Silver Metal Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 25 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

Silver Metal Products, Inc. and Tim Brian and Paul
Coupaud. Cases 32 CA- 1168 and 32-CA - 1173
August 9, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENEI.L.O
AND TRUESDALE
On May 4, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Rus-
sell L. Stevens issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
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 briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.i and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent. Silver
Metal Products, Inc., Hayward. California, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the ac-
tion set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph (c):
"(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act."
i In sec. III. B. 2. of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge inadver-
tently quoted employee Stanford as testifying that he was approached by
Poulos, a supervisor. during Long's vacation and questioned about union
activities. Stanford in fact testified that this questioning took place on Au-
gust 8. 1978. one day after Long returned from vacation. Additionally. in the
section of his Decision entitled, the "Background." the Administrative Law
Judge inadvertently included Poulos in a list of employees who distributed
union authorization cards during an organizing drive in Respondent's plant.
There is no indication in the record that Poulos was a participant in the
distnbution. We hereby correct these inadvertent errors.
2 In par. I(c) of his recommended Order. the Administrative L.aw Judge
used the broad cease-and-desist language "[iln an) other manner" rather
than the narrow injunctive language "in any like or related manner." For the
reasons set forth in our recent decision in Hirkmon Foods. Inc. 242 NLRB
1357 (1979). we shall modify the recommended Order to require Respondent
to cease and desist from in any like or related manner infringing upon em-
ployee nghts. This change shall also be made in the revised notice to employ-
ees.
SILVER METAL PRODUCTS, INC.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTI('E To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF TIlE
NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity
to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the National
Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this
notice. We intend to carry out the Order of the
Board.
WE WILL NO] interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of the Act. in violation
of Section 8(a)(I ) of the Act, by interrogating our
employees concerning their union activity.
WE WILL NOt discourage membership in Sheet
Metal Workers International Union, Local 355,
or in any other labor organization, by laying off.
discharging, or in any other manner discriminat-
ing against employees in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any other term or con-
dition of employment.
WE wilL Nor in any like or related 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: and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or
all such activities.
WE WILL offer Tim Brian and Paul Coupaud
immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist. to substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges pre-
viously enjoyed, and WE Wil.l. make them whole
for their loss of earnings, with interest thereon.
SIt.VER METAL. PRODUCTS. INC.
DECISION
SIAI-MENI OF 1HE CAS[
RuSSELL. L. STEVENS, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me in Oakland. California, on Febru-
ary 6 and 7. 1979.' The charge is Case 32 CA-1168 was
I All dates herein are 1978, unless otherwie stated.
244 NLRB No. 4
25
I)E( ISIONS OF NATIONAL. ILABOR RELATIONS BOARD
filed August 22 by Tim Brian,. an individual. The charge in
Case 32 CA 1173 was filed August 22 by Paul Coupaud.
an individual. On October 27 the Regional Director of Re-
gion 32. National Labor Relations Board, issued an order
consolidating said two cases and issued a consolidated com-
plaint alleging that Silver Metal Products, Inc. (hereinafter
called Respondent), violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act (hereinafter called the Act).
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. Briefs. which
have been carefully considered,. were filed on behalf' of Gen-
eral Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record3 of the case, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor. I make the tfol-
lowing:
FINDINO(S ()I FA( I
1. IF BUSINESS OF RESPONI)FNI
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been.
a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue
of the laws of the State of California. with an office and
principal place of business located in Hayward, California
where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of' metal
timber connectors. During the past 12 months Respondent.
in the course and conduct of its business operations. sold
and shipped goods or services valued in excess of $5(.000
directly to customers located outside the State of Calitiornia
and during the same period purchased and received goods
or services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppli-
ers located outside the State of California.
I find that Respondent is, and at all times material herein
has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in a busi-
ness affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2.
(6), and (7) of the Act.
II. IIHE LABOR ORGANIZAlION INV)I.VI! I)
Sheet Metal Workers International Union. Local 355
(hereinafter called the Union), is, and at all times material
herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THt ALLFiEIGI) UNFAIR I.ABOR PRAt( It 1IS
Background4
Respondent's principal product consists of metal sup-
ports and hangers used in construction of buildings and
houses. Involved in the manufacturing process, among
other operations, are stamping and welding done partially
2 Individuals are referred to herein by their last names.
On August 22 the Union filed a petition for election among Respondents
employees in Case 32- RC 455. In his brief herein. General Counsel moved
that the petition, tally of ballots. and certification in said case be made a part
of this record. No opposition to said motion was filed. Said motion hereby is
granted.
4 This background summary is based upon testimony and evidence that is
credited and not in dispute.
by hand and partially by machines. The plant is composed
of three adjacent buildings in Hayward. California. Build-
ing I houses the main office and a warehouse for manufaic-
lured goods. Building 2, of approximately I I.(000 square
feet in area, contains office space and a manufacturing area.
Building 3' houses a smaller manufacturing area and a
warehouse where raw materials are stored.
(orporate officers are Douglas Silver. president: Stephen
Booras, vice president: Vernal Long. vice president: and
Marilyn Silvers. secretary. Booras is responsible for Build-
ing I. fr office personnel and the data processing officer.
fior the manufactured parts warehouse. for sales personnel.
and for the purchasing staff. Mike McDonald is in charge
of purchasing and inventory control. Don McCulley is sales
manager, under Booras, and supervises the sales staff'. Long
is Respondent's officer principally involved herein.' He has
been with Respondent approximately 9 ears and presently
has an office in Building 2. where most manufacturing is
carried out. Long frequently is out of his olffice and on the
floor of the manufacturing area, checking personnel, ma-
chines. and adherence to schedules. He is responsible for
operations, from receipt of raw materials to completion of
manufacturing: thereafter, the products are sent to the fin-
ished goods warehouse, under the supervision of James
Willits. Long is responsible for machinery and equipment:
the manufacturing area has approximately 30 machines, in-
cluding presses and equipment for spot, mig, and arc weld-
ing. The manufacturing operation also includes a dip paint-
ing area and a tool-and-die shop. both of which are under
long's supervision. As of August 1978 Respondent had ap-
proxiimatel 75 production employees. of which l.ong su-
pervised approxilmately 67. The remainder were supervi ;ed
by Willits.
The plant operates three shifts, the largest being the day
shift and the smallest being the graveyard shift. Each shift
has at least one leadian. In August 1978 Bill Poulos was
chief leadman oin the day shift, with wages of $7.28 per
hour: John lair was leadman on the swing shift, with wages
of approxinlately $7 per hour: and Norman McGrath was
leadman on the graveyard shift. with wages of approxi-
mately $7 per hour. Experienced production personnel at
that time earned approximately $5 per hour.
In the summer of 1978 Tim Brian was working as a
welder on the swing shift. Brian and three other employees
discussed working conditions at that time: the other three
were Paul Coupaud. Curt Gomez. and Val Beasley. They
first discussed the possibility of an employee petition con-
cerning working conditions and then decided to get in
touch with a union representative. Brian and Gomez met
with a union representative August 15 and were given au-
thorization cards for distribution to fellow employees.
Brian. Poulos. and Coupaud solicited card signatures on
August 15 and 16 among the employees on all three shifts.
Long went on vacation Monday. August 14. and returned
to the plant on Thursday. August 17. Brian was laid off by
Long on August 17. and Coupaud was discharged on Mon-
day. August 22.
'This building contains space shared with Silver Instruments, a coimpany
not involved in these proceedings.
t L.ong's supervisorial status is not in dispute.
7 Willits is under Boras' supervision
26
SIlNI R ilI Il. P ROI)UClS. INc.
I sstues
A . .tll[' 11CI I 1 h i/
Para graph \V(ai of the complaint a;lleges hIlti ol ,r
about August 17 I.ong threatened an Cmployee sw it1 la;ofl
because of the emlnploce's engaigemlent ii protected acti l-
ties.
Brian testified that when I.ong laid him off on August 17.
"hje said because we can't have union activities in this
shop."
Long denied the statement attributed to him bh Brian.
L)iscussion
l.ong is an executive of lengthy business experience. I'he
record shows that he violated the Act. as discussed intra.
but it also shows that he was well versed in the handling of
employees. The blatant and harsh statement that Brian tes-
tified that Long made appeared unrealistic and doubtful.
Brian's testimony on this point was not convincing, ap-
peared contrived. and is not credited.
B. .l/eged Interrogltion hiv Poulov
Paragraph VI(b) alleges that on or about August 18 Pou-
los interrogated an employee concerning union activities in
the plant.
Respondent denies that Poulos is a supervisor and further
denies that employees were interrogated as alleged.
I, Poulos' status
Long testified: There are leadmen on each shift. and their
duties and authority are the same. Respondent has a total
of between 9 and 13 leadmen. The sizes of their crews vary.
from I or 2 to approximately 15. Poulos had 8 or 10 in his
crew. At times relevant herein Poulos was chief leadman
during the day shift, earning more than $2 per hour in ex-
cess of the wage of experienced production workers. Long
went on a short vacation in August. planned and lasting for
3 days. No one replaced him during his absence, but prior
to leaving he posted a notice to employees, stating in gen-
eral terms, "Bill Poulos will be in charge of the presses
while I'm gone. See Bill, and please cooperate with him."
Long has taken a vacation each year in the past, and Poulos
has been his replacement during those times. Poulos was
responsible for completing tasks assigned to the day shift. If
employees were caught "goofing off." leadmen (including
Poulos) had authority to tell them to get back to work:
leadmen could switch employees from one machine to an-
other, depending upon shop requirements: emploees re-
ported to the leadmen when they became ill and had to
leave the plant: leadmen reported to Long those employees
who were or were not doing a good job: leadmen trained
new employees. eadmen do not have authority to inter-
view job applicants, assign overtime work, excuse time off.
recommend raises, recommend or discipline employees, or
send employees home. On one occasion l.air sent an em-
ployee home when Long was not in the plant. but ong
knows of no other such instance. Poulos once turned down
a pro motlon to forerman ith super isor autho ritv. be-
cause thejob entailed too much responsihilit. All leadmen
pulnch t Imeclocks. The sarme protit-shari ng plan applies to
all employees. Poulos had no authority over other eadmen,
hut he does hase a better knowledge of the machines and is
responsible for certain machines. hereas other leadimen
are not. ong testitied thait it ould he nest to impossible
for him to run the manufacturing department without the
assistance of leadmen.
Poulos testitied: He worked for Respondent from August
1971 until Januar\ i. 1979. except for a period of 7 months
in 1972. ie was a1 leadman approxilmatel I - I 2 or 2 ears
prior to leaving Respondent. His principal responsibility
was to make sure equipment was operaling properly. lie
assigned emplo ees to particular machines. which did not
involve much independent judgment on his part. lie consid-
ered employees' experience when making such assignments.
lie never assigned overtime work. interviewsed job appli-
cants. transferred employees among departments. granted
vacations or set vacation schedules, or ga e emlplobees time
off. Only l.ong exercised those functions, When Long went
on vacation Poulos had only limited authority, such as
sending employees to the dispensary if they became ill. lie
could not hire or fire. He was not the only leadman to take
over when Long was on vacation: others sometimes did the
same thing. In the spring of 1978 Long offered him the
position of foreman with authority to tire and discipline
employees. but Poulos turned down the offer, saying he
would rather work with the machines. The new job as fore-
man would have been much the same as his jobh as leadman.
except with more authority "as a real supervisor. as I was
not. I don't believe at that time." Long made all decisions
relative to priority of orders for hangers. but Poulos used
the employees on machines in such a manner as to achieve
the best possible production rate. When Long was on vaca-
tion Poulos "ran the facility." A substantial portion of the
production employees were young and worked occasion-
ally. or part time. while attending school. ie recommended
employees for training and asked Long to talk with employ-
ees who needed discipline. He ate lunch with rank-and-file
employees and never signed reports or wrote memoran-
dums to Long.
Lair testitied: He was a leadman on the night shift for
approximately 5 years and left Respondent's employ Janu-
ary 16. iHe was replaced by Mel Thayne. He dispersed em-
ployees when they were talking too much and reprimanded
employees. When there was a problem that required disci-
pline. he wrote a note to Long and discussed the matter the
following day. Lair had no authority to impose discipline.
During the organizing campaign Gomez asked if he wanted
to sign a card, and he declined. He received an anonymous
telephone call the same evening after talking with Gomez.
and the caller said Lair "could be blackhalled out of ars
union job by not signing a pledge card." air reported to
Long about the quality of work of employees on the swing
shift, and if employees did not fillow l.air's orders when a
discipline problem arose. he reported the situation to Long.
He assigned employees to work on particular machines.
transferred employees between jobs. and set schedules for
machine work. He was responsible for the swing shift. On
two or three occasions he punched employees' timecards
27
I)E('ISI()NS OF1 NAIIONAL LABOR RELAl IONS BOARD)
and sent them home early as a form of discipline for iolat-
ing work rules. He never was reprimanded for taking that
action. It was his responsibility to see that production on
the swing shift was maintained at a certain level. lie re-
ported to work 30 or 45 minutes early each day, without
pay for that time, in order to get employees and the work
lined up for the day.
Roger Rayhbuck testified: He is a leadman on the day
shift, presently training to take Poulos' place. lie has au-
thority to transfer employees from one machine to another,
but he does not have authority to send an employee home
and never has done so. On one occasion he observed Brian
loafing and reported that to Lair. On another occasion he
reported Brian's loafing to Long. On another occasion he
orally reprimanded Coupaud and related the incident to
Lair and to Long. He was on the night shift: Poulos was on
the day shift. Lair was leadman on the night shift, and em-
ployees on his shift considered Lair to be their supervisor.
Lair had authority to issue work instructions.
Brian testified: Poulos was one of Respondent's five or
six leadmen. le received work orders from Poulos, but
Poulos never assigned overtime work to him or gave him
time off or reprimanded him. Poulos got his instructions
relative to assignments for employees and relative to ma-
chines from Long. Poulos punched a timecard. but did not
engage in actual production work.
Beasley testified: Long was supervisor of the swing shift:
Lair was one of two leadmen on the night shift. When Long
was absent, Lair made the work assignments. Lair later was
replaced by Mel Thayne. who then was in charge of the
entire shift and did some welding. He considered Lair the
boss and did what Lair told him to do. On one occasion
Lair sent him home in the middle of the shift. and on an-
other occasion Lair sent another employee home early. ILair
had authority to tell employees to get back to work when
they were loafing. When Beasley went home ill, he told
Long and also told Lair. If employees engaged in horseplay,
Lair stopped them.
Paul Young testified: He was a machine operator on the
day shift from December 1977 until September 1978. He
said Poulos was a leadman in charge of certain machines
and trained him on the machines. Employees on the day
shift considered Poulos the man in charge, after Long. Pou-
los was considered to be above the other leadmen on the
day shift. Poulos switched employees around on machines,
told employees what to do, and reprimanded employees.
He considered Lair as having the same authority as Poulos.
except on the swing shift. Lair also disciplined employees.
by telling them to get to work when they loafed. When he
asked for a raise and a transfer, he talked only to Long.
Gomez testified: When he was hired by Long in March
1978. he was told to report to Lair. who then was "fore-
man." Lair gave him work instructions and was his supervi-
sor. He did what Lair told him to do. Lair transferred em-
ployees, including Gomez, among different machines and
had more authority than other employees.
Larry Stanford. who worked intermittently for Respon-
dent as a machine operator, testified that he was on Lair's
shift. He said Lair's job was the same as Poulos', and Lair
made work assignments and work changes.
(oupaud testified in much the same manner as Brian.
Beaslev. Young, (Gomez. and Stanford on this issue relative
to l.air.
D)iscu ssion
Long testified that it would not be reasonably possible for
him to run the plant and the 67 employees he is responsible
for without leadman. C(learly. leadman under such circum-
stances become more than just conduits for communication
betwee Long and the employees. Such a situation consis-
tently has been considered by the Board in its determina-
tions relative to supervisory status.'
Respondent introduced testimony to show that it has be-
t, een 9 and 13 eIadmen. with various crew sizes, and con-
tends that all leadmen had the same authority and respon-
sibility. Long testified that Poulos and Lair were not
superior to any other leadmen. However. Poulos acknowl-
edged that he had somewhat broader authority then other
leadmen on the day shift, in transferring employees among
different machines. General Counsel's witnesses testified
that Poulos and Lair were considered by them, and held out
by Long as, leadmen with considerable authority. Those
witnesses further, and credibly. testified to several indicia of
supervisory status of Poulos and Lair. e.g.. authority to di-
rect work assignments, transfer employees between ma-
chines, direct en.loyees to work instead of loaf, orally rep-
rimand employees. and, in Lair's case, send employees
home as punishment for loafing. Long's testimony that Lair
exceeded his authority and that neither Poulos nor Lair had
authority other than ministerial in nature is contrary to the
record and is not credited. Long's testimony, as supported
by General Counsel's witnesses, that Poulos "took his
place" on more than one occasion when Long was on vaca-
tion shows that Long considered Poulos more than just an-
other leadman. Long's and Poulos' testimony that other
leadmen sometimes took Long's place was not supported by
specific examples and is given no weight. It is clear from the
record that Poulos and Lair (to a somewhat lesser extent)
were considered by Long to be his right-hand men.
It may well be, as aruged by Respondent. that Poulos
and Lair could not hire, fire, grant leave. or give raises, and
could not act in some other ways as supervisors as that term
often is used. but the fact remains that the two could, and
did, effectively direct employees and use machines in such
manner as to obtain maximum production. In so doing,
often they acted independently and through exercise of
their own judgment. Clearly, they were supervisors as that
term is used in the Act.
2. The interrogation
Stanford testified that during the period when Long was
on vacation, Poulos approached him:
A. Well, I was working on my machine, and he
walked up to me and asked me if I was leaving. He
heard that I would be going hack to school, and I told
H Bel-Air Mart, Inc.. a Subsidiar of larnmoih Marr. Inc.. 203 NLRB 339
(1973); Pennsylvania Truck Linch. Inc.. 199 NLRB 641 1972).
28
SILVER METAL PRODUCTS, INC.
him, yes. And then he asked me if I knew of anything
about union talk that was going around the shop. And
I said, yes I did. And then he asked me if it was mainly
on swing shift, and I told him that it was on, basically,
all shifts.
Q. Did he ask you anything else?
A. He asked me what exactly was being-if they're
passing out cards, and who had signed the cards, and
did I sign one.
Q. And what was your response to all this?
A. I told him that I didn't know who was passing
out the cards, but I had signed one.
Poulos testified he talked with Stanford after the union
election date had been established:
Q. Isn't it a fact you asked Mr. Stanford what he
knew about the cards or petitions that were being
passed around?
A. Yes. I wanted to know why I didn't get one.
Stanford is credited. Poulos' interrogation clearly is coer-
cive: his explanation for the interrogation is not credited.
Further, even if he did expect to receive a card, that fact
would be given no weight. This allegation is supported by
the record.
C. Alleged Interrogation hb Poulos
Paragraph Vl(c) alleges that on or about August 18 Pou-
los interrogated an employee about the Union's organizing
campaign.
Stanford testified that he talked with Poulos again, the
day after the conversation discussed in section B, above:
A. I remember specifically that he asked me, did
they pass out cards or petitions, and then who signed
them. Was it mainly the swing shift personnel that
signed them. And I replied that everybody on all shifts
had signed it.
Poulos testified only as quoted above.
Stanford is credited; this allegation is proved.
D. Alleged Interrogation by Poulos
Paragraph VI(d) of the complaint alleges that on or
about September 18 Poulos interrogated an employee about
union activities.
Young testified that he talked with Poulos in early Sep-
tember:
A. He asked me if I had decided how I was going to
vote on the Union.
Q. And did he ask you anything else?
A. I don't recall anything else. He just went over
certain things about how they-we'd be making less
money if the union came, and how the unions' [sic]
medical plan went bankrupt.
Q. Did he ask you what you knew about the union
activities?
A. No.
Q. Did he ask you what had been happening among
the employees?
A. No, I don't think so.
Poulos testified that he talked with Young:
Q. When did that occur?
A. Sometime after I found out the union was trying
to organize in our company.
Q. And do you recollect what the conversation
how the conversation ran?
A. I remember the gist of it was -
Q. What was it?
A. Oh, let's see. I asked him how he felt about it -
what he what were his feelings about a union coming
into our shop. He had the impression I had the im-
pression he was undecided, you know., this is pretty
good, but yet this is pretty good. And I proceeded to
tell him the way I felt about it. Yeah. pretty much of it.
Poulo's interrogation, which he acknowledges. clearly is
coercive and in violation of the Act. Young is credited.
E. Alleged Harassment hby l.ong
Paragraph Vl(e) of the complaint alleges that on or about
September 22 Long harassed an employee because of the
employee's engaging in union or concerted activities.
Gomez testified: A couple of weeks after Brian was
"fired" (August 17). he was approached by Long. who said
the toilet was plugged and overflowing. They had an argu-
ment, during which Long said he was not accusing Gomez,
but "I'm telling you to watch yourself." A couple of weeks
later Long approached Gomez concerning a window in a
business across the street from the plant, saying that had
been broken the evening before with a slug from Respon-
dent's plant. Again Long said he was not accusing Gomez,
but stated to him, "[W]hen we catch the guy. we're going to
fire him." Long also talked with other employees about the
broken window. Long talked with Gomez about the Union
on two or three occasions, during which Long said the em-
ploy'ees could do as they liked, but he was opposed to the
Union. Gomez could not remember the date of the conver-
sations. After the election:
A. We had one conversation after the election. A lot
of things were coming down on me at the plant. and--
Q. What things were happening to you at the plant?
A. I had my tires flattened, there was things written
on the walls about me about spics and greasers, and I
was going to get my butt kicked, things of this and fire
Gomez. I found out that there was notes given to Vern,
so I went and talked to Vern, and he encouraged me
not to let it get to me. He said. Gomez. you just got to
let it go in one ear and out the other. There's always
going to be a sorehead-there's always somebody that
don't just let water go under the bridge. And we pro-
ceeded to keep talking. Then we just told jokes and
talked about each other's life styles.
Q. I see.
At the same time as Long talked about the overflowing
toilet, he implied that Gomez intentionally unplugged a
machine three times while it was in operation. Long did not
accuse Gomez, but stated, "Just watch yourself."
Long testified: There was much sabotage and vandalism
at the plant in September. Lair reported to Long that Go-
29
DI)I ISIONS 01: NATIONA. ABOR REI.ATIONS BOARI)
mez had unplugged a machine three times, but Long did
not accuse Gomez, since he did not see it himself. He did
warn Gomez about vandalism, however. I.ong talked with
all employees on the second shift about the broken window
and later discovered it was broken as a result of horseplay
The broken window was not related to union activity.
Rayhbuck testified that he was working on the machine
that was being unplugged and that each of the three times it
happened, Gomez was walking near the machine. The plug
was hidden from the view of the operator, and it was possi-
ble to pull the plug without being seen by the operator.
Discussion
Testimony concerning the fact that three types of inci-
dents occurred is not in dispute. The window incident is
outside this issue, since Long questioned all employees on
the second shift about it, and no singling out of Gomez for
harassment is shown. The testimony of Rayhbuck and
Long concerning the machine plug is credited, and that tes-
timony shows that Long had some reason to believe that
Gomez was involved. However, even with that knowledge,
Long did not directly accuse Gomez. He merely warned
him about sabotage. Under the circumstances. I.ong's con-
versation with Gomez and his warning had a reasonable
and an objective basis, were not vindictive, and do not indi-
cate harassment. It may well be, as both Gomez and I.ong
testified, that Long talked with Gomez and other employees
on more than one occasion and made clear his dislike of the
Union. However, it is equally clear, even by Gomez' testi-
mony, that Long was not threatening or coercive in his con-
versations. Gomez was only one of several employees who
actively supported the Union, and Long knew who most of'
the activists were. There is nothing to show that Long had
reason to, or did, single out Gomez for harassment. No
other employee complained of' harassment. Finally. by his
own testimony Gomez made it clear that if there was any
harassment of him, it was by his fellow employees. Further.
it is not shown whether that harassment was because of
union activity or something not related to the Union. Ac-
cording to Gomez. Long was sympathetic toward Gomez in
the harassment he was undergoing and tried to give him
encouragement.
In view of the foregoing, the matter of the toilet reason-
ably can be construed only as an incident in the organiza-
tional campaign that annoyed Long. who. for whatever rea-
son, warned Gomez. That single, isolated incident certainly
cannot be construed as harassment.
This allegation is not supported by the record.
F. Alleged Laoff of Brian
Paragraph VII(a) of the complaint alleges that on or
about August 17 Respondent laid off Brian because of his
protected activities.
Brian testified: He has been employed by Respondent on
three different occasions, the last being from March 17.
1978, until August 17. He was hired in March by a tele-
phone call to Long from Utah. He returned to work as a
welder on the swing shift, making a little more than produc-
tion employees. When he started no other welders were
working on the swing shift. He does both mig and spot
welding. Beasley. a coworker, initially operated a spot-
welding machine on the swing shift. Brian trained Beaslev
in mig welding. and thereafter Beasley and Brian both did
mig welding: usually there was enough work to keep both
of them busy. Brian said he made some mistakes, but no
more than other employees; he never was reprimanded, so
far as he knows. other than an oral reprimand (justified) by
long for poor work in July 1978: he did not have excessive
absences and had no unexcused absence from work. His
earlier two periods of work for Respondent were ree of
criticism, so far as he knows-he worked as an operator
and warehouseman on those occasions. He knew ong was
opposed to unions from talks with Long in 1975 and 1976h.
Poulos saw him passing a pledge card to an employee on
,August 16. hut Poulos said nothing to him, and he does not
believe Poulos knew what was on the card. After he was
hired in March. he received two raises. He was laid off bv
long on August 17. and when he asked why, ong replied.
"[Blecause we can't have union activities in this shop."
Beasley testified: He started working for Respondent ap-
proximately I year before the hearing, as a part-time ma-
chine operator. He was transferred to the welding area on
the swing shift, where Brian trained him on a mig welder.
All employees can operate the spot-welding machine. After
being trained, he did both mig and spot welding. Ile distrib-
uted union pledge cards., but does not believe l.air, Poulos.
or Long saw him do so. After Brian and (oupauad were
fired. Long and Lair talked with Beasley and other employ-
ees and expressed their dislike of the Union. Beasley has
continued to work as a welder and has worked full time
since approximately 1-1/2 months before the hearing. No
new welders have come to work on the swing shift since
Brian left: Thayne welds only occasionally he is in charge
of the shift. There are no new welders on the day shift.
There is enough welding work for Beasley's full-time job.
and when Brian was working there was enough welding
work for the two of' them. After Brian left, there was a
backlog of' welding work to be done. Respondent has a very
high employee turnover rate--during the 4 months preced-
ing the hearing approximately 80 employees have been
hired.
Young testified that he talked with ong in September
about the Union. and ong made it clear that he was op-
posed to the Union.
Gomez testified that so far as Lair's knowledge of' union
organizing efforts were concerned, "we left him completely
out of it. He had no knowledge of what was going on."
However, Lair told him about the anonymous telephone
call he received.
Stanford testified that he talked with long the last week
in August. during which conversation l.ong talked against
the Union.
Lair testified that Brian was a better welder than Beasley.
He also said there was more than enough work to keep
Beasley busy after Brian was laid off.
Rayhbuck testified: On two occasions. on successive
days. he observed Brian reading a book during work hours.
The first incident, while Long was on vacation, was re-
ported to Lair: he also reported the second incident to Lair.
When Long returned, he reported both incidents to him. He
30
SlI.VER NEIAL. PROI)[t(TS. IN('.
does not know whether Brian was on a break when he was
reading the hook. hut it is possible. On the second occasion
l.air said he had had trouble all week tring to get Brian to
work.
l.ong testified: Before he went on vacation. Iair talked
with him about Brian:
Q. And what were those reports?
A. That he was he just wasn't producing. tie had
to keep after him all the time. lie wouldn't in other
words, he wouldn't be self-motivated to do the work
that was there. He had to keep after him. lie talked a
lot and was just away from his area a lot. And I could
tell I Every job that we do I should cla rit\ this.
Everything that we do. night or day. goes into the mla-
terials warehouse. The people on the other shifts count
these parts. These parts are tabulated on slips of paper.
and they are fed into the computer the next day . And
the next day I get a computer runout of what our stock
status is. And so I can look on the stock status and see
what was done and whether it's in the warehouse or
not, just by looking at the computer sheet. And I felt
that our welding was The two weeks hefore I left on
vacation, we had a rise in welding. we had an upsurge
in welding, a couple of large jobs. And at the time I
came hack, a lot of this wasn't being done.
By mid-August welding work had slumped substantiall,.
Respondent introduced into evidence a chart prepared bh
Long to show the drop in welding requirements during Au-
gust. When Long returned from vacation there was enough
welding work on hand for only the day shift, and occasion-
ally work decreases in September. At that time there were a
full-time welder and a part-time welder on the night shift.
whereas prior to that time there was no full-time welder.
and only occasionally even a part-time welder. at night.
Long testified from Brian's personnel record. which shows
that Brian's 6-month raise was held hack in 1972 because of
Brian's poor work in the warehouse and shows that Brian
was changed to machine operator but was evaluated "poor
work" in 1973 as an operator. Brian w;as certified as a
welder in 1975. The file shows Brian quit in 1972 to return
to school and quit without notice in 1976. when the file was
noted, [N]ot dependable, would not rehire." However he
was rehired in March 1978. He was laid off in August be-
cause of lack of work and because of complaints about him.
He was not transferred to another job. because he was a
poor machine operator. He denied telling Brian that he was
being laid off because of union activity. Beasley has been
doing all the welding since Brian left, with fill-in welding
done. when required. by Thayne, and no new welder has
been hired. Thayne's principal job is that of leadman.
Discussion
The fact that Long was opposed to the Union is shown
by the testimony of nearly all witnesses and is acknowl-
edged by Long."'
* Resp. Exh. 1.
t0 Long's estimony that he did not talk with emploeces concerning the
Union at any time prior to receiving the notice of filing of petition (,August
22) is not credited.
Brian wIas laid off soon alter I.ong returned romn his a-
cation, and he was laid off in the middle of the shilt s well
as the middle of the week. Bri;n an(id other employees ac-
tixel were engaged in union orga niing while I .ong wa on
vacation August 14 16. and Brian was a principal union
acti ist. he suspicion therefore is raised that Brian was
laid of because of his union aclti it . I urther. the suspicion
is raised that Long came back from his .acation earl\ be-
cause of the union activit 3. I.ong testified that such ias not
the case and that he custoniaril took sh.rt .catitins. but
the manner in which he left, the inmpression of emploxees.
and the note Long posted for emplo,ees support the stuspi-
cion that his return was abrupt and IuTlplained
I.ong contends that he did not kni(i ot unioni tl tit in
the plant until the beginning of the night shift. about 4 or 5
p.m.. on the Minda tfollowing his return roin \acation
August 17. in other words, on August 21. Ile said ai leaid-
man. (i (Christensen, told him on August 21 that two eil-
ployees complained of an attellt to lorce theml to sign a
union card. I.ong said .;air told him approximatel\ anI hour
later that Brian had advised l.air on the telephone f the
union actiit., and l.air also told long abhout the .tnol, -
motus telephone call he had recei ed. l.air testilied lthat
Brian called him Sunday night. which as August 20. ,and
told him about Brian's heing engaged in rgani/lng the
plant. Lair testified:
lle said: We kept it' [sic] roim iot. beciuse e didn't
want onu to get in olved for t o reasons. We kno\\
xou've worked a long time there and ou have \our
profit sharing and our retirement. , ou know., I unider-
stand.
And he told me that he was laid off: lie didn't feel that
he should have been laid off. tie elt that lie as laid
off because of union acti\,itieS.
Q. )id he mention the names of an; other emploN-
ees in thiit coll, ersallon'?
A. No. We kept it strictl to ourselves. I don't recall
talking about other people. I .as Ilainls concerned
with Tim himself, you know.
l.air said he talked itli (iomez later that saim elung:
And he had told me. hasicall., the same thing: asked
me how I felt about organizing or signing a pledge
card.
I told him I wasn't interested. although. ou kno,u.
the, certainl3 do have the right: I can understand their
reasons. I have reasons of m> own; and that I wouldn't
be interested in it. Okay. Then he asked me: 'ell. are
you going to. ou know,. tell on me that I called ou.
And I said: No. No. I won't. I'll keep our confi-
dence. I felt: You ha e the right to organize. as long as
it's a fair thing. ou know. as long as it works both
wa)s.
Lair said he received the anon, mous and threatening tele-
phone call later that same evening. at approximatel 11:30
p.m. l.air testified that his first knowledge of union acti it
at the plant was on that day . August 20. and that he told
l.ong about the three calls on the tlilow ing da . A.ugust 21.
Brian was not asked about, nor did he take the stand ol
rebuttal to den. his telephone call to I.a.ir. (iomez testified
31
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAR[)
that I.air told him "a few months back" about the anony-
mous telephone call. Lair was a credible witness, and nei-
ther Brian nor Gomez denied Lair's testimony concerning
the telephone calls of August 20. Brian testified that he did
not believe Poulos knew what was on the card he thinks
Poulos saw Brian passing to another employee; Brian testi-
fied that the employees tried to keep the organizing efforts a
secret: Gomez testified that he did not believe Lair knew
about the union activity, that he knows of no knowledge of'
that activity by Respondent, and that the employees tried
to keep the activity a secret. There is no explanation in the
record of why Brian made the telephone call to Lair, but it
seems clear that if Lair knew about the union activity, the
call probably would not have been made. Lair's version of
the three telephone calls is given full credence, as is his
denial of knowledge of union activity prior to August 20.
Poulos testified that he knew nothing about union activity
until the week after long returned from his vacation. How-
ever, as found supra, Poulos interrogated employees coln-
cerning their union activity while Long was on vacation. It
seems apparent that Poulos, who was in charge of the plant
while Long was gone, learned of the union activity and got
in touch with Long, who then was in Utah, and that Long
cut his vacation short and returned to the plant. It is found
that Long knew of Brian's union activity prior to Brian's
layoff on August 17.
Respondent contends that its welding production chart.
referred to supra, supports its argument that Brian was laid
off because of lack of welding work. However, the chart
does not provide that support. It shows considerable fluctu-
ation in welding requirements, and it shows several periods
of low production:' yet there were no layoffs during those
periods. Brian and Beasley, supported in part by Poulos.
credibly testified that there was welding work to be done at
the time Brian was laid off. This contention by Respondent
is without merit 2
Respondent also contends that Brian was a poor worker.
That testimony is given no weight so far as it refers to em-
ployment of Brian prior to March 1978. Whatever may
have been his shortcomings in the past. Brian was rehired in
March, Respondent thereby forgiving any past derelictions.
So far as Brian's post-March work is concerned, (a) he was
hired in March for the third time, (b) he was given two
raises prior to his layoff," (c) he received no written warn-
ings or reprimands. Long testified that he orally repri-
manded Brian in May because of his poor production and
that while he was on vacation in August, welding produc-
tion was poor. Rayhbuck testified that he saw Brian possi-
bly loafing on two occasions and so reported to Long, but
that testimony was not conclusive, and. further, it appeared
to be an afterthought to support the layoff. It does not ap-
pear that Brian's work was of serious concern to Respon-
dent until it was learned that he was an active union orga-
n See, e.g.. the chart for April 15-May 13: June 17: July 15: July 29:
August 19-September 9; October 7-28: November 18: December 2.
12 The fact that no welders have been hired since Brian's layoff has been
considered, but given little weight. Beasley and Thayne are available to do
welding on the swing shift.
' Long testified that attendance is almost the only factor that affects auto-
matic pay raises.
nizer. It may well he that long was not entirely pleased
with Brian's work and that he was fired partially for that
reason. However, if that displeasure existed, it wvas of recent
origin and it was not of' such degree that a tormal repri-
mand was issued. Given ong's antipathy toward the
Union and his knowledge of Brian's union activity, the rea-
sonable conclusion is that Brian was discharged primarily
because of such activity, regardless of' any secondary con-
siderations. This allegation of the complaint is supported by
the record.
(. All4eged Dischrge o ( 'ouptud
Paragraphs VI l(b) and (c) of the complaint allege that on
or about August 18 Respondent attempted constructively to
lay off ('oupaud and that on or about August 21 Respon-
dent discharged ('oupaud because of his union activities.
Coupaud testified: When he w;as hired. he and long
agreed that Coupaud would work only graveyard or swing
shifts, because Coupaud was a part-time college lecturer
during the day. Coupaud started work as a spot welder and
later was changed to machine operator. On Friday evening.
August 18. long told Coupaud he was being moved to the
day shift, and Coupaud protested because he was teaching
during the daytime. An argument ensued, and long told
Coupaud to report to work Monday morning or be fired.
On Monday Coupaud reported to the wall-bracing ma-
chine. to which he had been assigned, and another em-
ployee was working on the machine. That employee told
Coupaud that Long had said nothing to him about a
change. Coupaud asked Long who was going to run the
machine, and Long said the other employee wtas. Poulos
then came over, and Coupaud was assigned to another ma-
chine. Nothing was said at that conversation by Long rela-
tive to the argument of the preceding Friday. At the end of
the shift ('oupaud was told to see l.ong. lie went into
Long's office. where he was fired because of insubordina-
tion on Friday.
Poulos testified: ('oupaud was put on the day shift in
order that Poulos could watch him, and he corroborated
Coupaud's testimony that the other employee was on the
wall-bracing machine when ('oupaud came to work on
Monday. On one occasion, in the summer of 1978, Lair told
him that Coupaud was a "very hard guy to have work for
you." It was Poulos' understanding that Coupaud was a
problem for supervisors and leadmen.
Lair testified: On one occasion in July, prior to Long's
vacation, Coupaud presented a problem because of his ar-
guing against an assignment Lair gave him and ultimately
refusing to work on that particular machine, allegedly be-
cause it was emitting fumes. Lair reported the incident to
Long, and the machine was assigned to another operator,
who ran it the remainder of the night. Other than that one
incident. Coupaud was a good worker. Lair was not con-
suited before Coupaud was transferred to the day shift.
Rayhbuck testified: Approximately in mid-August, be-
fore Long went on vacation, he had to reprimand Coupaud
for standing 10 or 12 feet away from a machine he was
operating. which was a safety violation. Coupaud did as he
was told, and Rayhbuck later reported the incident to Lair
and Long. Long replied. "Okay. Well, we'll probably have
32
SI L V-.R MNti-AI. PROI)t (TS. INC(
to switch hiim to da\s. so that we can h e better uper i-
Sion oer hil."
I ong testified: lie does not remember the hiring inter-
vie u with ( oupaud. but he ne er makes a commitment to
put an employee only on one particular shift. lie trans-
ferred (oupaud to the da\ shift because he had to fill spots
left hby emplosees returning to school and because he had to
watch (oupaud better. fllowing problems coupaud had
created at night. An argument ensued during which Cou-
paud became very angry and loud. He told Coupaud to
report for work Monday morning or be tired. L.ong re-
turned to his office, and Coupaud followed him. They ar-
gued outside the office, and Long went in and locked the
door because he was fearful of Coupaud's actions; ('ou-
paud several times attempted to push the door open and
was very loud. angry, and threatening. At that time he
knew nothing about the union activity or Coupaud's part
therein. Silver previously had issued instructions that no
employee should he tired without handing the employee his
final check, and since the incident occurred at approxi-
mately 7 p.m. Friday night. Coupaud could not be fired at
that time. On Monday afternoon he gave Coupaud his
check and fired him, telling Coupaud he was fired because
of his conduct Friday night. Coupaud threw the check back
and refused to leave, but finally left after l ong threatened
to call the police.
Discussion
Long's opposition to the Union is discussed in section F.
above.
Long's knowledge of union activity at the time he fired
Coupaud is discussed in section F. above. The fact that
Long knew of Coupaud's support of the Union belfore he
fired him is inferred: a) Coupaud was one of the principal
union activists, and his union activity was common knowl-
edge among the employees. (b) Coupaud's transfer an-
nounced to him on Friday was precipitous and unexpected.
Coupaud's testimony concerning his agreement with Long
only to work at night is credited. c) Coupaud's transfer
came hard on the heels of Brian's layoff, fund supra to
have been a violation of the Act.
Long testified that he transferred Coupaud in order to
watch him because of Coupaud's refuisal to operate a sport-
welding machine. Rayhbuck testified in support of Long on
this point. That testimony is not credited. Neither ong nor
Rayhbuck talked with Coupaud concerning the incident at-
ter it occurred. and there is no indication that Coupaud
could be observed better on the day shift. To the contrary.
the day shift was the principal production shift, and the
busiest one. The night shift had at least two leadmen. and
there is no apparent reason for believing they could not
closely observe and supervise Coupaud as well as, or better
than. leadmen on the day shift could. The incident was an
isolated one: I.air testified that other than the one incident.
Coupaud was a good worker. Further, Coupaud received
raises in January. April. and July of 1978. Lair testified that
he was not advised that Coupaud was going to be trans-
ferred. It is apparent that the transfer was hastily decided
upon and carried out. Long's testimony that he transferred
Coupaud partially because he needed to fill a spot on the
dai\ shift appeared contri ed. as not o, nilcing . nid is
not credited. (oupauid had been onl the night shit since he
WIas hired and there is no indication that he eeti , \as told
that sonice daN he may ha e to go to the day shift. Furtlher.
there is no indication that the business required. or could
afford, a loss on the night shift in order to fill a job on the
da\ shift. I.ong apparently had no difficulty otaiing newk
employees when he needed them.
l.ong was well aware that (oupaud must ork d.ly s be-
cause of his lecture schedule. With that knolIedge lie could
expect Coupaud to quit rather than go on the da\ shifl. It is
apparent that Coupaud's acceptance of the transtfer caine iAs
a surprise to Long. since the machine he was told to go to
on Monday 'Lis manned hb another employee . ('oupaud
appeared at the machine only because he had a fe\ d\ s off
between lecture schedules.
Under the fregoing circumstances the only logical con-
clusion is that L.ong learned upon return to the plant of
Coupaud's participation in the union activit, anid deter-
mined to cause him to quit. The transfer was an opportuni-
ty, and Long took it. The record full\ supports the alleg;-
tion of paragraph VII(h) of the complaint.
So far as C(oupaud's discharge is concerned, the onl\ ub-
stantial question is whether or not he was fired hecause of
his actions on Friday night or because of his union actiit.
or possibly because of both.
l.ong's testimony concerning an alleged instruction from
Silver to fire emploNees only if their checks are given to
them at the same time appeared strained. firletched. ind
unlikely. Long testified to his all but pieniary authority and
responsibility at the plant. and such an instruction \ olulJ
not he consistent with his p osition. Fxen assurnlii. alrik'l
nt'do,. that some such instruction hadl been is en. if ('ou-
paud had hehaved as l.ong testified. adherence to that in-
struction would have been ludicrous. Such beha;ior. if it
occurred, would demand immediate discharge, not dis-
charge the following Monda afternoon. atter a shift had
been worked. ong's testimnion concernintg the instruction
is given no credence.
Coupaud did not take the stand in rebuttal of' Iong's
description of his behavior. and it is inferred that at least
some of what Long described is accurate. I.ong's recitation
is not credited in its entirety since Coupaud was not tired
immediately. which. it may be expected he ould hase
been if the discharge solely was dictated by the beha;ior.
Instead. ong waited until Monda afternoon t disc1hargee
Coupaud. and in iew of Long's antipathy toward the
Union and the other circunstances described above. it is
logical to conclude that Coupaud was discharged. at least in
substantial part. because of his participation in union ac-
tivities. The discharge ilas in violation of the Act as al-
leged.
1I\,. 1ltl HA't( 1 O Ali NFAIR AB(R PRAII( IS tP N)"
( ()MM Rt F
Respondent's activities set forth in section ll 1 ao e. oc-
curring in connection with the operations of Respondent
described in section I. abose, have a close. intimate. ad
substantial relation to trade. traffic. and commerce a mol g
the seseral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing comlmerce and the tree flow of comn-
merce.
33
DIC)l(ISIO)NS () NA IO()NA. I.ABO()R R.AIIONS BOARI)
V. HIIt RIMI t)Y ORDl)R'I
lavIting iutund that Respondent has engaged in unlair la-
bor practices in violation of' Section 8(al( I) and (3) of the
Act. I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative actions de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been litund that Respondent unlawfully laid ofl
Iim Brian and unlawfully discharged Paul Coupaud. I will.
therefore, recommend that Respondent offer those emplox-
ees their former jobs or. if those jobs no longer exist, suh-
stantiall equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their senior-
ity or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for
any loss otf earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them by pament to them of sums of money equal
to those which they normally would have earned. absent
the discrimination. less net earnings during such period.
with interest thereon to be computed in the manner pre-
scribed in D' U". Woolworth Companv, 90 N LRB 289 (1950),
and Florida Seel (orporalion. 231 NLRB 651 (1977).14 It
will be further recommended that Respondent preserve and
make available to the Board, upon request, all payroll rec-
ords. social security payment records. timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records necessary and
useful to determine the amounts of backpay due and the
rights of reinstatement under the terms of these recommen-
dations.
Finally. it is recommended that allegations of the com-
plaint that were not proved be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record, I hereby make the following:
(CON( .L!SIONS () [.AVW
I. Respondent Silver Metal Products. Inc.. is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Sheet Metal Workers International Union. I.ocal 355,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them
by Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)( 1 ) of the
Act, by interrogating its employees concerning their union
activits.
4. Respondent engaged in, and is engaging in. unfair la-
bor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act b laying off' Brian on August 17. 1978. and hy dis-
charging Coupaud on August 21. 1978.
5. Respondent did not violate the Act except as found
herein.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act. I hereby issue the following recommended:
i
4
See. generall). Iais Plumbing & Heating Co. 138 NLRB 716 (19621.
5 In view of the circumstances described herein. it is tifund that the layoff
was a discharge
The Respondent Silver Metal Products, Inc.. Hayward.
('alilornia. its officers. agents, successors, and assigns shall:
I. ('ease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employ-
ees in the exerise of' the rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)( I ) of the Act, by
interrogating its employees concerning their union activi-
ties,
(b) Discouraging membership in Sheet Metal Workers
International Union, Local 355, or in an\ other labor or-
ganization, by lading off or discharging. or in an3 other
manner discriminating against, employees in regard to their
hire or tenure of employ ment. or any terms or conditions of
employment.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to orga-
nize; to form, join. or assist labor organizations, including
the above-named organization; to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing: to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection; or to reftrain from an or
all such activities.
2. ake the following affirmative action, which is found
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
ta) Offer Tim Brian and Paul (Coupaud immediate and
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially\ equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
and make them whole for their loss of earnings in the man-
ner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request. make available to the
Board or its agents all payroll and other records. as set forth
in the section of this L)ecision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at its Hayward. C(alifiornia, operation copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of the at-
tached notice. on forms provided b the Regional Director
for Region 32. after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and he maintained
by it tfor 61) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places. including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that the notices are not altered. defaced.
or covered b any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director fior Region 32. in ¥,rit-
ing. within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Ib In the event no exceptions are iled as provided b? Sec 102.46 ot the
Rules and Regulations o the National Labor Relalions Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted h the Board and become its
findings. conclusions. and Order. and all objections thereto shall he deemed
waived for all purposes
7 In the event that this Order is enforced b a Judgment o a Ulnited
States Court O! Appeals. the words in the notice reading Posted h Order t
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu.ani to a Judg-
ment of the nited States (ourt of Appeals nlrcing an Order of the Na-
tional L.hbor Relations Board"''
14