president of Respondent, met
with Manypenny at that time and told him that a small
company such as Respondent was unable to make a loan
in the amount requested by Manypenny Thereafter in Oc-
tober 1974 Manypenny was transferred to the day shift,
according to management witnesses , because the night su-
pervisor, Brian Jackson, complained that he was having
problems with Manypenny and thought that a transfer
might be beneficial Jackson stated that Manypenny's pro-
duction was down, his work performance had deteriorated,
and there were also problems regarding his attendance On
the other hand Manypenny said that he believed that he
was transferred because he had given another employee an
adverse opinion of what he thought of that person Al-
though I do not consider it crucial to the determination of
any issue in this case, I credit Jackson in this matter since
there is no corroboration of Manypenny's contention, and
Manypenny himself admitted that, just prior to the trans-
fer, Jackson discussed his poor performance with him
Shortly after his assignment to the day shift Henry Ickes
met with Manypenny and Clarence Bowman, the press-
room supervisor The purpose of the meeting was to dis-
cuss job assignments for Manypenny in view of his back
problems It was agreed and understood that Manypenny
would be assigned light press work and evidently this deci-
sion was implemented because from that point until his
termination in August 1975 Manypenny agreed that he had
been assigned light press work except for perhaps a total of
1 full workday
Charles Marple was hired by Respondent in August
1974 by Charles Ickes, vice president and son of Henry
Ickes, upon the request of an attorney friend of his to give
employment to Marple The latter was at that time under
indictment and the attorney explained that for the purpose
of pretrial probationary reports it would be beneficial to
Marple if he had employment Marple worked until March
26, 1975, and then was incarcerated until July 14 when he
was released on probation and returned to work at Re-
spondent At a court hearing Charles Ickes testified on be-
half of Marple and told the court that he would have his
job when released
In mid-1975 Respondent gave a general raise to all em-
ployees Those employees in the pressroom were dissatis-
fied because the die shop employees were earning more
money As a result the pressroom people began talking
about the possibility of joining a union Manypenny knew
a representative of the Union named Hinchcliff and called
him to arrange a meeting which was set up for July 30 at
the union hall He then told the employees about the meet-
ing and informed them that anyone could attend In this
endeavor he spoke to 10 or 15 employees in the pressroom
and also contacted some on the night shift William Mit-
chell who is currently employed by Respondent stated that
he became aware of the union campaign when Manypenny
told him about it and informed him about the meeting
Mitchell attended this meeting at the union hall in Salem
which was conducted by Hinchchff and he states that, be-
sides himself, present at the meeting were Manypenny,
Marple, Hughes, Morrison, Henderson, and Reisbeck In
addition Mitchell testified, as did Manypenny and Marple,
that an employee, Sam Delp, the brother of Pressroom
Foreman Gary Delp, was parked outside the entrance to
the union hall in his car All of them stated that they saw
Sam as they went into the meeting When the meeting was
over he was gone Mitchell said that among the employees
who attended the meeting Manypenny and Marple did
most of the talking and they were the ones who also took
with them a number of cards Thereafter he said he knew
that Manypenny gave out cards to other employees and
arranged to talk to most of the night-shift people whom he
knew from having worked on that shift for so many years
Finally Mitchell stated there were no other meetings nor
was there any card distribution or further talk of union
organization after the discharge of Manypenny and Mar-
ple I found Mitchell to be a very credible witness and, in
any case, his testimony is uncontradicted
B The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
The complaint alleges that on July 29, Clarence Bow-
man, a supervisor, told an employee to refrain from dis-
cussing the Union while at Respondent's plant In support
of this allegation Manypenny testified that McGowan, an
employee who had been running a press, left the area after
telling the other employees including Manypenny that he
was going to see Bowman and ask why they could not have
a union Manypenny then said that McGowan engaged
Bowman in conversation for a period of about half an hour
in a hallway and also while walking about the plant and
that he overheard a part of the conversation Manypenny
states he heard McGowan ask Bowman why a union could
not come into Quaker and that Bowman replied he did not
want a union and he did not want McGowan talking about
a union while he was working This is the only part of the
conversation that Manypenny said he heard Bowman tes-
tified that he did not recall McGowan asking him in the
plant why employees could not have a union and he denied
telling McGowan that he did not want a union and that he
did not want McGowan talking about a union In any case
he could not recall any conversation with McGowan in the
pressroom which would last half an hour It was his testi-
mony that any conversation of this length would have been
in his office and not during worktime McGowan did not
appear or testify at the hearing As there is thus a failure of
corroboration and since it strains credulity that a supervi-
sor would spend so much working time in a running dis-
QUAKER MFG CORP
cussion with an employee on such a matter and, further,
that Manypenny should have overheard only this particu-
lar small segment of that conversation , I shall recommend
dismissal of this allegation contained in paragraph 7 of the
complaint 2
On July 29 Gary Delp, pressroom foreman, approached
Manypenny while he was building boxes Delp said that he
heard the Union's coming there and he wanted to know
when they were going out on strike Manypenny told him
he had not heard of the Union and did not know when
they were going out on strike Delp then said that he
wished a union would hurry up and get in because he could
use more money Later that day Delp spoke to Manypenny
again and asked him where the union meeting was going to
be and who was going to attend Manypenny replied that
he did not know where the meeting was and that probably
anybody could attend if there was one Delp did not specif-
ically deny the above account related by Manypenny Delp
said that he does not think he questioned any employee
regarding union activities Delp also owned up to having
had perhaps some joking conversation with an employee
about the possibility of a union coming to the Company In
addition Delp testified at several points that he was aware
of the union activity and as previously noted his brother
Sam monitored the meeting subsequently held by sitting
outside in his car In view of these factors I credit Many-
penny with respect to his testimony as to these two conver-
sations with Gary Delp on July 29 Accordingly, as Delp
interrogated Manypenny regarding the location of the
union meeting and the identity of employees who were
going to attend, I find that by this conduct Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Although I dismissed the allegation that Supervisor
Bowman told McGowan he did not want him talking
about the Union while working at the Company, neverthe-
less Foreman Gary Delp actually admitted making similar
statements Thus the record reveals the following testimony
by Gary Delp
Q Did you tell these other employees to talk about
the Union at lunchtime and breaktime only"
A Yes Not only-I asked them to do it on their
own time
Q To do what on their own time9
A Talk about whatever they was talking about
Q Did you ever tell them to talk about the Union
on their own breaktime or lunchtime only"
A Yes
To institute a rule against talking, as Delp did according
to his own testimony, which was limited to talk about
2 I did not always find Manypenny to be a very credible witness Particu
larly in connection with his testimony concerning his claim for workmen s
compensation filed in 1974 he was curiously evasive to the point where he
initially denied filing a claim at another point did not wish to discuss it
without his attorney and when confronted with the fact that two of the
three witnesses listed by him on the compensation claim did not work on the
night shift and therefore did not actually witness his accident he dissem
bled Manypenny stated that he listed these people because they knew he
had a bad back condition rather than as actual witnesses to the accident
itself Despite my low opinion as to his credibility I shall hereinafter find
violations in his favor based on either uncontradicted testimony or admis
sions by Respondents witnesses
1061
unions is discriminatory particularly as the Company had
no previous rule regarding talking in the plant By such
conduct Respondent , through Delp , violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act 3
Marple left work on July 31 having obtained permission
from Bowman to leave because he required dental surgery
As a result he was out for 2 days and upon his return he
met Bowman on the way to the office to get his paycheck
According to Marple, Bowman stopped him and said that
he had heard that Marple had gone to a union meeting,
that his name keeps coming up on this subject and he
would like Marple to explain it to him Marple said he was
at the meeting and had gone there to find what the Union
was all about, but that now he was not interested in a
union coming in Bowman thanked him for being honest
Bowman denied that this conversation occurred, stating
that he had never questioned any employee about his at-
tendance at a union meeting In this connection I do not
credit Bowman since at this point in time Bowman already
knew about the union meeting concerning which he had
been informed by another employee, Dave Israel , who had
given him the names of the employees in attendance at this
meeting On cross-examination Bowman was very evasive
about this, stating first he had no knowledge , then that his
knowledge was based on rumor, and finally confirming
that he learned about it specifically from Dave Israel It is
also noted that during the course of the investigation of
this case he stated in an affidavit that he had not heard of
Manypenny and Marple attending the union meeting Ac-
cordingly I credit Marple 's version of this incident and find
that Bowman interrogated Marple concerning his presence
at a union meeting and his sentiments about the Union By
such conduct of this supervisor Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act
Marple also testified that, on August 4, Charles Ickes,
vice president , came over to him where he was working at
his press and asked how his mouth was In the course of
their conversation Marple asked Ickes what Bowman had
against him Ickes stated he had no idea but Marple should
not let these things bother him, as there was a lot of propa-
ganda around the shop and he was just to keep his mouth
shut and stay at the press and not get involved in anything
According to Charles Ickes, he did visit Marple in the
pressroom on August 4 because Marple was talking to
other employees and Charles was warning him for the last
time concerning his staying away from his press and talk-
ing to other employees He told him to stay at his own
work station, keep his mouth shut, do his own work, and
not to be concerned with other people's work He further
stated that he advised Henry Ickes of this conversation
telling him that he had given Marple his last warning The
contention of General Counsel in this incident revolves
upon the use of the words "propaganda" which it is urged
3 Although the General Counsel did not specifically plead Delp s action
described above as a violation of Sec 8 (a)(1) it was in the same category as
the violation pleaded concerning the alleged conversation between Bowman
and McGowan Since the illegal act found was established by the testimony
of Respondents own witness Delp it may fall within the principle that an
issue which has been fairly tried should be decided regardless of whether it
has been specifically pleaded See Tamper Inc 207 NLRB 907 fn 3
(1973)
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
only refers to the Union and "keeping your mouth shut"
could only refer therefore to union talk rather than a refer-
ence to talking generally to other employees On balance I
do not credit the Ickes version of this incident in referring
to his knowledge of the decision to discharge Marple and
Manypenny, Charles was evasive and contradictory He
first stated that he learned of the discharge of the two em-
ployees on August 5 after it happened as he had been away
from the plant On the other hand he also testified that he
had discussed their discharge with his father a day or two
before that occurred He finally stated that his father in-
formed him a day or two before August 5 that the two
would be discharged If this latter is true then issuing a
final warning to Marple on August 4 after he already knew
that Marple was going to be terminated, either does not
make sense or was perhaps an attempt to set him up Since
all of the management witnesses had indicated in their tes-
timony that they either had direct knowledge or at least
knew of rumors of the union activity, the word "propagan-
da" could have referred only to the union talk in the con-
text of the activity rife in the plant at that time Conse-
quently warning an employee to keep his mouth shut with
regard to "propaganda" becomes an unwarranted interfer-
ence with the employees' Section 7 rights Accordingly, by
this conduct of Vice President Ickes, Respondent further
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
C The Discharges of Manypenny and Marple
On August 5 about 4 p in Bowman came to Manypenny
and gave him an envelope containing his check and told
him this would be his last day He said that if Manypenny
had any questions he could see Henry Ickes in his office
Manypenny thereafter went to Ickes' office and asked why
he had been fired Ickes threw up his hands and said he
should have done it a long time ago He said that after an
incident on the night shift Manypenny had become a trou-
blemaker and that he himself had observed Roy talking to
too many men Manypenny stated he asked whether this
was due to his work and Ickes replied that it was not and
then said that he did not care to discuss it further Accord-
ing to Henry Ickes and other witnesses for the Respondent,
Manypenny was discharged for a variety of reasons It was
averred that Manypenny's problems commenced approxi
mately a year and a half before his discharge Having once
been a top producing employee it is contended that his
work deteriorated to the point where his production was
very low In addition Manypenny had a poor record as to
absenteeism and most particularly had an annoying habit
of leaving in mid-day without advising supervisors of his
departure It is further alleged that Manypenny did too
much talking to other employees Finally, according to
Henry Ickes' version of the exit interview, he told Many-
penny in response to his question as to why he was dis-
charged, that he was refusing to do work assigned to him
and that he didn't want to discuss it any more At the
hearing Ickes testified that Roy refused on numerous occa
sions to do his work, citing an example of one occasion
when Manypenny refused to get a highlift upon the order
of Foreman Gary Delp
It is clear there are no written records evidencing any of
the above-mentioned reasons for Manypenny's discharge
Although the timecards and attendance records may indi-
cate certain times when Manypenny was either absent or
did not complete a full day's work, there is no indication as
to the reasons for these absences or whether, on incomplete
days, he left without informing his supervisors In this con-
nection Gary Delp testified that he could recall Manypen-
ny having left without telling him on one occasion during
Easter of 1975 He stated that there were other times but he
does not recall when Finally Delp estimated that there
may have been two or four times that Manypenny left
without advising him although concededly he may have
checked out with Bowman Bowman similarly testified and
admitted that other employees also left upon occasion
without reporting Manypenny denied ever being warned
about this and in any case there is no record or testimony
that he was actually warned for this alleged practice
As to Manypenny's alleged refusal to obey orders or to
do his work Delp stated that the highlfft incident to which
Henry Ickes had referred actually occurred several months
prior to July 1975 Delp also alluded to another incident in
which Manypenny refused to salvage certain parts from
the scrap pile This occurred in June 1975 and apparently
did not happen again, according to Delp who stated he was
not aware of any refusal on the part of Manypenny to
perform work during the period preceding his discharge
With regard to Respondent's complaints that Manypenny
engaged in talking to other employees, there is no evidence
that he was warned about this practice The Company had
no rule against talking and no employees were ever dis-
charged for engaging in this practice According to Bow
man, many employees talked on the job and he stated that
Manypenny had been doing this ever since he came to the
day shift back in 1974 Although Bowman testified that he
discussed the talking problem with Manypenny he con-
cedes that this occurred before June 1975
Manypenny's production obviously fell from the time of
his back operation, so there was a period of at least a year
and a half during which his production was up to his prior
standards, including his time on the day shift Despite the
claim of poor production Delp testified that he did not talk
to Manypenny about his production and, although Bow-
man stated that he talked to him, he did not recall when
but it may have been in June
Marple, who had returned to work from prison on July
14, was also terminated on August 5 at the same time as
Manypenny The reasons expressed for Marple's discharge
were excessive absenteeism, poor work habits, and talking
a great deal to other employees On August 5 Henry Ickes,
from a distance, observed Marple talking to another em-
ployee on the dock He stated that he went back to his
office and thereupon decided to terminate Marple because
of his constant talking to other employees while he was
supposed to be working He decided that he would take
care of his problems in one fell swoop by discharging Ma-
nypenny at the same time He therefore instructed Bow-
man to inform them of their termination and not give them
any reason, telling them they could talk to Henry Ickes if
they wanted to discuss the reason for their discharges As
did Manypenny, Marple visited Henry Ickes to ask why he
QUAKER MFG CORP
had been discharged and although Ickes did not want to
discuss it he finally said that his name "keeps popping up,"
he is fired and should get out Marple stated that 2 days
after his termination, he called Charles Ickes and asked
why he had been fired Charles said that he had warned
him not to be talking around the shop and to keep his
mouth shut and he then said he did not want to discuss it
further Marple said that no one had ever talked to him or
warned him about talking to other employees, except on
August 4 when Charles told him there was a lot of propa-
ganda and he should dust keep his mouth shut and stay at
the press and not get involved In this connection Henry
Ickes admitted that when he saw Marple talking to another
employee on the dock on August 5 he never spoke to or
attempted to have anyone speak to the other employee
about talking As a matter of fact the testimony of both
Ickeses is at variance because Henry stated that the inci-
dent of Marple speaking on August 5 to another employee
was in effect the last straw at which time he determined to
fire him However, Charles Ickes, who stated at one point
that his conversation with Marple on August 4 was actually
a final warning about talking, also testified that he dis
cussed the matter with his father on August 3 the day be-
fore and at that time Henry told him that he was going to
terminate Marple and Manypenny Delp testified that he
never warned or reprimanded Marple for talking Al-
though Delp said he was not particularly pleased with
Marple's work he did not recall doing anything to correct
it, or whether he said anything to Marple about his work
product Bowman also testified that Marple was a poor
employee whose production was low and had bad habits
because he talked a lot On the other hand he stated that he
did not talk to Marple about his low production or about
his talking to other employees
I conclude from the above that Respondent discharged
both Manypenny and Marple because of their activities on
behalf of the Union rather than any of the assorted reasons
advanced during the course of the hearing in this case,
which I find to be pretextual The union activities in which
they engaged, corroborated as they were by the testimony
of employee Mitchell and, indeed, not denied by any of
Respondent's witnesses, are clearly established Moreover,
the knowledge of these activities by Respondent is equally
clear Although Respondent has urged that the "small
plant" doctrine not be applied in this case, in the circum-
stances described above that would be unnecessary The
testimony of Respondent's supervisors, Delp and Bowman,
established that they had actual knowledge of the union
activities of Manypenny and Marple, thus knowledge need
not be inferred Delp testified that he was advised by his
brother, Sam Delp, of the union meeting on July 30 and
the other activities Sam actually told him the names of the
employees who were present at the meeting The testimony
is uncontradicted that Sam Delp sat in his car outside the
union hall and observed the employees who entered to at-
tend the meeting on that date In addition Bowman admit-
ted being informed by another employee, Israel, or the
union meeting and the names of the employees including
Manypenny and Marple who attended that meeting The
knowledge of Delp and Bowman, admitted supervisors, is
imputable to Henry Ickes, the president of the Company,
1063
who stated that it was his decision to terminate the two
employees 4 Moreover, Henry Ickes testified that he was
aware, at least, of rumors of the union activities in his plant
at the time of the discharges
The timing of the discharges, within several days of the
meeting in the union hall and while Manypenny and Mar-
ple were still soliciting support for the Union , is more per-
suasive of the Respondent 's motivation than its asserted
claims of poor work performance , attendance , and talking
too much As employee Mitchell testified, the union activi-
ties in the plant ceased with the discharges , an effect no
doubt anticipated by the Company
The work habits of Marple and Manypenny, asserted to
be the reason for the discharges, were long tolerated by
Respondent In the case of Manypenny, Henry Ickes stat-
ed that his performance and work habits had been on the
decline for a year and a half As to Marple, despite the
opinion voiced by supervision that he had always been an
unsatisfactory employee, he was permitted to return to his
job in July after the period of his incarceration As a matter
of fact, Charles Ickes testified in his behalf and indicated
to the criminal court that Respondent would reemploy him
after he was freed Apparently the same indulgence was
not afforded these employees when their union activities
became known, because the Company then acted with
great speed in discharging them, not even waiting in
Manypenny's case for any triggering incident to warrant
discharge 5
Finally, it is readily apparent that neither of the dis-
charged employees could be held up as models to their
colleagues Indeed it may be said that they were ungrateful
to an ofttimes beneficent employer But it is well settled
that a discharge even partially motivated by unlawful rea-
sons violates the act despite the presence of valid reasons
for the discharge 6
Accordingly, on the basis of all the foregoing, I find that
Respondent discharged Manypenny and Marple in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re-
spondent described in section I above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
° Red Line Transfer & Storage Company Inc 204 NLRB 116 (1973)
5 See Permacold Industries Inc 147 NLRB 885 (1964)
6 Sweeney and Company Inc v NLRB 437 F 2d 1127 1133 (C A 5
1971)
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged
the employees set forth above, I shall recommend that Re-
spondent be ordered to offer immediate and full reinstate-
ment to Manypenny and Marple to their former positions
or, if no longer available, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss of
earnings or other monetary loss each may have suffered as
a result of the discrimination against them, less interim
earnings, if any, plus interest at 6 percent per annum Any
backpay due is to be determined in accordance with the
formulas set forth in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co 138 NLRB
716 (1962)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 By discriminatorily discharging employees Roy
Manypenny and Charles Marple, Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act
4 By coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union activities and by directing employees not to
talk about the Union at any time in the plant, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed
ORDER7
The Respondent, Quaker Mfg Corp, Salem, Ohio, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall,
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
union activities
(b) Ordering employees not to discuss the Union in the
plant at any time
(c) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf
of, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization by discharging employees or
otherwise discriminating against them in any manner with
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms
or conditions of employment because of their union activi-
ties
7 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
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guar-
anteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that
such right is affected by the proviso of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes and policies of the Act
(a) Offer Roy Manypenny and Charles Marple immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if
those fobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of
pay due to the violation against them in accordance with
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,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this recommended Order
(c) Post at its Salem, Ohio, plant copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix" 8 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, af-
ter being duly signed by the Company's authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dis
missed in all other respects
8 In the event the Board s Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides had a chance to give
evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found
that we, Quaker Mfg Corp, violated the National Labor
Relations Act and we have been ordered to post this no-
tice
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees
these rights
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
QUAKER MFG CORP 1065
To bargain collectively through a representative
of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things
WE WILL NOT coercively question employees con-
cerning their union activities or the union activities of
other employees
WE WILL NOT order employees not to talk at any time
within the plant about their union activities
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities
on behalf of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging
or otherwise discriminating against employees in any
manner with regard to their rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, hire, tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights under
Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL offer Roy Manypenny and Charles Marple
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to a substantially
equivalent job, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights, and WE WILL make them whole for any
loss of pay or any benefits they may have suffered by
reason of our discrimination against them
QUAKER MFG CORP