171 N.L.R.B. 514 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

Texstar Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 17, 1968

171 N.L.R.B. 514 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Texstar Plastics Division of Texstar Corporation and Sheetmetal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO, Local Union No . 18. Case 16-CA-3128 May 17, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On March 11, Trial Examiner David S. Davidson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed- ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Ex- aminer 's Decision, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of his exceptions. 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Texstar Plastics Division of Texstar Corporation, Grand Prairie, Texas, its of- ficers, agents , successors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recom- mended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID S. DAVIDSON , Trial Examiner : Pursuant to charges filed on October 11, 1967, by Sheetmetal Workers ' International Association , AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 18, hereinafter referred to as the Union, a complaint was issued on November 29, 1967, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging DeWitt C. Williams on October 10, 1967, because of his union or concerted activities.' In its answer, Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. A hearing was held before me in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 18, 1968. At the close of the hearing oral argument was waived and the parties were given leave to file briefs which have been received from the General Counsel. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a Texas corporation, maintains its office and principal place of business in Grand Prairie, Texas, where it is engaged, among other things, in the business of manufacturing plastic products. During the year preceding issuance of the complaint, a representative period, in the course and conduct of its business Respondent sold and distributed products valued in excess of $500,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped directly to points outside the State of Tex- as. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that assertion of jurisdiction is warranted. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Sheetmetal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 18, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts DeWitt C. Williams was employed by Respon- dent as an inspector from August 14 to October 10, 1967, when he was discharged for threatening a fel- low employee. I A later charge against Respondent was filed by International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, in Case 16-CA-3148 alleging that in May 1967 Respondent engaged in a separate violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. On December 29, 1967, the Regional Director issued an Order Consolidating Cases, Amended Consolidated Complaint, and Notice of Hearing in Cases 16-CA-3128 and 3148 , consolidating both cases for purposes of hearing and decision At the opening of the hearing herein, a motion of counsel for the General Counsel was granted severing Case I6-CA-3148 and continuing it indefinitely on the ground that the principal witness in support of the allegations based on the charge in that case was hospitalized and unavailable to testify for an indefinite period. Hearing proceeded on the allegations set forth in the original complaint in Case '16-CA-3128 171 NLRB No. 72 TEXSTAR PLASTICS DIVISION OF TEXSTAR CORP. 515 On October 6, 1967, Donald Alexander, another employee, was discharged. Alexander's discharge led to conversation between Williams, Alexander, and Union Representative Biggert, as a result of which on October 9, 1967, Williams distributed packets of union literature to about 10 other em- ployees who entered the plant about a half an hour before the start of their shift. During the day they and Williams distributed union literature and authorization cards to other employees, and about 40 signed authorization cards were returned to Wil- liams.' During the morning while Williams was in the tooling department to inspect a mold, employee Ray Barham approached him. Barham told Wil- liams that he understood Williams had been passing out union cards and that he wanted to be on the or- ganizing committee. Williams replied that there was no committee other than Williams but that if Bar- ham wanted to help he would welcome it. Williams told Barham that he did not want to discuss the matter in the working area but that if Barham would come to his home that evening, he would be glad to go over the entire matter with him and would introduce him to Biggert who was in charge of the campaign. Barham replied that he would not have a car available and asked Williams to come to his house. That night Williams went to Barham's home arriv- ing shortly before 9 p.m.:3 After some preliminary conversation unrelated to the Union, Williams gave Barham copies of the literature that had been dis- tributed in the plant and some blank authorization cards. Barham read the literature and made some comments about it. Barham then told Williams that he wanted to be a steward in the Union. Williams replied that he had no authority to appoint Barham to anything and that he believed stewards would be elected by the union members. He told Barham that if there were any other arrangements he would have to talk to Biggert about them as Williams did not know about them. Williams told Barham that if he really wanted to get in on the union campaign, it would be a good time for him to sign an authorization card. Williams handed him a card. Barham filled the card out, signed it, and handed it back to Williams. At some time after 10 p.m. Barham's wife returned home from work and after being in- troduced to Williams made coffee for Barham and Williams in the kitchen where they were sitting. About this time Barham asked Williams if he could see the cards of the employees who had signed up for the Union, some of which Williams had in his shirt pocket. Williams told Barham that he had given his word that the cards would only be shown to the union organizer and the Labor Board and that he could not break a confidence. Barham asked Williams what he would do if Barham tried to take the cards away from him. Williams replied that he had a tear gas gun with him and that he would take it out, shoot it, grab his cards, and run. Wil- liams took the gun out of his pocket, removed the shells from it, and showed them to Barham and his wife.' Barham's wife told him he had nothing to fear and could put it away.' Williams put the gun back in his pocket and they continued to talk about the Union. Barham told Williams he wanted to assist him in the campaign and to talk to Biggert the next night to find out if Barham could be a union steward. Williams left before 11 p.m. The following morning, October 10, Williams en- countered Barham in the toolroom. Barham told Williams that he was afraid he was going to lose his job and that his boss and the whole front office knew he had been passing out literature for the Union. Barham said he did not want to get involved with the Union any further and walked off. Also that morning around 8 a.m., Harry Stephen- son, manager of manufacturing for the plastics divi- sion, visited the toolroom. Chandler, an uncle of Barham and a toolroom employee, told Stephenson that Barham was in trouble, seemed afraid, and wanted to talk to Stephenson. Stephenson asked Chandler what it was all about, but Chandler replied that he could not tell him and that Stephen- son should ask Barham. Stephenson went to Bar- ham and asked what he could do for him. Barham told him that there was union activity in the plant, that he had tried to find out what it was, that he be- lieved that his life was in jeopardy, and that he wanted to talk to Stephenson about it. Stephenson asked Barham to come into his office and tell him what it was all about. In the office, Barham told Stephenson that he had learned that there was a union movement in the plant to which he was opposed because he had seen the union make trouble for people in plants where they worked. Stephenson asked Barham what his problem was, and Barham replied that he had made arrangements with Williams to come to his home Stephenson asked whether Barham had invited Williams. Barham replied that Williams had said he would come Barham told Stephenson that Williams had arrived about 8:45 and remained for 2 hours. At this point Stephenson asked Barham why he was afraid and what was the matter with him.6 Barham replied that while he was talking to Wil- liams at his home, Williams had pulled a Derringer It is not clear from the evidence whether or not the employees' distribu- tion of literature came to the attention of any of Respondent's supervisors at this time ' For reasons set forth in my concluding findings below, I have credited Williams' version of his visit to Barham's home, which was not contradicted by any other testimony ' Williams testified that the gun was a Derringer which looked like one which shoots live ammunition The tear gas shells looked like blanks and had no lead bullets at their ends He testified that he removed the Derringer from the glove compartment of his car before entering Barham's house because he was uncertain of the safety of Barham's neighborhood ' Williams testified that Mrs Barham laughed as she said this and Bar- ham grinned " Stephenson testified that at this point he noticed that Barham µas squirming and was picking up things on Stephenson's desk, turning them around, and putting them down 353-177 0 - 72 - 34 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and said that those who crossed him would end up on their head in a ravine in Dallas. Stephenson interrupted Barham at this point and called his secretary in to take down what Barham had said . He also telephoned Personnel Manager Ron Reitz and told him what was happening. Reitz told him to go ahead and find out what Barham had to say. Stephenson asked Barham to start at the beginning and tell him everything that had hap- pened . Barham proceeded to do so with Stephen- son interrupting him from time to time to ask if he was certain that he had said what he wanted to. After the statement was typed , Barham read it over twice , and signed it in the presence of Stephenson's secretary who notarized it. In the statement Barham set forth that he had learned that Williams was the organizer for the Union , that he had approached Williams , that Wil- liams had wanted to come to his house to talk to him, that Barham 's purpose was to get the literature and expose Williams for the sake of Respondent because he was opposed to unions, that he un- dertook Williams ' exposure voluntarily , and that he signed a card and agreed to pass out literature in order to accomplish his objective . The statement also set forth what Barham had learned from Wil- liams about the organizing campaign at his home and in its critical portion read as follows: While at my house we discussed handing out this propaganda , and I asked him how would he know whether or not he was handing it to someone that would not incriminate him, for instance, what if I grabbed this out of your pocket and tore it up and took all the literature and exposed you? What can you do about it? (The reason I said this was to point out that he might confront somebody that would do this and would expose him.) When I finished saying this , he reached in his pocket and pulled a two shell Deeringer [ sic] 38 calibre and said "any- body that crossed him would wind up on his head off in a ravine somewhere in Dallas." (This is a figure of speech .) My wife , Stephane, was present at this time . Whether you can call this a threat toward me, I don't know. I was about to grab the card out of his pocket then- but didn't. I asked what was the purpose of bringing this gun into my house, and he said that since I lived on a street that was only two or three blocks long he didn't want to run into a dead-end. This was the excuse he gave for carrying the gun into my house. After signing the statement, Barham asked Stephenson how he was going to protect Barham and his wife. Stephenson replied that he did not know but they would do everything they could. Shortly before noon, Stephenson took Barham's statement and met with Personnel Manager Reitz, Plastics Division President Ray Goudeau, Quality Control Chief Masters, and Corporate Director of Industrial Relations Dave Murray." Stephenson gave Murray the notorized statement to read, and Stephenson, Reitz, and Goudeau expressed the opinion to Murray that Williams should be discharged. Murray told them that he agreed with them.' A question was raised as to talking to Wil- liams about the incident, and Murray advised against it.10 Murray recommended that Williams be discharged in the presence of an armed guard hired from the detective service which provided Respon- dent with plant protection service at night." The decision was then made by those present to discharge Williams. About 5:10 that afternoon, Quality Control Chief Masters, who was Williams' supervisor, went to Williams' desk and asked Williams to accompany him to the office.12 They went to the office of Per- sonnel Manager Ronald Reitz. In addition to Reitz there was an armed guard sitting in the office. Reitz told Williams that he had been there for less than 60 days, was on probation,13 and was being ter- minated as of that moment for threatening an em- ployee. Williams replied that he had never threatened or had an argument with anyone in the plant and that if Reitz would bring the person in his presence he would tell him he was lying to his face. Reitz did not send for the employee or reveal his identity to Williams." Reitz gave Williams two checks for pay that were due him and told him that he was terminated for threatening an employee. Williams replied that he knew he was not being fired for inefficiency because Masters had told him he was doing good work and that since Reitz would it was some time after 9 a in when the statement was taken Of those who attended the meeting, only Stephenson had spoken directly with Barham " Stephenson testified that he favored the discharge of Williams because it was possible that Williams could threaten someone else , he was not aware whether Williams was capable of carrying out the threat, and he did not want to take a chance He testified that Williams' union activities did not influence his determination Murray testified that he concurred in the discharge because a threat was made with a gun and the fact that union ac- tivity was mvolsed had nothing to do with it Reitz also testified that his decision was based on Williams' threat and not on his union actn dies "' This advice was followed Murray testified that his reason for advising against talking to Williams was that guns should not be carried and they were not going to place themselves at the mercy of anyone who might be carrying one . He testified that while he would not always take the word of one employee without further investigation , he did so in this case because Barham ' % wife was present at the time of the threat and he believed Barham was willing to make his wife available for questioning He testified also that he had confidence in Barham's statement because of the length of Bar- ham's employment, because on the basis of experience of others with him they believed him to he truthful, and because Barham was highly upset He testified also that where preservation of life was concerned, they could not gamble He testified that he believed that if they treated Williams unfairly, Williams had recourse through the law " Murray also arranged through Reitz with the detective service to place a guard at Barham's home on the night of October 10, to check Barham's home from time to time thereafter, and to ramain on call by Barham for ap- proximately 2 weeks 1d Williams' testimony as to the events immediately surrounding his discharge is uncontradicted and credited Respondent had a 90-day probationary period for all new employees " Reitz said something to the effect that Williams was uncertain as to his words TEXSTAR PLASTICS DIVISION OF TEXSTAR CORP. 517 not bring in the person who had said Williams threatened him, Williams knew he was being fired for union activities." Reitz told the guard to escort Williams off the premises and asked Williams if he had any personal belongings he wanted to get. Wil- liams replied that he did. Reitz then accompanied the guard, Williams, and Masters back to Williams' desk. At his desk Williams started to pick up a folder and his briefcase, in which he had placed about 70 signed union authorization cards earlier in the af- ternoon and which he had left closed on his desk. Reitz told Williams that he wanted to see what was in the briefcase and the folder to see if he had any company property and that if Williams would not open them, he would ask the guard to do so. Wil- liams replied that it was strictly personal union material but opened the folder and showed it to Reitz. He then picked up his briefcase and noticed that it was opened. Williams checked its contents and discovered that the signed authorization cards were gone. Williams told Reitz that he was missing a number of cards. Reitz made a remark and grinned.'6 Williams asked Reitz if he could explain to Masters where his work stood and proceeded to do so. Williams then asked Masters if he could telephone his wife to come pick him up at the plant. He went to the telephone accompained by Masters, Reitz, and the guard. As he started to dial on the company telephone to get an outside line, Reitz grabbed the telephone from his hand and told Williams he would not be reporting to his union from that telephone. Williams told Reitz he was try- ing to call his wife and not the Union. Reitz com- mented that his telephone number was a "CR" number." Williams said he was sorry and was not trying to call anyone but his wife. Williams then completed the call. Williams asked Masters if he could wait there until his wife came. Masters as- sented. After speaking with Masters for a while, Williams shook hands with Masters and the guard, and left. B. Concluding Findings In N.L.R.B. v. Burnup and Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the discharge of an employee based on his employer's honest but mistaken belief that an em- ployee had engaged in misconduct in the course of concerted union activity violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In that case two employees undertook to organize their fellow employees. The employer's superintendent was informed by another employee that the two organizing employees had told him while soliciting his membership that the union would use dynamite to get in if the union did not acquire the necessary authorizations. The employer discharged the two organizing employees because of these alleged statements. The Board had found that in fact the charges against them were untrue and that they had made no threats against the em- ployer's property. The Court held that the discharges in these cir- cumstances violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act," concurring in the well-settled holdings of the Board that regardless of an employer's motive, Section 8(a)(I) "is violated if an employee is discharged for misconduct arising out of a protected activity, despite the employer's good faith, when it is shown that the misconduct never occurred." 379 U.S. 23. In upholding the Board, the Court noted that the Board's rule was in conformity with the policy be- hind Section 8(a)(1), for "Union activity often en- genders strong emotions and gives rise to active ru- mors. A protected activity acquires a precarious status if innocent employees can be discharged while engaging in it, even though the employer acts in good faith. It is the tendency of those discharges to weaken or destroy the Section 8(a)(1) right that is controlling. We are not in the realm of manageri- al prerogatives. Rather we are concerned with the manner of soliciting union membership over which the Board has been entrusted with powers of sur- veillance." 379 U.S. 23-24. On the record before me, the principle affirmed by the Burnup and Sims decision is dispositive of this case.19 There can be no question that apart from his alleged misconduct, Williams was engaging in protected concerted activity when in response to Barham's overtures, he went to Barham's home to explain the union campaign to Barham, solicit his signature on an authorization card, and enlist Bar- ham's aid, which Barham had already volunteered, in the campaign. It is also clear that Respondent was aware that Barham attributed misconduct to Williams in the course of otherwise protected con- certed activity. The critical question is whether Williams engaged in the misconduct attributed to him. While there are some points of contact between Barham's statement and Williams' testimony, in their essentials they are in sharp conflict. Although Barham quit his job with Respondent shortly after this incident, the evidence indicates that at least to Respondent's knowledge Barham, and presumably his wife, were still living in the area. No evidence was offered to show that Respondent made any at- Reitz made some reply to Williams' statement which Williams did not precisely recall Reitz was not questioned about his statements at this time Williams testified that at the time he made this statement , he noticed a blank union authorization card lying on Reitz' desk "I Williams testified that he could not remember what Reitz said No other witness was questioned about these events 17 Williams testified that he initially sought to dial 91 or 92 to get an out- side line and may have been confused at the time One number was for a Dallas line and the other for Forth Worth He conceded that he might have dialed for the Dallas line instead of Forth Worth " It found it unnecessary to reach questions raised under Section 8(a)(3) '" The fact that Williams was a probationary employee does not in any way diminish the protection afforded him by the Act Lapeer Metal Products Co , 134 NLRB 1518, 1520 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tempt to secure the attendance of Barham or his wife as witnesses in this proceeding either through their voluntary cooperation or legal process. Thus, as on the day of his discharge, in this proceeding Williams was not confronted with any witness to testify to his alleged misconduct at Barham's house. Williams' testimony inherently is no less credible than Barham's statement, and the overall impres- sion left by his demeanor while he testified was favorable. Lacking any opportunity to observe either Barham or his wife or to hear their responses to cross-examination. I have credited Williams in his testimony as to his conversations with Barham and particularly with respect to the critical circum- stances surrounding his display of the Derringer, finding these facts as already set forth above. Williams admittedly displayed a Derringer while at Barham's home. However, he did not threaten the life of Barham or anyone else who got in his way, as set forth in Barham's statement. Rather in response to an inquiry as to what he would do if Barham removed from his pocket cards signed by other employees, Williams explained that he would fire the tear gas gun and run. This defensive response to Barham's aggressive inquiry was not known to Respondent at the time of the discharge and clearly was not the basis for it. It was not misconduct in the course of protected concerted activity which would justify discharge. Accordingly, I conclude that Williams' discharge violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.20 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec- tion III, above, occurring in connection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respon- dent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. As I have found that Respondent violated the Act by discharging DeWitt C. Williams on October 10, 1967, 1 shall recommend that Respondent be or- dered to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights 20 As the remedy in this case would not be affected by a finding that the discharge also violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, 1 find it unnecessary to decide whether the discharge also violated Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act, and and privileges and to make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of his discharge by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from October 10, 1967, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings, to which is to be added interest at the rate of 6 per- cent per annum, in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Texstar Plastics Division of Tex- star Corporation, is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Sheetmetal Workers' International Associa- tion, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 18, is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with employee rights to engage in protected concerted activities by discharging em- ployee DeWitt C. Williams, as found above, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in un- fair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that Respon- dent, Texstar Plastics Division of Texstar Corpora- tion, Grand Prairie, Texas, its officers, agents, suc- cessors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging employees under circumstances which interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in con- certed activities. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Sheetmetal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 18, or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: therefore whether the motives expressed by Respondent 's officials were the true motives for the discharge See Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v. N L R B , 362 F 2d 466,470 (C A 9) TEXSTAR PLASTICS DIVISION OF TEXSTAR CORP. 519 (a) Offer DeWitt C. Williams immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniori- ty or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed and make him whole for any loss he may have suf- fered by reason of his discharge in the manner set forth in the section of the above Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) 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 accordance with the Selective Ser- vice Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post at its Grand Prairie, Texas, place of business, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 21 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.22 21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words " a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 22 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL offer DeWitt C. Williams im- mediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and WE WILL make him whole for any loss he may have suffered as a result of his discharge. WE WILL NOT discharge employees under circumstances which interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in concerted activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-or- ganization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Sheetmetal Workers' International As- sociation, AFL-CIO, Local No. 18, or any other labor organization, to bargain collective- ly through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in any other concerted ac- tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. TEXSTAR PLASTICS DIVISION OF TEXSTAR CORPORATION (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 application in accordance with the Selective Ser- vice Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive 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 provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room 8A24, Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 334-2921.