Quality Production Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1967

162 N.L.R.B. 1459 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

QUALITY PRODUCTION CO. 1459
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act as pertains to promises that discharges and blacklisting
would cease if union cards were turned over to the Respondent.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of United
Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization of our employees by discharging, laying off, or other-
wise discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
terms or conditions of employment.
WE WILL offer James C. Jones immediate and full reinstatement to his for-
mer position, or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL notify James C. Jones, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
WE WILL make whole James C. Jones and Ivy Tubb for any loss of pay suf-
fered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in
the section (in the Decision in this matter) entitled "The Remedy."
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their or other employ-
ees' union affiliation or activities in a manner constituting interference,
restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to turn union authorization cards over to us
in a manner constituting interference , restraint, or coercion within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge, layoff, discharge and
the probability of blacklisting by other employers, or other reprisals because of
their activity on behalf of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Work-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other Tabor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form , join, 'or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
CRAMCO, INC.,
Dated------------------- B
Employer.
-------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 746 Fed-
eral Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone
534-3161.
Quality Production Company and International Union , United
Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-5475. February 7,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 5, 1966, Trial Examiner Abraham H. Mailer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
162 NLRB No. 141.
1460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. The Gen-
eral Counsel -filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Jenkins, and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions, briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and finds merit in the cross-exceptions
of the General Counsel." We therefore adopt the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein.2
[The Board adopted as its Order the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order with the following modifications :
[1. Substitute the following as paragraph 1(e) for the present
paragraph 1(e).
[" (e) Posting, maintaining, or enforcing shop rules for the pur-
pose of retaliating against employees for their organizational activity
or to discourage organizational activities."
[2. Substitute the following as paragraph 2(d) for the present
paragraph 2(d).
[" (d) Rescind the shop rules and regulations posted January 1966,
and expunge from its personnel records all reprimands and warnings
issued to employees pursuant thereto. This shall not prevent the
Respondent from thereafter posting and enforcing reasonable shop
rules and regulations for business reasons, provided that such action
1 The Trial Examiner found that Respondent discriminatorily promulgated and posted
its shop rules in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, and recommended that Respondent
rescind said rules. The General Counsel urges, and we agree, that in order to present
Respondent from benefiting from its unfair labor practices and to cure the effects of the
Respondent ' s unlawful conduct, Respondent should also be ordered to expunge from its
personnel records all reprimands and warnings issued to its employees pursuant to the un-
lawful shop rules Accordingly, we shall include in our Order appropriate provisions
designed to eradicate completely the effects of Respondent ' s unlawful enforcement of its
shop rules.
'Member Jenkins would not rely on the small number of employees employed by the
Company in finding that the Respondent possessed knowledge of Withrow's union activities
QUALITY PRODUCTION CO. 1461
is not taken for the purpose of retaliating against its employees for
any organizational activity or for the purpose of discouraging orga-
nizational activity."
[3. Substitute the following as the fifth indented paragraph of the
Appendix to the Trial Examiner's Decision in place of the present
fifth indented paragraph :
[WE WILL NOT, maintain, or enforce shop rules for the pur-
pose of retaliating against employees for their organizational
activity.
[4. Substitute the following as the eighth indented paragraph of
the Appendix to the Trial Examiner's Decision in place of the pres-
ent eighth indented paragraph :
[WE WILL rescind the shop rules and regulations posted Janu-
ary 1966, and will expunge from our personnel records all repri-
mands and warnings issued to employees pursuant thereto.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 24, 1966, International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, filed a charge against Quality Production Company, herein called the
Respondent Upon said charge the Regional Director for Region 7 of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board , on May 5, 1966 , issued on behalf
of the General Counsel a complaint against the Respondent , alleging violations of
Section 8 ( a)(1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29
U.S.C. Sec. 151 , et seq. ), herein called the Act.
In substance , the complaint alleged that the Respondent interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act by the following acts and conduct : ( a) threatening employees with the
closing of the plant if the Union got-in, ( b) promulgating and posting written shop
rules and regulations and issuing written reprimands or warnings under these rules
for the purpose of undermining the organizational drive of the Union , ( c) interro-
gating employees concerning their membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union and indicating that employee Charles T. Withrow had been discharged for
his membership in and activity on behalf of the Union , and (d) obstructing the
Board's processes by instructing employees to give false information during the
Board's investigation ; and by discharging employee Charles T. Withrow because he
had joined or assisted the Union and engaged in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . In its duly filed
answer, the Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Abraham H. Mal-
ler at Jackson , Michigan , on June 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 1966 . The General Coun-
sel, the Respondent , and the Charging Party were represented and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard , to introduce relevant evidence , to present oral argu-
ment, and to file briefs with me. Briefs were filed by all parties.
Upon consideration of the entire record, including the briefs of the parties, and
upon my observation of each of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Michigan corporation having its only office and place of business
in the city of Spring Arbor, Michigan , where it is engaged in providing services in
1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
connection with metal finishing and machining and related services. During the cal-
endar year 1965, which period is representative of its operations during all times
material herein, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations,
performed metal finishing, machining, and related services at its Spring Arbor plant
valued in excess of $115,000, of which services valued in excess of $100,000, were
furnished to Production Products Company in Jackson, Michigan, which enterprise
annually produces and ships goods, or performs services valued in excess of
$100,000 directly for customers located outside the State of Michigan. Accordingly,
I find and conclude the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert
jurisdiction here.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, is and has been at all times material
herein a. labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ISSUES
1. Whether Respondent discharged Charles T. Withrow because said employee
had joined or assisted the Union and engaged in other union or concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
2. Whether Respondent threatened employees with the closing of the plant if the
Union got in.
3. Whether the Respondent coercively interrogated employees concerning employ-
ees' membership in and activities on behalf of the Union.
4. Whether the Respondent attempted to obstruct the Board's processes by solicit-
ing an employee to give false testimony at the hearing.
5. Whether the Respondent promulgated and posted written shop rules and regu-
lations and thereafter issued written reprimands or warnings under these rules for
the purpose of undermining the organizational drive of the Union.
W. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent operates a small plant and at the time of the occurrence of the events
detailed herein employed seven full-time and four part-time production and main-
tenance employees. William H. Ketts, Jr., is president of the Respondent and with
his wife owns all the stock of the Company. Philip C. Lewandowski is superintend-
ent of the plant.
In January 1966,' the Union engaged in an organizational campaign at Respond-
ent's plant. Employee Charles T. Withrow was active in securing union authoriza-
tions and on January 7 secured the signatures of three other full-time employees.
On January 19, the Union wrote the Respondent, advising it that it represented a
majority of the production and maintenance employees of the Respondent,
requested Respondent to enter into negotiations with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment and other conditions of employment, and indicated that if the
Respondent failed to comply with its demand, it proposed to file a petition for cer-
tification. On January 24, counsel for the Respondent answered the Union's letter,
stating that the Respondent did not feel that the Union represented a majority and
therefore would not recognize the Union as bargaining representative without a
Board-conducted election. On January 25, the Union filed a petition for an election?
B. The discharge of Withrow
Charles T. Withrow had been employed by the Respondent for more than 3 years
prior to his discharge on February 4. He operated a black oxide line, a process dur-
ing which metal implements are dipped into an oxide solution giving them a black
coating, then rinsed in water, and finally dipped into an oil. During his employment,
his wage rate increased from $1.50 an hour to $2.25.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all events detailed herein occurred during 1966
2 Thereafter, hearing on the petition for an election was postponed at the request of the
Respondent who later signed a consent for an election. The Union did not file a consent.
No election was held in view of the pendency of the unfair labor practice charge
QUALITY PRODUCTION CO. 1463
Prior to going to work for the Respondent, Withrow had been convicted of
strong-arm robbery in West Virginia and had been placed on probation. Respond-
ent learned of this during Withrow's employment and permitted him to take time
off to report to a probation officer in Michigan.3
Withrow was the prime mover in attempting to get the Union into Respondent's
plant. He spoke with Gary Duguid, a driver for a customer of the Respondent, who
was a member of the Union. Duguid obtained a supply of authorization cards and
brought them to Withrow at the Respondent's plant. Withrow then distributed the
cards and obtained the signatures of at least three other employees on January 7.
Withrow was discharged on February 4. The following events immediately pre-
ceded the firing. On that date, Withrow was running a batch of Allen wrenches
through the oxide line. This was a sample operation for the Vaco Products Com-
pany, a new customer, and the work was being done by the Respondent without
charge. After the basket containing wrenches had been pulled out of the oil bath,
the last step in the black oxide process, Withrow handed two wrenches to Howard
Belman, a driver for one of the Respondent's customers, who had been standing on
the screed alongside the various tanks conversing with Withrow. As he did so,
Withrow told Belman , "Here's a couple of wrenches. They would be a handy thing
to have." 4 Belman then threw one of the wrenches toward James Mynahan, his
superior, who happened to be on the outside loading platform. The wrench fell at
Mynahan's feet and Mynahan picked it up and retained it. Belman's act in tossing
the wrench to Mynahan was observed by Superintendent Lewandowski.
Shortly thereafter , Belman entered Respondent's office to complete the paper
work attendant the shipping. He handed the wrench to Superintendent Lewandowski
and told him that Withrow had given it to him .5
Later that day, Superintendent Lewandowski asked Withrow to work overtime.
After the shift had left, Superintendent Lewandowski approached Withrow and
twice asked him whether he had given the wrench to Belman. The evidence as to
Withrow's reply is in dispute. Lewandowski testified that Withrow twice answered in
the affirmative. He explained that he asked the question a second time because he
wanted to make sure that he heard Withrow's admission. Withrow testified that he
answered in the negative. Lee Parshall, a maintenance employee, who was then
sweeping the floor near the two men testified that Withrow first answered in th neg-
ative and the second time answered in the affirmative. Parshall was a disinterested
witness and I credit his testimony. Lewandowski then wrote an "Avoid Verbal
Orders" slip in which he discharged Withrow for stealing.
In approaching the question whether Withrow was discharged for stealing a
wrench, the threshold question is whether the Respondent had knowledge of With-
row's union activities. There is no direct evidence that the Respondent observed
Withrow engaging in union activity. However, as the Board said in Texas Industries,
Inc., 156 NLRB 423, 424, "[i]t has been well established that direct evidence is not
necessary to support a finding of knowledge but that such knowledge may be
inferred by the Board from the record as a whole." In the instant case, the record
supports substantially the conclusion that Respondent was fully aware of Withrow's
union activities and discharged him for such activities, using the wrench as a pretext.
To begin with, Respondent was opposed to the principle of unionism. Thus, some
8 months earlier Superintendent Lewandowski had revealed his union animus in a
conversation with Gary Duguid, a driver for one of Respondent's customers, at a
time when the Union was seeking to negotiate a contract with Production Prod-
ucts, the company for which Duguid worked. At that time, Superintendent Lewan-
dowski told Duguid that "if he was ever working in Production Products he would
get the union out." 6
3 Withrow testified that he informed Respondent of the fact that he was on probation
when he was hired. Superintendent Lewandowski testified that he found out about Withrow's
being on probation several months after he was hired. It is unnecessary to resolve the con-
flict, inasmuch as in either event the Respondent retained Withrow in its employ with
full knowledge of the fact that he was on probation.
* The credited testimony of Belman. Withrow denied handing the wrenches to Belman,
but admitted that he had some wrenches in his hand which at the time was partially ex-
tended toward Belman. I do not credit Withrow's denial.
s The wrench involved is approximately 6 Inches in length and of the thickness of a lead
pencil. It is hexagonal at one end and flat like a screwdriver at the other end.
" The credited testimony of Duguid who impressed me as an impartial witness. I do not
credit Lewandowski 's denial of the foregoing conversation.
1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Withrow's union activity involved a small plant consisting of seven full-time
employees and four part-time employees, one of the latter being a brother of Super-
intendent Lewandowski. In these circumstances, it is a reasonable inference that
Withrow's activities came to the attention of Superintendent Lewandowski. Don
Swart Trucking Co., Inc., 154 NLRB 1345, enfd. 359 F.2d 428 (C.A. 4). See also
Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Co., Inc., 80 NLRB 1149, 1150, enfd. 185 F.2d 285
(C.A 2), cert. denied 342 U.S. 812; N.L.R B. v. Abbott Worsted Mills, 127 F.2d
438, 440 (C.A. 1); New French Benzol Cleaners and Laundry, Inc., 139 NLRB
1176, 1179, footnote 10.
The conclusion that Respondent was aware of Withrow's union activities does not
rest on this inference alone. About a week after Withrow had obtained the signa-
tures to the union authorization cards, Superintendent Lewandowskl stopped With-
row as the latter was moving some material on skids and told him that "if the
Union came in they would go broke, and that the Union would put them broke,
and they would go out of business." A telephone call which Lewandowski answered
ended the conversation.? Also, a day or two after Withrow's discharge, Superintend-
ent Lewandowski spoke with employee Robert Stimer and asked him, "Who is
going to be the instigator now?' 18 Superintendent Lewandowski did not explicitly
deny making the foregoing statement. He admitted having had a conversation with
Stimer regarding Withrow's discharge. According to Lewandowski, Stimer asked him
why Withrow had been discharged, and Lewandowski admittedly did not give him
any answer. If Lewandowski's version is to be credited, then it is difficult to under-
stand his admitted failure to answer Stimer's question. Rather, it would seem that
if Withrow had been discharged because of stealing, as Respondent claims, Lewan-
dowski would have offered that explanation without any hesitation.
The events immediately preceding Withrow's discharge demonstrate that President
Ketts and Superintendent Lewandowski had determined to discharge Withrow and
were waiting for a dereliction on his part to be used as a basis for the discharge.
Thus, Lewandowski testified that around 1 o'clock in the afternoon of February 4,
he had a discussion with President Ketts concerning Withrow. According to Lewan-
dowski, they discussed the fact that a lot of tools were missing from the plant, some
used lumber taken by Withrow, Withrow's drinking problem, and his disinclination
to work overtime. Lewandowski told Ketts that he suspected Withrow of thievery
and that he was keeping his eye on him.
Events thereafter could hardly have moved more swiftly. Between 2 and 2:30 in
the afternoon,9 Withrow handed two wrenches to Belman, and Lewandowski seized
upon this incident and used it as the basis for Withrow's discharge.'°
The circumstances surrounding Withrow's appropriation of the two wrenches like-
wise indicate that the incident was used by the Respondent as a pretext to fire him.
President Ketts testified as to the seriousness of the offense as follows:
They [the customer] sent 200 [wrenches] in and I wanted to be sure they got
200 back because I didn't want to start off proving that we could run it but we
couldn't get them all back.
While the explanation appears to be logical, it is undermined by the fact that
Superintendent Lewandowski personally observed Belman throwing a wrench to
I Lewandowski testified that he did not recall any such conversation I credit Withrow's
testimony which parallels a similar threat later made to employee Robert Stimer, discussed
infra
8 The credited testimony of Stimer . Stimer appeared to be somewhat handicapped in
speech, reading ability, and comprehension. At times he was antagonistic toward Respond-
ent's counsel when asked what he considered to be repetitious questions. Nevertheless, I am
convinced that he was truculently truthful. Moreover, he did not appear to possess suf-
ficient acumen to fabricate the incidents as to which he testified. Accordingly, I credit
his testimony.
O The time was fixed by Howard Belman, a witness for the Respondent.
10 In this connection , Lewandowski testified that after the occurrences of the wrench in-
cident, he again conferred with President Ketts about firing Withrow and secured Ketts'
approval However, Lewandowski admitted that in his pretrial affidavit he had said • "I
made the decision to discharge Withrow myself. I did not discuss it further with Bill
Ketts." Of the two versions; I credit the statement in the pretrial affidavit, which supports
the conclusion' that Withrow's discharge had been agreed upon between Ketts and Lewan-
dowski and that they were merely waiting for a suitable incident to use as the ostensible
basis for the discharge.
QUALITY PRODUCTION CO. 1465
Mynahan and made no effort to retrieve it.ii It is also significant that the wrench
which was produced at the hearing and introduced into evidence as being identical
with those appropriated by Withrow came from employee Stimer who testified with-
out contradiction that in February, after Withrow's discharge, Superintendent Lew-
andowski told him, "If you need any of those things, help yourself."
In sum, I find and conclude that Respondent was well aware of Withrow's union
activity and determined to get rid of him at the earliest opportunity and that the
wrench incident was seized upon by Respondent as a pretext to justify Withrow's
discharge.12 Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act, and I
so find.
Although Withrow was informed in writing that he was discharged for stealing,
Respondent at the hearing took the position that Withrow was discharged for a
number of reasons culminating in the giving away of two wrenches. Thus, Lewan-
dowski testified that Withrow drank on the job on several unidentified occasions;
that on one occasion in March 1965 when Lewandowski returned to the plant after
dinner he found Withrow, who was working overtime, in an intoxicated condition.
Lewandowski reprimanded him and sent him home. Except for the last incident,
Lewandowski's testimony is uncorroborated. Indeed, it is contradicted by Lewan-
dowski's admission that in his pretrial affidavit he had stated unequivocally, "I never
saw Withrow take a drink in the plant." 13 President Ketts, likewise, testified, "I
didn't say I saw him drinking on the job." Furthermore, although Lewandowski
maintained a personnel record of Withrow's misdeeds, the only drinking incident
recorded is the one which occurred in March 1965. In view of the foregoing, I do
not credit Lewandowski's testimony, except as to the March 1965 incident which
Withrow admitted.
Withrow admittedly was a drinking man, but testified that he did his drinking
outside of the plant, except when he drank with Lewandowski in the latter's office
and at the latter's invitation. Lewandowski denied ever drinking with Withrow in his
office. In view of my finding infra, it is unnecessary to resolve this conflict.
In sum, I find and conclude that Withrow's drinking habit did not play any part
in his discharge. It is significant that even when he was intoxicated in March 1965,
he was not discharged.
Respondent also adduced testimony to the effect that "stuff was being taken" from
the plant, and President Ketts testified that he had discussed with Superintendent
Lewandowski discharging Withrow "if this thing continued." However, Ketts
admitted that he could not swear to the fact that Withrow was stealing "because I
don't know who was doing it. We knew that stuff was being taken." He then
changed his testimony and testified that they did not discuss Withrow in particular;
rather, "anyone that was caught stealing."
Superintendent Lewandowski also testified to an incident involving two socket
wrenches which belonged to him, and which he found in the trunk of Withrow's
car. The event occurred during 1965, and Superintendent Lewandowski described
it as follows:
And we needed a level for the job, and we had two in the shop and they were
misplaced at the time. I couldn't find them, and Tom [Withrow] volunteered,
said he had one in his car, and he gave me the keys to his trunk, and I went to
the car to get it from his trunk. And the toolbox was open, and there were a
couple of socket wrenches in there which were from a set I had that I had
bought from Montgomery Wards, which were very easy to identify, and I
found them in his toolbox. I picked them up and then took them back in the
shop and put them in my box, along with the level that I took out of his trunk,
which I returned to him later.
In this connection , it appears that the Respondent was not always concerned about
returning to its customers the precise number of metal pieces which had been submitted
for plating . Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record that during the plating proc-
ess the metal pieces to be plated are placed in a wire basket which is immersed in various
tanks, then pulled out and the basket shaken to get rid of the excess liquid . During this
process it is not uncommon for some of the metal pieces to fall out of the basket and into
the tanks . As a result , the tanks are periodically emptied and cleaned.
12 As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pointed out: "Obviously the discharge
of a leading union advocate is a most effective method of undermining a union organiza-
tional effort ." (N.L.I1. B. v. Longhorn Transfer Service , Inc., 340 F .2d 1003, 1000.)
13 Lewandowski's pretrial affidavit was given to the Board investigator at the office of
Respondent 's attorney.
1466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Withrow, on the other hand, testified that Superintendent Lewandowski had bor-
rowed two wrenches from him, that Lewandowski took them from the trunk of his
car and that he later got them back from Lewandowski. He testified that one of the
wrenches was an open wrench and the other was a box wrench. He also admitted
borrowing two socket wrenches from Lewandowski, but testified that he returned
them. Under all the circumstances, I am inclined to credit Withrow's version. I find
it strange to believe that if, as he testified, Lewandowski found his wrenches in the
trunk of Withrow's car, he would merely have taken them back without making any
comment whatsoever to Withrow about the fact that he had found his missing
wrenches in Withrow's automobile. In any event, it is clear that, whatever the cir-
cumstances, Superintendent Lewandowski did not consider the matter of sufficient
gravity to warrant even reprimanding Withrow, to say nothing of discharging him.14
On another occasion, Withrow admittedly took some used lumber from a vacant
lot which had been purchased by the Respondent and on which it later erected its
plant. The lumber came from a barn which had been razed. Withrow testified that
the lumber belonged to'one Grover Campbell, while Respondent contends that it
obtained the lumber when it bought the lot. It is unnecessary to decide who had
title to the lumber. The fact remains that Superintendent Lewandowski, when visit-
ing Withrow's trailer about a year and a half before the hearing, saw the lumber
beneath Withrow's trailer and did nothing about it.
In sum, I find and conclude that the foregoing is a marshaling of pretexts and
afterthoughts which "were not thought of sufficient importance to warrant a dis-
charge at the time they occurred" (N.L.R.B. v. Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling
Company, 180 F.2d 840, 843 (C.A. 4), but assumed importance only after With-
row had attempted to organize the plant. See e.g., Family Laundry & Dry Cleaning,
Inc., 147 NLRB 251, 254-255; Journeymen Plasterers' Protective and Benevolent
Society of Chicago, Local No. 5, 145 NLRB. 1608, 1619, enfd. 341 F.2d 539 (C.A.
7); G & W Electric Specialty Company, 154 NLRB 1136, enforcement denied on
other grounds, 360 F.2d 873 (C.A. 7).
C. Additional threat to close the plant and interrogation
In addition to his threat to Withrow that Respondent would go out of business if
the Union came in, Superintendent Lewandowski made a similar threat to employee
Stimer. About a week after his inquiry to Stimer as to "who is going to be the insti-
gator now," Superintendent Lewandowski asked Stimer "how we come along at our
little party." At the time, Stimer was engaged in loading grinding wheels in boxes
pursuant to Lewandowski's instructions, and Stimer asked why they were loading
the boxes. Lewandowski replied that Respondent would "have to sell out or some-
thing if the Union came in, it would bust him." He also asked Stimer if he wanted
to buy a drill press which was not in use at the time, and Stimer answered in the
negative. Lewandowski also told him that "he was going to have to blackball me
and Withrow and Hashley too." 15
Some doubt may be cast upon the foregoing testimony of Stimer in view of the
fact that originally, Stimer stated that the foregoing occurred more than a week
after Withrow's discharge, while later, on cross-examination , Stimer stated he was
unsure whether the conversation took place before or after Withrow's discharge.
However, I conclude that Stimer's doubt as to when the conversation occurred does
not vitiate his testimony in view of the following circumstances: Lewandowski's
threat to close the plant parallels his earlier threat to Withrow. Furthermore,
although Lewandowski specifically denied discussing the Union with Stimer, he did
corroborate Stimer's testimony in two significant details, viz, the fact that Stimer
was loading grinding wheels into boxes at his order at which time there was a con-
versation between him and Stimer regarding the purchase of a drill press, although
Lewandowski's version is different.16
I have heretofore indicated that I credited Stimer's testimony in other respects,
and I do so here, too. On the other hand, as previously noted, Lewandowski' s testi-
14 Nor did Lewandowski record the incident in Withrow 's personnel file
15 Three of the four card signers.
19 Superintendent Lewandowski testified that he was working on a drill press to deter-
mine whether it was salvageable and was not making much headway with it. Stimer was
helping him at the time, and Lewandowski said to Stimer, "This is what you should have
on the farm ; this is not too much value to us." According to Lewandowski , Stimer indicated
that he would like to have one, whereupon Lewandowski said, "Well , if you want this one
I will sell it to you." Lewandowski ' s version is incomplete on its face . Thus, Lewandowski
failed to state what Stimer's response was to the offer to sell , and whether a price was
mentioned.
QUALITY PRODUCTION CO. 1467
mony was contradictory in some important aspects. In addition, Lewandowski at
times gave the appearance of being less than frank when he testified. Accordingly, I
do not credit his testimony in this regard.
In view of the foregoing I find and conclude that Superintendent Lewandowski on
two occasions threatened to close the plant if the Union came in, and that such
threats were coercive in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Lewandowski's
interrogation of Stimer as to who was going to be the instigator now that Withrow
had been discharged and as to how the employees were coming along at their little
party was likewise violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so find.
D. Respondent's attempt to have an employee give false testimony
After Withrow's discharge Superintendent Lewandowski approached Stimer and
told him that they were going to court and asked Stimer to testify that Withrow
"had stole from the company." Stimer replied that he "had never seen Tom [With-
row] steal anything and I wasn't going to lie and louse myself up for anybody."
Lewandowski denied that the conversation occurred. For reasons heretofore given,
I credit the foregoing testimony of Stimer. In addition, Stimer was cross-examined
extensively and exhaustively about this incident by Respondent's counsel who failed
to shake him. In crediting Stimer's testimony, I am aware of the fact that he testi-
fied that the conversation occurred a week or two after Withrow had been dis-
charged. This fixed the conversation as having occurred before the Union had filed
the charge, and it therefore might appear strange that Superintendent Lewandowski
would be seeking to line up witnesses for Respondent's defense before Respondent
was aware of the fact that there would be an unfair labor practice proceeding. This
circumstance might affect the credibility of Stimer in this regard. However, it is
more than likely that Stimer was mistaken as to the time of the conversation. As I
have heretofore indicated, Stimer was a handicapped person and it is quite possible
that, having no interest in the matter, he might not remember with any degree of
precision when an event occurred, while remembering that the event did occur. I
am inclined to believe that Stimer was incorrect as to the date of the conversation,
although with simple-minded tenacity he clung to the fact and, indeed, reiterated on
a number of occasions that Superintendent Lewandowski did ask him to testify that
Withrow had been guilty of stealing. Lewandowski's attempt to have Stimer testify
falsely in a Board proceeding is an interference in proceedings designed to vindicate
employees' rights and, as such, has a tendency to deprive employees of vindication
by the Board of their statutory rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Oregon Teamsters' Security Plan Office, 119 NLRB 207, 209; Saginaw Furniture
Shops, Mc., 146 NLRB 587, 593, enfd. 343 F.2d 515 (C.A. 7).
E. Respondent's shop rules and regulations
Sometime in January, Respondent promulgated and posted at the timeclock the
following rules and regulations:
QUALITY PRODUCTION COMPANY
SHOP RULES AND REGULATIONS
Nature of violations 1st
offense
2d
offense
3d
offense
4th
offense
1. Excessive tai duress or absentmess________ -- Written
warning.
Written
warning.
Discharge -----
2. Violation of safety and sanitary rules----- -- -----do------- -----do------- Written
warning.
Discharge.
3. Leaving the lob during working hours with-
out permission or a reasonable excuse.
4. Insubordination____________________________
5. Abuse of company tools, machinery, equip-
ment, or property.
-----do-------
----- do-------
-----do-------
Discharge---
----- do -------
Written
warning.
----------------
Discharge-----
6. Fighting, threatening, intimidating, or coerc-
ing any employee of the Company
7. Entering the plant in an intoxicated con-
dition, bringing or drinking liquor on com-
pany property.
8. Violation of traffic or parking rules on com-
pany property.
Discharge _ _ _
-----do-------
Written
warning
--------------
ritten
warning.
-day layoff---
1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel does not contest the validity of the foregoing rules. He con-
tends, however, that the Respondent promulgated and posted these rules after it
learned of the Union's organizational campaign, for the purpose of discouraging
that campaign. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the first notice it had
of union activity in the plant was when it received the Union's demand for bar-
gaining which was dated January 19, while the rules were posted during the first
week in January.
The record is confused as to the date when the rules were posted. President Ketts
testified that they were posted January 4 or 5. Superintendent Lewandowski testi-
fied that they were posted January 2. Employee Hashley, a witness for the General
Counsel, testified that he did not remember when the rules were posted, but when
pressed to fix an approximate date, stated it was January 10. In view of Hashley's
admitted poor memory, I cannot attach any weight to his testimony that the rules
were posted on January 10. Further evidence of his poor memory as to dates is his
testimony that he received his first written warning (referred to as an AVO) on
January 14, when in fact it was dated February 5. Employee Parshall, a witness for
the Respondent, testified that they were posted shortly after he returned from a stay
in Florida, which occurred between January 6 and 10. However, he related the
posting to the time he received a warning notice for parking in a restricted area,
testifying "that's when I found out the rules were up on the board." The warning
notice that Parshall received was dated February 5. Employee Boardwine first testi-
fied that he saw the rules for the first time the end of January or the beginning of
February and later testified that the rules were posted after he had signed an
authorization card which was dated January 7. Employee Withrow testified that he
first saw the rules on a Monday in February.'
In sum, it is difficult to determine precisely when the rules were posted. Never-
theless, I am satisfied that the rules were posted after Respondent became aware of
the union activity of its employees. Significant in this regard are the facts that the
first written warning issued for violation of a posted rule was dated January 27, and
nine written warnings were issued within the space of less than a month thereafter.
Another circumstance which leads me to believe that the rules were promulgated
and posted as the result of the union activity of the employees is President Ketts'
testimony that no particular incident precipitated the promulgation of the rules.
Moreover, in view of the size of the plant and the informality that theretofore
prevailed, it is strange that Respondent should suddenly post written rules providing
for written warnings and setting forth with a formality that one would expect in a
large plant the precise steps that would be taken in the event of a violation of each
of the rules. Also, rule 6 contains language which would be particularly applicable
to combating an organizing campaign, viz, "threatening, intimidating, or coercing"
any employee. It is difficult to conceive instances of intimidation or coercion which
would occur in the shop in the normal course of the work, other than an overactive
seeking of signers to union cards.
By setting up a system under which violations of rules could result in eventual
discharge, the Respondent was making it abundantly clear to the employees that it
was retaliating against them for their organizational activity and thereby hoped to
discourage further activity in this direction. Cf. Dixie Gas, Inc., 135 NLRB 1051,
1088; The Wm. H. Block Company, 150 NLRB 341; Ward Manufacturing, Inc.,
152 NLRB 1270; Southland Paint Company, Inc., 157 NLRB 795.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IV, above, occurring in con-
nection with the business operations of Respondent set forth in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow thereof.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
17 Since the first Monday in February fell on the 7th, after Withrow had been discharged,
it is apparent that Withrow's testimony in this regard is inaccurate.
QUALITY PRODUCTION CO. • 1469
Respondent contends that even if an 8(a)(3) violation is found with respect to
Withrow's discharge, reinstatement should not be ordered. Respondent argues that
Withrow's past misconduct and an alleged subsequently discovered theft of a vise
are sufficient to bar his reinstatement. As to his alleged past misconduct, viz, his
drinking habits and the alleged taking of used lumber from Respondent's lot, it is
clear, as I have pointed out above, that such alleged misconduct was not the basis
of Withrow's discharge. Since Respondent was aware of Withrow's conduct and did
not discharge him therefor, it cannot be used as a basis to deny reinstatement. With
regard to the alleged theft of the wrenches, I have heretofore found that Withrow's
action was not the basis for his discharge but was, in fact, a mere pretext. Accord-
ingly, this incident cannot be used to deny him reinstatement.
Finally, Respondent contends that after Withrow's discharge, it discovered that,
while employed by Respondent, Withrow had stolen a vise which had been proc-
essed in Respondent's plant. The facts with regard to the alleged theft of the vise
are as follows: In the early part of March 1965, Universal Vise and Tool Company
had a fire at its plant. The finished goods inventory, parts in process, and raw mate-
rial inventory that were smoke and water damaged were sent to Respondent for
pickeling and oiling. The project was urgent, and no record was kept either by the
Respondent or by Universal Vise and Tool Company as to the number of imple-
ments and parts which had been sent to the Respondent for treatment. Some time
later, Withrow sold a vise manufactured by Universal to Howard Belman for $5.
Belman , in turn , sold the vise to his employer for $12. The vise in question was
exhibited at the hearing. It is 51/4 inches in height, and 133/4 inches in length, and
weighs 43 pounds. At the top of the vise, there is an oval indentation in which Uni-
versal places a metal plate label and attaches it with two drive screws. The vise
exhibited at the hearing did not have any metal plate, and it appeared that the
screws attaching the metal plate to the vise had been broken. A representative of
Universal testified that it is virtually physically impossible to remove the plate in
any way other than by inserting something under the name plate and prying it
upward or chiseling off the top of the drive screw. He conceded, however, that if
the name plate had been pried off, the prying action would probably take off some
of the finish, but the vise which was exhibited at the hearing did not have any of
the finish removed from the area under the name plate. He conceded also that the
paint on the vise was the original paint.
No one testified that he observed Withrow taking the vise from Respondent's
plant, and in view of the size and weight of the vise, it is quite apparent that if
Withrow had taken the vise from the plant during working hours or at the end of
the workday, such action would have been observed. Apparently realizing this defi-
ciency, Respondent sought to prove that Withrow could have taken the vise from
the plant after working hours. Thus, President Ketts testified that he returned to the
plant one evening during the time when the Universal material was being run and
had locked the doors after he had entered; that while he was there, Withrow came
up behind him and startled him; that Ketts asked Withrow how he had entered, as
all the doors were locked; and that Withrow demonstrated that he could enter
through the door on the dock by inserting a thin piece of wood between the door
and the building and lifting up the hook. Strangely, however, Ketts admitted that
after this demonstration, he made no effort to change the method of locking the
door to prevent its being opened from the outside. On the other hand, Withrow
testified that the only time he could remember when Ketts was at the plant in the
evening was an occasion on which they were pouring a cement floor, and Superin-
tendent Lewandowski had asked him to come back in the evening and finish the
concrete work; that Ketts was already there when he arrived and let him in through
the side door.
Withrow testified that he found a vise in a crate just off the bank of the road
between his home and Respondent's plant about 400 to 500 feet from the plant;
that the crate had no markings on it. Withrow's wife corroborated his testimony.
She testified that in the winter of 1965 she was driving to the grocery with Withrow
and their two children; that at a point between the Respondent's plant and Dolly
Manufacturing Company, Withrow suddenly asked her to stop the car, went over to
a ditch on the side of the road, which was about 18 inches deep, and picked up a
crate which was lying there; that Withrow did not open it in her presence, but later
told her that it contained a vise.
It is difficult to appraise the foregoing testimony, as all of the witnesses were
interested parties. Ketts' admitted failure to change the method of locking the door
leading to the dock, after Withrow had allegedly demonstrated his ability to open it
1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the outside, casts some doubt as to the credibility of his testimony regarding
Withrow's ability to enter the plant alone at night. On the other hand, it is recog-
nized that Withrow's testimony of finding the crated vise provides him with a con-
venient explanation as to how he acquired it. While Mrs. Withrow corroborated his
testimony, she was likewise an interested witness. Also, some doubt may be cast on
her testimony, in view of her statements that the crate was in "pretty good" condi-
tion, that she did not know whether the comers were "banged," and that she did
not think that the crate was cracked. It is to be expected that if the crate had fallen
from a truck, there would have been some damage to the crate. However, it is also
conceivable that she paid little attention to the entire incident. In sum, the evidence
as to Withrow's alleged theft of the vise is hardly conclusive. It is entirely possible
that, considering the haste with which the Universal job was handled, the crate con-
taining the vise may have fallen from the truck transporting the implements to and
from Respondent's plant. While one may be critical of Withrow's failure to report
the matter and turn in the vise, knowing that it was similar to those which had
been worked on by the Respondent, and while his finding the vise would not give
him legal title to it, his retaining it would not amount to stealing it from Respond-
ent's plant. Moreover, as the Board recently held in Southern Materials Company,
Incorporated, of Norfolk, 145 NLRB 28, the "mere `probability"' that Withrow
may have stolen the vise is not a sufficient basis for denying him reinstatement. (Id.
at 29, footnote 2.) 18
In view of all the foregoing, I shall recommend that the Respondent be required
to'offer Withrow immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights, dismissing if
necessary any employee hired after his discharge. Respondent should also be
required to make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered because
of the discrimination against him, with backpay computed in the customary man-
ner.19 I shall further recommend that the Board order the Respondent to preserve
and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, payroll and other rec-
ords to facilitate the computation of the backpay due and the right of employment.
With regard to Respondent's shop rules and regulations, the General Counsel has
conceded that the rules in themselves are valid. However, as I have found above,
Respondent promulgated and posted these rules for the purpose of retaliating
against its employees for their organizational activity and for the purpose of dis-
couraging further organizational activity. Accordingly, to effectuate the purposes of
the Act, it is necessary to apprise all concerned that the Respondent may not pro-
mulgate and post rules for such purposes. This can be accomplished by requiring
the Respondent to rescind the rules. However, the Respondent may thereafter pro-
mulgate and post reasonable shop rules for business reasons, provided that such
action is not taken for the purpose of retaliating against employees for organiza-
tional activity or for the purpose of discouraging organizational activity.20
As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are of a character
striking at the root of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, I shall recommend
that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case , I recommend that the Respondent , its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union , United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, or in
any other labor organization of its employees , by discharging or in any other man-
ner discriminating against employees in regard to hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment.
(b) Threatening to go out of business if a majority of the employees select Inter-
national Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
is Respondent relies heavily upon N.L.R.B. v. Big Three Welding Equipment Company,
359 F.2d 77 (C.A. 5). The case is readily distinguishable in that the dischargees in that
case openly admitted pilfering goods and equipment from their employer. In the instant
case, Withrow denied the alleged theft of the vise.
'19F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; I8i8 Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
20 The situation presented is somewhat analogous to the reinstatement of an 8(a) (3)
dischargee who, after reinstatement, is subject to discharge for cause.
QUALITY PRODUCTION CO. 1471
ers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization to represent
them.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning their or other employees ' membership in,
or activities on behalf of International Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization of its employees , in a manner constituting interference , restraint,
or coercion within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
(d) Soliciting employees to testify falsely in a Board proceeding.
(e) Instituting and/or maintaining shop rules for the purpose of retaliating
against employees for their organizational activity or to discourage organizational
activity.
(f) 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,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities,
except to the extent that such right is affected by the proviso to Section 8 ( a)(3) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Charles T. Withrow immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges , dismissing if necessary any employee hired subsequent to his dis-
charge, and make him whole for any loss he may have suffered as a result of the
Respondent's discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section of
the Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, for
examination and copying, all records necessary for the determination of the amount
of backpay due.
(c) Notify the above-named employee, if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Serv-
ice Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(d) Rescind the shop rules and regulations posted in January 1966. This shall
not prevent the Respondent from thereafter instituting and posting reasonable shop
rules and regulations for business reasons, provided that such action is not taken for
the purpose of retaliating against its employees for any organizational activity or
for the purpose of discouraging organizational activity.
(e) Post at its plant in Spring Arbor, Michigan , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix ." 21 Copies of such notice to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 7, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the
Respondent , shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted, and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the date of the
receipt of this Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.22
21 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order"
shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner," in the
notice. If the Board's Order Is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
the notice shall be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision and Order."
22 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees , by discharg-
ing or in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to hire
and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten to go out of business if a majority of the employees
select International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, or any other labor orga-
nization of our employees , to represent them.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their or other employees'
membership in, or activity on behalf of, International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees , in a manner
constituting interference , restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to testify falsely in a Board proceeding.
WE WILL NOT institute and/or maintain shop rules for the purpose of retal-
iating against employees for their organizational activity or to discourage orga-
nizational activity.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
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 , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all such . activities , except to the extent that such right is affected by
the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Charles T. Withrow immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his senior-
ity or other rights and privileges , dismissing if necessary any employee hired
subsequent to his discharge , and make him whole for any loss he may have
suffered as a result of our discrimination against him.
WE WILL rescind the shop rules and regulations posted in January 1966.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization.
QUALITY PRODUCTION COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard , Detroit, Michigan 48226 , Telephone
226-3200.
R. G. Barry Corporation and Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO. Cases 9-CA-3492 and 3404. February 7, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 14, 1966, Trial Examiner Lowell Goerlich issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent had not
162 NLRB No. 135.