The Engvis Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 685 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

THE ENGVIS CORP.
The Engvis Corp . and Local 860, Laborers ' Interna-
tional Union of North America , AFL-CIO. Case
8-CA-8632
September 25, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On May 29, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas E. Bracken issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record I and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, The Engvis Corp.,
Cleveland, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order.
Inasmuch as the record and Respondent's exceptions and brief fully
present the issues herein. Respondent's request to argue orally before the
Board is hereby denied.
2 In the absence of exceptions, the Board adopts pro forma the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's finding that the alleged interrogation of Luetilla Looney
by Plant Manager Andy Garm did not constitute a violation of Sec. 8(a)(l)
of the Act.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS E. BRACKEN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was tried at Cleveland, Ohio, on January 28 and Feb-
ruary 11, 1975.1 The charge was filed by Local 860, Labor-
ers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (the
Union), on September 30 (amended November 25), and
the complaint was issued on November 29. The primary
issues are whether the Company, the Respondent,(a) meets
1 All dates are 1974 unless otherwise stated.
685
the jurisdictional requirements of the Board, (b) discrimi-
natorily discharged all of its production employees, in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, for engaging in protected, concerted activity
and (c) unlawfully interrogated an employee in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observations of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the brief filed by the General Counsel,2 I make the follow-
ing:
FINDING OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
A. The complaint, as amended, alleges that Respondent
is an Ohio corporation, with its principal office and place
of business located in Cleveland, Ohio, where it is engaged
in the manufacture of industrial name plates; that Respon-
dent annually ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 from
its Ohio location directly to points located outside the State
of Ohio; and that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
In its answer to the complaint, as amended, the Respon-
dent admitted that it is an Ohio corporation and is engaged
in the manufacture of industrial name plates. As to the
financial data however, Respondent denied that it ships
goods valued in excess of $50,000 from its Ohio location
directly to points located outside the State of Ohio. During
the course of the hearing the Respondent moved on the
record for dismissal of the complaint, inter alia, on the
ground that it does not meet the nonretail jurisdictional
standards of the Board, and that its business is so small as
not to have an impact on interstate commerce.
The record evidence establishes, through data supplied
by the Respondent and testimony by the president of the
Company, and I find, that during the year 1974, which is a
representative period, Respondent sold and shipped direct-
ly outside the State of Ohio, to its customers, goods manu-
factured by it, worth $49,439.81; and also sold within the
State of Ohio goods manufactured by it, worth $13,181 to
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. In the case of Good-
year Tire and Rubber Company, 197 NLRB 666 (1972), the
Board found that Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
It follows therefrom that the value of Respondent's com-
bined direct and indirect outflow of products across State
lines exceeds $50,000, thereby bringing Respondent within
the ambit of the Board's discretionary jurisdiction. Siemons
Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85 (1958).
Respondent in oral argument presented a variety of rea-
sons as to why the Company did not meet the Board's
jurisdiction. I find no merit in the points cited therein, as
the Board's law on combining direct outflow and indirect
outflow to meet the $50,000 jurisdictional requirement is
2 Respondent did not file a brief in this proceeding although it, like the
General Counsel, was afforded an opportunity to do so.
220 NLRB No. 103
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
too well settled. A.A.A. Air Duct Cleaning Company, 169
NLRB 994 (1968); Pepe's Inwood Packing Co., Inc., 206
NLRB 642 (1973).
Based on the financial data submitted by the Respon-
dent at the hearing I find, on well-settled authority, that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that assertion of juris-
diction in the instant case is warranted.
B. The Union is and has been at all times material here-
in a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act .3
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In early August an employee of the Respondent went to
Louis E. Swansinger , an organizer for the Union , and re-
quested him to organize the Company's production work-
ers. Swansinger thereafter secured signed authorization
cards from the majority of these employees. At the time
there were 12 production employees.
On August 15, around 9 : 55 a.m . Swansinger entered the
building of the Respondent and met with its president,
Robert E . Engle . The organizer advised Engle that the ma-
jority of the Respondent's production employees had
signed union authorization cards , and he requested Engle
to sign a one-page letter, wherein, the Respondent would
recognize the Union as the collective -bargaining agent "for
all production and maintenance employees of the ENGVIS
CORP ." Swansinger further informed Engle that he had
planned for this meeting to be held just before 10 a.m.,
because he understood that the employees had a coffee-
break at 10 a.m.; and he further said "That I had promised
that if I did not appear in the backend with Mr. Engle
during the coffeebreak, that I would be outside and that
meant that Mr. Engle had not signed the collective-bar-
gaining agreement, the recognition, and that for them to
come on and walkout."
Engle stated that he did not have enough time to think it
over , so Swansinger left the building and went out on the
street. Two minutes later, most of the production employ-
ees left the plant and commenced picketing for recognition.
Swansinger estimated that 10 employees were on strike.
On the afternoon of August 19, Engle informed Swan-
singer that he would sign the recognition letter, and he did
so with the picket line thereafter being removed. The presi-
dent advised Swansinger that he could not take back all 12
production employees at that time , and Swansinger ac-
quiesced , stating, "I agreed that he did not have to take
them back at that time while we were negotiating." The
Company submitted a letter to the Union setting up a re-
turn to work schedule, in which Lillard Steele, Josephine
Sczawinski, Gino Lunardi, and Frances Yanc would return
on August 20, and Susan Ondi would return on August 21.
The letter concluded by stating, "All other employees will
be notified when and if to report to work after the Compa-
ny has time to study it's present workload." The name of
3 Respondent stipulated to this finding at the hearing.
Harvey Davis was added by pencil to this letter, and he,
too, returned to work at this time.
Negotiations thereafter proceeded in an orderly fashion,
with the union committee consisting of Anthony D. Liber-
atore , business manager of the Union , organizer Swansing-
er, and employees Yanc and Lunardi. The first bargaining
meeting between the Union and the Respondent took place
on August 24. At this meeting, Liberatore told Engle that
he was appointing Yanc as steward, and Lunardi as com-
mitteeman . At the next meeting on August 27, the Union
presented a proposed collective-bargaining agreement to
Engle for his review. Liberatore asked for a list of produc-
tion and maintenance employees, and Engle advised he
would provide one. Subsequently, Engle provided a list of
all employees of the Company, with their dates of hire en-
tered alongside of each name. Union witnesses constantly
referred to this list as the "seniority list" or "seniority ros-
ter." On September 9 and 10 the parties met again. At the
September 10 meeting the Union reduced the hourly rates
it was requesting, and in the minds of the union committee
they had reached an agreement that they could recom-
mend to the membership to accept and that the Company
could live with. Swansinger notified Engle that there would
be a meeting at a nearby restaurant at 4 p .m. on September
12 to submit the proposed agreement to the membership
for ratification.
In the very first negotiation meeting, Engle had in-
formed the union committee that the financial condition of
the Company was very weak, and that he was going to
have to layoff "four people or around four people." Swan-
singer agreed that financial conditions did warrant some
layoffs . In subsequent meetings Engle emphasized the
weak financial status of the Respondent as stated by Swan-
singer : "he said that if forced to, he would shut the plant
down. He would lock the doors. He would file for bank-
ruptcy."
1. Financial condition
In June 1971, the Respondent hired a new auditor for
the firm, Robert John Diemling, C.P.A. The C.P.A. pro-
ceeded to prepare the financial report for the Respondent
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1970, which
showed a $27,000 loss. Fiscal year 1971 showed a loss of
$4,000. (Fiscal year 1972 was not reported.) For fiscal year
1973, the Company showed a profit of $14,000 with the
president's salary cut to $2,500 for the year. For the first 6
months of the fiscal year of 1974, the Company had a defi-
cit of $14,000.
In early August the auditor reviewed the operating state-
ment with Engle . He advised Engle that the Company was
losing money, and that the total labor costs were the prob-
lem, having risen from 33 percent in relation to sales in
1971 and 1972, to 50 percent in 1974 . He recommended
that labor costs be cut, but did not make any specific rec-
ommendations.
On August 30 Engle called a meeting of all employees,
office and plant, and reported that he had money in the
bank to meet their payroll on September 5, but did not
have money to meet the September 20 payroll, and did not
foresee accounts receivable money coming in in time to
THE ENGVIS CORP.
meet this latter payroll. He advised that he would give
them I.O.U.'s for any portions of the paycheck due, but
that they would not be paid in cash on the 20th. He also
informed his employees that the Company had many or-
ders for future work: "We have a tremendous amount of
business. We have never been so fortunate to come back
from vacation with the dollars and cents purchase orders in
our hands." He asked if the employees had any questions,
none were asked, and the same employees returned to
work the next working day.
2. September 12 meetings
On September 12, after thinking over his Company's fi-
nancial condition, Engle testified:
I decided about 1 o'clock that I had no alternative but
to discharge, layoff, furlough, anyway, shape or form,
to give the Company a better financial picture and
some money for the shorter period of time because I
was still faced with the greatest number of orders that
I ever had.
Engle then called a meeting at 4 p.m. of all working
employees, including the six production workers. The
thrust of his remarks was directed to the production em-
ployees. He stated that "I didn't have any more money to
go on," and that he was going to have to lay some employ-
ees off. At the beginning of that week Engle had informed
Union Officials Swansinger and Liberatore, "that it looked
like two or three." Engle commenced reading upward from
the bottom of the seniority list the names of employees
who were to be laid off. Committeeman Lunardi and stew-
ard Yanc also had copies of this list. As Engle read off
names from the bottom he skipped the name of Harvey
Davis, and called out the name of Joseph Cipullo to be laid
off. Davis had a date of hire of January 18, 1973, and
Cipullo's date of hire was January 2, 1973. Steward Yanc
described what happened next as follows:
... and then he [Engle] started to go by the roster for
seniority. Then he started skipping over the people
that came in line and at one time he wanted to keep
Harvey Davis and lay Joe Cipullo off and then we told
him he had to go by the seniority list.
Committeeman Lunardi joined in with Yanc in insisting
that Engle must lay off employees in accordance with their
seniority with the Company. Engle remarked that the
Union had not organized the plant in a fair way, and Lu-
nardi argued back stating, "Well, you're the one who
signed the agreement with the Union and you should fol-
low it." Engle by this time was angry, and Yanc reported
that he told the production employees that ". . . if we feel
that way about it, that everybody will go because nobody is
going to put the screws to him." With that Engle an-
nounced that all production employees were laid off, and
the doors of the plant were closed except for salaried peo-
ple.
At this point occurred one of the very few conflicts in
the testimony of the witnesses. Both sides agreed that En-
gle stated he would operate the business with management
personnel until the end of September. Yanc and Lunardi
687
testified that Engle thereafter also stated that he would
close the plant down at the end of the month.
Engle when asked on cross-examination, if he had not
said he was going to close down at the end of the month,
flatly denied saying so, and proceeded to give a very eva-
sive, ambiguous answer on what he had stated. I credit
Yanc's and Lunardi's testimony that Engle said he was
going to close down at the end of the month, as this is
supported by Engle's own testimony that he would operate
the business with management people until the end of Sep-
tember.
Immediately following the meeting at the plant, the six
production employees went to their 4 p.m. meeting with
Swansinger, and advised him that they had all been laid
off. A ratification vote on the collective-bargaining agree-
ment was taken, and it was unanimously ratified. Swan-
singer met with Engle the following week, and Engle re-
fused to sign the proposed agreement. Engle asked if the
employees could be called back as the Company's needs
dictated, but Swansinger advised that, "I would have to
bring the people back by seniority." The Respondent did
not cease business at the end of September, and was oper-
ating its business at the time of the hearing, with the pro-
duction work being performed by its office and supervisory
personnel.
B. Analysis
Section 7 of the Act provides that "Employees shall have
the right . . . to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective-bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection." Thus one of the threshold questions to be de-
cided is whether or not the production employees of the
Respondent engaged in concerted activities on September
12.
As agreed by all parties there were six production em-
ployees present at this meeting, Steele, Lunardi, Sczawin-
ski, Ondi, Davis, and Yanc. Yanc was the union steward,
and Lunardi was the union committeeman. Steele, Ondi
and Sczawinski were also union members." Davis was not a
member of the Union.
When Engle started reading names from the date-of-hire
list of those employees who were to be laid off, it was Yanc
and Lunardi who challenged him for not calling out Davis'
names as one of the employees who should be laid off
(since he had less seniority), and it was these same two
union representatives who demanded that the employees
be laid off in the order of "strict seniority."
Though the collective-bargaining agreement as proposed
by the Union was not offered into evidence, and its con-
tents are not part of the record, Respondent's president,
Engle, admitted at the hearing that a union demand for
seniority rights was part of the Union's contract proposal.
Thus the actions of Yanc and Lunardi were in support of
the bargaining objectives which the Union was seeking to
secure. When Engle sought, 1 week after the mass layoff, to
have the Union agree to the recall of Steele, Ondi, and
Lunardi on the basis of company discretion, the Union
Sczawinski and Steele testified they had signed union authorization
cards and Ondi, who did not testify, participated in the August 15-19 strike.
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
once again backed up the employees ' demand that recall
be based on seniority.
That seniority rights are a condition of employment and
have been so recognized in the administration of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act is beyond dispute . As early as
1936, the Board ordered an employer to bargain with a
union on the matter of seniority . Brown Shoe Company,
Inc., 1 NLRB 803, 821 , 822, and seniority issues have been
an integral and recurring part of Board decisions down to
the current date . When the employees of the Respondent
were demanding seniority rights from Engle, they were
seeking a condition of employment long known to employ-
ees as a shield of security in the employee-employer rela-
tionship . Thus in seeking to have Respondent agree to lay
off employees in accordance with seniority, Yanc and Lu-
nardi were engaging in concerted activity on behalf of all
the employees , which was protected by the Act. See
N.L.R.B. v. Pruden Products Company, 422 F.2d 855 (C.A.
7, 1970). This is not affected by the fact that no bargaining
contract had been agreed to. See Pruden Products, supra;
Guerdon Industries, 199 NLRB 937 (1972).
At the hearing Engle testified that it was his intention to
lay off only three employees because of economic condi-
tions. There seems to be no dispute that this was justified.
Engle's intention was to continue operations with the three
remaining production employees . However in a burst of
anger and resentment at the concerted activity of the em-
ployees, and over the Union's efforts to represent and se-
cure seniority rights for the employees , Engle terminated
all six production employees then employed by Respon-
dent.
Engle admitted on cross-examination that he was "a lit-
tle upset" at the way the Union had approached him in
August. It was obvious that he was greatly upset through-
out the negotiations with the Union. During the negotia-
tions he threatened on various occasions that he would
shut the plant down, lock the doors, file for bankruptcy. At
the meeting he called on September 12, Engle told the
gathered employees that the Union had not been fair to
him. It is clear that Engle resented the employees' union
activities , and when Yanc and Lunardi demanded that em-
ployees be laid off in order of seniority, his smoldering
resentment against the Union burst forth , and he precipi-
tately laid off all production employees.
C. The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violation
There was one charge of an independent violation of
Section 8 (a)(1), which was alleged to have occurred as a
result of a conversation between Luetilla Looney and
Andy Garm .5 Garin was identified by Engle as the plant
manager for production and was a supervisor under the
Act.
Following the general layoff on September 12, the Union
set up picket lines at the plant of the Respondent. A few
days thereafter, about 6:45 a.m., Looney was across the
street from the plant , sitting in her car getting ready for the
3 This charge arose out of an amendment to the complaint made at the
end of the General Counsel's case , and allowed over the Respondent's ob-
jection.
day's picketing. She testified that "Andy" drove his car up
on the company lot, parked, and then walked across the
street to her car . Looney narrated the conversation as fol-
lows:
He asked me-, he told me "Lue , I would like to ask
you something," and I said , "Yes Andy ." He said,
"Did Josie sign a card, Union card?" and looked at
me and he says, "Or me?" And I says, "That would
incriminate me if I said so," and I did not give him an
answer to this day, and I haven't told him whether she
did or did not sign.
This conversation was so brief and isolated as to be in-
consequential . As soon as the single question was asked,
Looney refused to answer it, and the plant manager did not
press his questioning , but left the scene . I find that this one
sentence inquiry to one employee does not warrant a reme-
dy and therefore I find no violation of Section 8(a)(1).
D. Conclusion
I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act on September 12, 1974, by laying off Frances
Yanc, Sue Ondi, Josephine Sczawinski, Harvey Davis,
Gino Lunardi, and Lillard Steele for engaging in concerted
and union activity. This conclusion arises necessarily from
the total record , of which Engle 's own testimony was a
major part. On September 12, the Respondent had work
for three production employees. When Engle started the
meeting in the company cafeteria, he did not intend to lay
off all production employees, as he so testified on direct
and cross-examination . He had advised Swansinger a few
days previously that he only wanted to lay off two or three.
When the shop steward and the committeeman insisted
that employees be laid off in the order of seniority, Engle's
suppressed animosity to the Union burst forth and he there
and then vindictively laid off all the production employees.
There is no doubt that the Respondent was in a serious
financial condition as to operating capital . However, as
Engle testified, the Company had a tremendous amount of
new business , and never had been so fortunate to come
back from vacation with so many dollars worth of pur-
chase orders. It is self-evident that the Respondent did
have the finances to pay the three production employees
that Engle planned to retain on September 12, just as it had
the finances to pay its office and supervisory employees.
The mass layoff by Engle clearly showed the strength of
the employer to its employees and was an illegal induce-
ment to them to refrain from joining a union , or being a
member of the Union. Such action had the inevitable effect
of coercing the employees, and such employer conduct di-
rectly violated a prime prohibition of the statue.
111. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II,
above , have a close , intimate and substantial relation to
trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE ENGVIS CORP. 689
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By laying off Frances Yanc, Gino Lunardi, Sue Ondi,
Josephine Sczawinski, Harvey Davis, and Lillard Steele on
September 12 for engaging in concerted and union activi-
ties, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
4. The Respondent did not violate the Act by interrogat-
ing Luetilla Looney.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order the
Respondent to cease and desist therefrom, and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
General Counsel in his brief requests reinstatement and
backpay for "the production employees discharged on Sep-
tember 12." The six employees at the September 12 meet-
ing were Yanc, Lunardi, Ondi, Sczawinski, Davis and
Steele. During the hearing, the employees constantly used
the term layoff to describe the dispostion of their employ-
ment made at the September 12 meeting. Engle also re-
ferred to their status as laid off, except one time he referred
to his action as a furlough. Whether these employees are
referred to as laid off, furloughed or discharged makes no
substantial difference. The fact is that Yanc, Lunardi,
Ondi, Sczawinski, Davis, and Steele have not worked since
the Company's action against them on September 12. I
refer to them as being laid off. General Counsel asked for
no relief for the five production employees who were not
recalled by the Respondent at the end of the August 19
strike, and none is provided herein.
However, on September 12, there was only work for
three production employees, and only the three employees
who would have continued working on September 12 but
for the mass layoff, are entitled to reinstatement and back
wages. Determining exactly who these three employees are
from the record is not possible. Engle testified that he origi-
nally planned to lay off Steele and Sczawinski, and in fact
Steele's name was called out as an employee to be laid off.
However, the record does not set forth by name the
other employee that Engle intended to lay off at the com-
mencement of that meeting. Neither does the record show
the names of the three employees that Engle planned to
keep working at that time. Shortly after the day of layoff,
Engle told Swansinger he wanted to bring back Steele,
Ondi, and Lunardi to perform work in the most efficient
sequence for the Company; but, it cannot be inferred from
this, that these are the three people Engle had intended to
keep on September 12, as he specifically called out Steele's
name, as an employee to be laid off.
The issue of reinstatement is normally litigated at the
unfair labor practice hearing. However, in this case, it is
not possible to determine specifically which three employ-
ees would have continued working on September 12 but
for Engle's precipitous discharge of all six. Because of the
special circumstances present in this case, the identities of
such three employees shall be determined at the compli-
ance stage of this proceeding. See Horizon Mobile Homes,
Inc., 181 NLRB 689, 695 (1970).
After the names of these three employees are de-
termined, it is ordered that Respondent offer reinstatement
to each such employee, of their former or substantially
equivalent job, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges, with backpay computed on a
quarterly basis plus interest at 6 percent per annum as pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962), from date of discharge to date of a proper offer of
reinstatement.
It is also ordered that the Respondent shall notify in
writing the remaining three production employees whom
Engle had originally planned to lay off at the September 12
meeting, that they are on a preferential hiring list, and that
they will be offered reinstatement if and when Respondent
needs to hire any production employees.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER6
Respondent, The Engvis Corp., Cleveland, Ohio, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening its employees with plant closure, lay off,
or other loss of employment benefits to discourage union
or concerted activity.
(b) Discouraging union or concerted activities of its em-
ployees by discriminatorily laying off employees because
of their concerted or union activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to the three employees whose identities are de-
termined at the compliance hearing of this proceeding, as
the three employees the Company planned to keep working
on September 12, immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make them whole for their
lost earnings in the manner set forth in the "Remedy."
(b) Notify the remaining three production employees of
the six employees laid off on September 12, in writing, that
they are on a preferential hiring list, and offer them rein-
61n the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein, shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
statement if and when Respondent needs to hire any pro-
duction employees.
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records , social security payment records , timecards
and personnel records and reports, and all records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Cleveland, Ohio, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." I Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 8 , after being duly signed by Respondent 's authorized
representative , shall be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places , including
all places where notices to employees are customarily post-
ed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respon-
dent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
r In the event the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after
trial, that we violated Federal Law by laying off employees
for supporting a union and by otherwise interfering with
our employees' right to join and support a union:
WE WILL offer full reinstatement to three of the fol-
lowing employees: Frances Yanc, Sue Ondi, Josephine
Sczawinski, Harvey Davis, Gino Lunardi, Lillard
Steele, each of whose identity will be established at the
compliance stage of this proceeding, with backpay
plus 6 percent interest.
WE WILL place the three remaining production em-
ployees from the six employees named above, on a
preferential hiring list, and notify these three employ-
ees, in writing, that they are on a preferential hiring
list, and will offer them reinstatement if and when we
need to hire any production employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant or layoff or
discharge any of you for supporting Local 860, Labor-
ers' International Union of North America, AFL-
CIO, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with your union
activities in any similar manner.
THE ENGVIS CORP.