The H. C. Nutting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 224 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The H . C. Nutting Company and Local Union No.
415, Industrial, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO. Case 9-
CA-8729
July 17, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On April 4, 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 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 Respondent, The H. C. Nutting Compa-
ny, Cincinnati, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS E. BRACKEN , Administrative Law Judge: The
charge in this case was filed on August 22, 1974,' by Local
415. The complaint was issued on October 31, and amend-
ed on January 2, 1975. The complaint alleges that The
H. C. Nutting Company, the Respondent herein, engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, herein called the Act. Respondent, by its answer,
denied that it engaged in conduct violative of the Act. Pur-
suant to notice , the hearing was held before me in Cincin-
nati, Ohio, on January 21, 22, and 23, 1975.
Upon the entire record, including my careful observa-
tion of the demeanor of the witnesses , and after due con-
sideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and
the Respondent , I make the following:
' All dates in 1974 unless otherwise indicated.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, an Ohio corporation, with its office in
Cincinnati, Ohio, is engaged in the business of testing ma-
terials and soils at its location in Cincinnati, and in the
surrounding area of Ohio and Kentucky. During the 12-
month period preceding the issuance of the complaint, the
Respondent performed services valued in excess of $50,000
for customers located outside of the State of Ohio. During
the same period, Respondent's gross revenues exceeded
$500,000.
Based on the foregoing, and as is admitted by the Re-
spondent, I find that the Respondent is engaged in com-
merce and in operations affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 415, Industrial , United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union , is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The management personnel involved in this proceeding
are Walter Williamson, manager of the Respondent's steel
department; Carl Robert Lennertz, Respondent's chief en-
gineer and a vice president; and Gregory Joseph Spieker,
Respondent's general manager and secretary. Respondent
admits the above-mentioned personnel are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. Respondent's employees
have never been represented by any labor organization.
A. The Issues
1. Whether or not, through the conduct of Williamson
in July, August, and September, Respondent engaged in
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Whether or not, through the conduct of Lennertz on
or about August 12, Respondent engaged in conduct viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. Whether or not Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act by the admitted discharge of Arthur
Lloyd Denton on August 15.
B. Description of the Respondent's Metal Testing
Operations
This case • involves the steel department (also called
NDT-nondestructive testing department) of the Respon-
dent . The major activities of the steel department are the
taking of x-ray and gamma ray films of metal welds on
construction sites and in metal fabrication plants of vari-
ous customers . The purpose of the film is to show possible
defects in the welded material.
The x-ray and gamma ray films are taken (shot, in the
parlance of the trade) by radiographers using a camera.
The Respondent employed six radiographers and five
219 NLRB No. 75
H. C. NUTTING COMPANY 225
trainees in the summer of 1974. The Respondent conducts
training programs and tests for employees to advance from
radiographer trainee to a level one radiographer and then
to a level two radiographer.
The steel department also conducts visual welding in-
spections by a magnetic particle test and by a dye pene-
trant test. In addition , high tensile bolts on construction
sites are also inspected.
The daily routine of the department is activated by tele-
phone calls, from customers who have welds to be inspect-
ed, made to the department head, Williamson. Williamson
takes their order, and schedules the work, usually for the
next workday. Williamson has assigned the necessary crew
to take films or tests, since November 5, 1973, when he
became the manager of the steel department . Prior to that
date he had been chief radiographer for 3 years. The usual
crew sent on a job consists of two radiographers.
The Respondent has three trucks and a trailer. Each
truck has a built-in developing darkroom, so that films can
be developed at the jobsite whenever feasible. There is also
a developing laboratory on the Company's premises for big
jobs.
The Respondent charges its customers by the hour or by
the exposure. If the exposure is too light or too dark in the
customer's judgment, the Respondent makes good the
work and reshoots the films at the Respondent 's expense.
The Respondent also operates other departments includ-
ing roofing and waterproofing departments that are sepa-
rate and distinct from the steel department and, as such,
not involved in this proceeding.
C. The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations Prior to Denton's
Discharge
liamson said if the Union ever came in the Company
would shutdown."
Bragg testified to this same incident and stated that Ray
Becker, Jim Schwartz , and Denton were also present.
Bragg recalled Williamson stating "that the Company
would go out of business as far as our side if the Union
came in and that they weren't making any money any-
way." Williamson denied any such statement.
(d) Terry Dakin had been employed by the Company as
a full-time employee in January, and received his level one
classification in May. Dakin testified that in the middle of
July he and trainee Frank E. Lindner drove up to Wright
Patterson Air Force Base at Dayton, Ohio, with Wil-
liamson, and that Williamson brought up the Union and
said "the Company didn't need a union in there." And I
asked him why. He said that "the Company lends you
money when you needed it and all of that." And I said,
"That's true, with the Union in there that we don't have to
work long hours and work day and night." And he said
"that other people had tried to get the Union in there and
that they failed; that Mr. Nutting and Conover would close
the shop down if the Union ever came in."
(e) In the first part of August Lindner also made a trip
to Wright Patterson Air Force Base with Williamson. Lind-
ner testified to almost an identical answer made by Wil-
liamson in reply to Lindner's question about a union, "that
they (Nutting) didn't need a union, and that if they did
they would close the doors or fire the person if they found
out about it."
Williamson denied that any such conversation took
place on either trip to the Air Force Base.
2. Lennertz
1. Williamson
(a) In early July various employees of Nutting were sit-
ting in Williamson 's office in the morning awaiting their
assignments . Denton testified that "someone brought up
the subject of being knocked off after 40 hours and if the
Union came in that the Company wouldn't be able to do
this. So Mr. Williamson said that if the Union came in
there the Company would either close our department or
shut the whole company down." On direct examination,
Williamson denied that he made any such statement.
(b) Also in early July, James Bragg testified about a dis-
cussion he had with Williamson in his office. Bragg was
not a regular employee of the steel department , as he was a
roofing inspector . However, at various times he was as-
signed to the steel department to work in their field. Bragg
testified that "the subject of the Union came up. And I
asked Mr. Williamson did he think a union would ever get
in. And he said back to me that the nondestructive testing
department would go out of business if the Union was to
come in. And he told me I had better watch my step."
Williamson denied such conversation.
(c) Late in July, a group of radiographers and Bragg
were sitting around the shop getting ready to leave at quit-
ting time . Denton testified that Williamson stated that the
Union was trying to get Nutting's employees run off the
union job at Christ Hospital, and that "again Mr. Wil-
Respondent's chief engineer, Lennertz , knew trainee
Frank Lindner socially, through his son Larry, who was a
part-time employee at Nutting. Lennertz had first met
Lindner in his home after his son Larry brought him to
their house after a golf match, and subsequently at the
company picnic.
On August 12 or 13, Lindner called Lennertz on the of-
fice phone, said he had a problem with Williamson about
not getting a raise , and asked for a meeting so that he
could talk over this problem with Lennertz. Lennertz invit-
ed Lindner to come to his office, but Linder replied that he
did not want Williamson to know that he had been talking
to Lennertz, and Lindner suggested that they meet in the
storage room of the soils laboratory. Lennertz met with
Lindner a few minutes thereafter, and Lindner proceeded
to discuss the matter of his claimed past-due wage increase,
a job offer that he had received from another employer,
and what he regarded as an unjust reprimand from Wil-
liamson about carrying a newspaper into the plant.
Both Lennertz and Lindner's testimony are substantially
the same in describing the conversation at this meeting up
to this point. Thereafter, their testimony is sharply contra-
dictory on the question of who first brought up the ques-
tion of the Union.
Lennertz testified as follows:
He [Lindner] then went on to tell me-Well , he first
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
asked me if I knew that there was discussion of union
organization within the steel division of the H. C.
Nutting Company . And I told him that I did not know
this . He said that this was another matter that con-
cerned him relative to his decision as to stay with the
Nutting Company or not . I asked why . Why does this
concern you? I mean how does this affect you. And he
didn't explain to me to my satisfaction just what his
reason was he felt that it might affect his employment.
Lindner testified that it was Lennertz who first injected
the Union into their conference, by Lennertz stating, "Oh,
by the way, there is some kind of talk going around or
rumors going around that Lloyd Denton and Terry Dakin
are trying to get a union in."
During the course of the conversation about union orga-
nization , Lennertz testified that Lindner mentioned three
names to him, Denton , Gunter , and a third name that Len-
nertz was unable to recall.
3. Credibility
Denton's testimony conflicted at numerous points with
Williamson 's testimony . I have credited Denton over Wil-
liamson, and generally have credited Williamson only as
far as his testimony is corroborated elsewhere in the rec-
ord. Williamson was so contradictory and evasive in an-
swering questions put to him that I am convinced he was
tailoring his testimony to fit the Respondent 's case. An
example of this is found in his relating to the date on which
he found out about Denton's union activity . (The record is
clear that he learned of union activity from Spieker on
August 13 or 14 at the department heads' meeting.) On
direct examination he testified that he first knew of union
activities "a few days before I let Denton go." On cross-
examination he changed his testimony , and testified on two
occasions that it was a week or so before Denton's dis-
charge . By making the interval a week instead of a few
days Williamson was obviously trying to increase the span
of time from his knowledge of Denton 's union activity to
the date of his discharge of Denton.
In another incident Williamson admitted playing two
games of pool with Bragg at the Airport Inn following a
morning job . At first , Williamson claimed it only took "a
few minutes ," and when pressed on cross -examination
changed to "fifteen or twenty minutes ." Bragg credibly tes-
tified it took about an hour . This time was during working
hours , for which Bragg was paid.
I have discredited one other witness , Lindner . Lindner's
entire attitude to the Respondent was so hostile as to make
his testimony untrustworthy . As he expressed his position
to Williamson, "You put the screws to me plenty of times
and I 'm going to put the screws back to you."
Denton could not be characterized as a model employee.
He was not a well educated or sophisticated person, but he
was on the witness stand a sincere, forthright witness.
Bragg and Back were responsive, credible witnesses.
Also, both men testified against the Respondent while still
in his employ , further supporting their credibility.
Witnesses were sequestered at the request of the Respon-
dent and remained so during the 3-day hearing.
4. Concluding findings
Williamson 's immediate reply to any questions concern-
ing a union coming into the Respondent 's plant was a hos-
tile and automatic threat that , if the Union ever came in,
the Company would close the steel department down, or
the Company would shutdown . No words can put more
economic fear in the minds of workers , than an employer's
threat to close down that employee 's department, or to
close the plant down . A recent statement of the Eighth
Circuit illustrates the mischief done by such threats:
A threat to close the plant , when made in the con-
text of the union organization of the employees, has
long been recognized as one of the most potent instru-
ments of employer interference with the right of em-
ployees to organize under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act. [Chemvet Laboratories, Inc. v . N.L.R.B., 497
F.2d 445 ( 1974).]
In the light of the entire record and in the context used it
is found that the Respondent interfered with , restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by the following misconduct:
1. Williamson 's threats early in July to Denton and
other employees that if the Union came in the Company
would either close the steel department or shut the whole
Company down.
2. Williamson 's threat early in July to Bragg that if the
Union came in the nondestructive testing department
would go out of business , and also his statement to Bragg
that "I had better watch my step." Bragg was in the roofing
department , not the NDT department , so Williamson's ad-
monition to Bragg to watch his step clearly was a coercive
warning that reprisals could befall him in the roofing de-
partment for any union activity.
3. Williamson 's threat on or about July 25 to employees
Bragg , Denton , and Back that if the Union ever came in
the Company would shut down.
4. Williamson's threat sometime in July to Dakin while
both were riding in an automobile en route to Dayton,
Ohio, that Nutting and Conover would close the shop
down if the Union ever came in.
It is also found that the Respondent did not interfere
with , restrain , or coerce its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following conduct:
1. Williamson's conversation with Lindner in August
while both were riding in an automobile en route to Day-
ton, Ohio , as I have not credited Lindner's testimony and
there is no substantial credible evidence to establish that
there was interrogation in violation of the Act.
2. Lennertz ' conversation with Lindner on or about Au-
gust 12 about union activities . Lennertz and Lindner both
agreed that Lindner sought out the interview as Lindner
wanted to talk over some personal problems . The conver-
sation was in the nature of a father and son conference, not
a business relationship , and there was no element of coer-
cion.
H. C. NUTTING COMPANY 227
D. Alleged Violation of 8(a)(3) in the Discharge of Denton
1. Denton's employment
Denton was first employed by the Respondent in May
1972 as a radiographer trainee . He was instructed by Wil-
liamson in the duties of a radiographer both at the plant
through manuals , and on the job. He passed two tests given
by the Respondent, one of which qualified him to become
a level one radiographer, and the second, a level two radi-
ographer. He resigned in October 1973 because of his ob-
jections to the Company's overtime policy, and was rehired
the following week. He again resigned on April 19, and was
rehired April 29, at his former classification as a level two
radiographer. Denton secured his original job and subse-
quent rehirings through the recommendation of Wil-
liamson, who was his longtime friend and neighbor.
Out of the 11 rank-and-file employees of the steel de-
partment of the Respondent in the summer, Denton was 1
of the 2 highest skilled radiographers, being a level two. He
also was the most experienced of the radiographers, having
worked for the Company since May 1972, except for ap-
proximately 2 weeks. Denton testified that Williamson said
he was the best radiographer in the NDT department, and
the fastest and best man to put on a job. This testimony
was not contradicted by Williamson. Williamson did admit
that Denton and Rump worked the most overtime because
they were the most experienced radiographers.
Bragg , who was and still is a roofing department employ-
ee of Nutting, but who occasionally was called on by Wil-
liamson to perform steel department work, testified credi-
bly that Williamson had said to him, "that Lloyd was good
and fast" and said that "he was good quite a few times."
This testimony was uncontradicted.
Back, a radiographer, who had 1-1/2 years' previous ex-
perience at Dayton x-ray, and who had had 2 years of
medical x-ray training at the University of Cincinnati, tes-
tified credibly that, from his observation of Denton, "he
was good. He was safe. He did follow safety procedures.
He did try to stress quality." This testimony was uncontra-
dicted.
Based on the testimony and evidence in this case, Den-
ton was in fact a competent radiographer level two.
3. Respondent's knowledge of Denton's union activity
As previously noted, on either Monday, August 12, or
Tuesday, August 13, employee Lindner advised Chief En-
gineer Lennertz that three employees including Denton
were instrumental in bringing the Union into the steel de-
partment. Within an hour after talking with Lindner, Len-
nertz states that he reported to General Manager Spieker
as follows:
As I remember I told him that Lindner told me that
solicitation cards were being distributed. The purpose
to invite employees to indicate their interest in being
represented by a union. And I told Mr. Spieker that
Lindner told me of three employees in the NDT divi-
sion that had spoken to him, to Frank Lindner on this
matter. And I was trying--4 recalled the names of two
of these three. And those two names that I recalled
were a man named Denton and a man named Gunter.
[Emphasis supplied.]
On the morning following the Lennertz-Lindner confer-
ence, and Lennertz' report to Spieker, the department
heads held their regular meeting with General Manager
Spieker. Spieker testified about this meeting as follows:
Each morning all department heads meet with me.
Williamson came in to discuss the work schedule, any
problems in the department, whether he had sufficient
personnel, any problems from the previous days that
have to be worked on. And during this meeting I told
him that I had heard a rumor that there was union
organizational activity going on in his department.
And I told him that the rumor has it that Gunter and
Denton (emphasis supplied) and someone else was in-
volved. And Mr. Williamson said that he didn't, he
didn't believe it. And he studied a little bit and he kind
of laughed. And he said, "No, sir, I don't believe it."
At that point I didn't comment any further.
Although Respondent vigorously contends that it had no
knowledge of Denton's union activities before his dis-
charge, I find on the basis of the above, and the record as
a whole, that management of Respondent clearly knew
that Denton was the leader, or one of the leaders, in the
union organizational movement prior to Denton's dis-
charge.
2. Denton's union activities
In the latter part of June , Denton contacted the union
office , talked to Union Agent Brockman and secured
union authorization cards . He kept these cards in the glove
compartment of his personal truck , which he frequently
parked opposite the plant of the Respondent . In July Den-
ton gave a union card to radiographers Terry Dakin and
David Back , to Roofing Inspector James Bragg; and in the
middle of July, together with radiographer J. Gunter, Den-
ton, asked trainee Frank E. Lindner to sign a union card.
Denton was the key employee if not the only employee in
the union organization campaign . The campaign was a low
pitched one , done without fanfare and without any hand-
bills, bulletins , or insignia being distributed on behalf of
the Union.
4. Denton's discharge
On August 15, Denton reported for work in the morning,
and was told by Williamson to perform a magnetic particle
probe inspection test at the Cincinnati Coliseum on the
welding of two girders.' Denton returned to the plant on or
about 11:15 a.m. Between 12 noon and 1 p.m. Williamson
called him into his office and fired him on the spot. When
asked by Respondent's counsel what he said to Denton,
2 There was contradictory testimony by Denton and Williamson on the
working condition of the magnetic particle probe, on the merits of DC and
AC current, and on what instructions Williamson gave Denton There is no
need to resolve this conflict as at no time has the Respondent claimed that
Denton 's conduct on August 15 played any part in his being discharged that
day.
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Williamson testified:
Denton was down to the Coliseum. And he came in.
And it was around I think one o'clock or something in
the afternoon. Anyway when he comes in I told him to
make out his reports, which he did. And I said,
"Lloyd, I've gone back over all of this bad work. You'-
ve been doing this bad work. And we have decided to
let you go." And I don't [think] he heard me. He didn't
say nothing the first time. And then I told him, I said,
"This -bad work and you're doing it and it has been
piling up. And we're getting behind." And I said ...
And he said, "Well, are they going to lay me off?"
And I said, "They're going to fire you ...
Denton proceeded to turn in his keys and walked out to
the company parking lot. Williamson met him on the park-
ing lot and then suggested to Denton, "Let's go across the
street and drink a beer." The two proceeded to the Airport
Inn where four to six rounds of drinks were alternately
bought by each party. Denton testified that the first thing
Williamson asked him was, "who the men were that were
involved in the Union activities in his department." Den-
ton gave him the name of Rump who he believed "was the
man that told the Company about the Union." Denton
testified that thereafter Williamson "kept asking questions
about who had signed and all of this, and if the Union was
going to be able to get me a job somewhere else . . . and
[the Company] had been good to you and you pull a nasty
stunt like this and that was- about the end of it, of the
conversation then."
Williamson testified that he had not asked Denton how
many employees had signed up, or who they were. He did
admit, however, that Denton described to him how he kept
union information in the glove compartment of his truck
on the street for employees to pick up, and that Denton
said, "I didn't do anything on the job. I made sure that I
didn't give them any reason to fire me."
5. Denton's alleged unsatisfactory work record
From the outset, the basis of the Respondent's reason
for discharging Denton was asserted to be for the poor
quality of his work. On the day of discharge Williamson
told Denton it was for poor work at Stacey's. On August
30, Assistant General Manager Spieker answered an inqui-
ry from the Board's Region 9 office (G.C. Exh. 5), as to the
reasons for Denton's discharge, and cited poor quality of
work done by Denton on April 8 and 9 at Stacey's, May 13
at New Richmond Water Tank, August 1 at Brighton, Au-
gust 9 at Stacey, and August 12 at Oberle-Jordre.
However, at the hearing, the Respondent submitted a
significantly different list of dates and jobs on which it
claimed Denton had done poor work. Respondent's Exhib-
it 11, captioned "MAKE coon 4/28/74 through 8/15/74,"
sets forth the following dates and jobs which are reviewed
below in detail.
a. New Richmond Water Tank-5/13/74
water tank, using A film. When the films were developed,
they were defective, as M film had been used. Dakin testi-
fied that he had been on the job and had inserted the
wrong film in the camera. However, the Respondent pro-
duced a handwritten report of wages and expenses, signed
by Dakin showing that Dakin worked at a different place
from the New Richmond Water Tank on May 13, 1974.
The Company report showed that Dakin worked there on
May 17, 1974.
Based on the record I do find that the film was spoiled
on May 13 and, since Denton was the radiographer in
charge, he was at fault. However, the manning of this job
shows that the Respondent rated Denton as its number one
working radiographer, as it placed Denton over Rump, the
other level two technician.
b. Hughes-Bechtol-6/17/74
Respondent's Exhibit 11 lists 20 lost hours on June 17
for work done at Wright Patterson Field, Dayton. Howev-
er, the record is extremely abbreviated as to what hap-
pened at the Hughes-Bechtol job, and the date is unascer-
tainable from the testimony. The only related testimony by
Williamson was that "Denton lost some films that we had
up there. And that is what some of the lost time is."
C. Hughes-Bechtol-7/9/74
Respondent's Exhibit 11 lists 8 lost hours on July 9. No
testimony was offered by the Respondent as to what went
wrong at Hughes-Bechtol other than the claim of lost film
set forth under the June 17 listing above.
However, Williamson admitted that other employees
had problems with this customer. When asked how many
other employees had problems with Hughes-Bechtol, Wil-
liamson admitted that, "David Back had problems. Allen
Sellers had problems."
In fact, Respondent's Exhibit 11 lists 40 lost hours by
Back at Hughes-Bechtol in July, and 27 hours lost by Sell-
ers at the same company. I do not find sufficient evidence
to hold Denton liable for the claimed lost hours on June 17
and July 9.3
d. Brighton Corporation-811174
The Brighton Corporation was a fabricator of thick steel
heads for water tanks. It had its own radiographer and
darkroom and used the Respondent for its overload work.
Denton had shot work there before, including March 29,
April 3 and 16, and May 3 and 11.
On August 1, Williamson assigned Denton and Back to
go to Brighton to take 4 shots of some thick cylinders, a
total of 16 films. Denton and Back did not complete the
job that day as expected by Williamson.
Denton testified that he was developing the film in the
darkroom of the truck and as he turned around he bumped
the door in the darkroom causing the film to be partially
exposed.
Williamson dispatched Denton, level two radiographer, p epo e er ug es-
Rump, and level one, Sellers to shoot some welds on a chtol fob in the letter Spieker sent to the Regional Office on August 30.
Sit should be noted that Res ondent did not r rt ith H h Be-
H. C. NUTTING COMPANY 229
The next morning, August 2, at Denton's telephone re-
quest, Williamson sent a company truck to Brighton, and
Williamson also came to the job. Back was developing the
films in the truck's darkroom, when Williamson entered.
Williamson was of the opinion that the films were too dark,
but he sent them over to Brighton to see if they would
accept them. Brighton refused, because they were too dark,
and the Respondent had to reshoot them the next day.
The chief radiographer of Brighton, Robert E. Kolbin-
sky, testified that he had looked at the films and they were
too dark. He attributed the darkness to the film being shot
for too long a period of time. Kolbinsky stated that this
was the only instance he could remember where he rejected
film shot by Denton. He estimated that Denton had been
at Brighton's 6 to 10 times that he knew of . Denton was
responsible for this poor work.
e. Stacey Manufacturing Company-8/9/74
Stacey manufactures high pressure tanks and had been a
customer of the Respondent since March. Stacey employs
a full-time chief inspector of merchandise, Harold Wayne
Whitlock.
On the evening of August 6, 1974, Williamson sent radi-
ographers Back and Rump to shoot a big tank. On August
7 Whitlock telephoned Williamson complaining that the
films developed by Back were too dark. Williamson there-
upon sent Denton and Gunter to Stacey on the evenings of
August 7, 8, and 9 to shoot this large tank, removing Back
from this assignment.
On the evening of August 9, in preparing his truck to go
to Stacey's, Denton found that his source, an essential part
of his equipment , was missing. An investigation disclosed
that Back had the source on another job, and Denton had
to wait until about midnight for Back to bring back this
source to the Respondent's shop. After Back returned,
Denton left for Stacey's. When he arrived at the jobsite
Denton realized he had forgotten the list of shots he was
supposed to make. Denton did not return to the
Employer's shop to get the list, but chose to work the rest
of the night with Dakin, who was working at Stacey's on a
one-man assignment . This loss of time from midnight on
was Denton's error, but obviously not an error involving
the quality of his x-rays.
Whitlock, who has worked for Stacey's since January
1974, testified on behalf of the Respondent as to the qual-
ity of work done by the Respondent 's radiographers at
Stacey's. Whitlock testified that in the first 2 weeks of Au-
gust he was dissatisfied with the quality of the radiographs
done by the Respondent, that they were too dark, and in
some cases were not marked properly . He then went on to
testify that he had telephoned Williamson and told him not
to send Denton to the plant anymore. He was unable to fix
the date, stating, "I would say in the month of August." He
stated that he named Denton because his name was signed
on the "sheet, radiograph" that was left at Stacey's by the
radiographer in charge.
On cross-examination by the General Counsel, Whitlock
admitted that he could not recall any instance in which he
had ever talked to Denton, that he did not see the Nutting
radiographers perform their work, and did not go over
their reports with them.
During the course of Whitlock's testimony, General
Counsel had Dakin enter the hearing room and stand be-
fore the Inspector:
Q. (By Mr. Homer) Do you recall talking to this
gentleman about his work that was performed at
Stacey's?
A. (Whitlock) Yeah. I think I saw Terry in the plant
on Saturday morning.
Q. And did you talk to Mr. Dakin?
A. I can't recall any conversation. I did talk to the
boy at the time, yes.
Q. Was this in August of 1974?
A. It seems like it would be about that time.
Q. Did you not discuss Mr. Dakin's work and what
you felt was the poor quality of work?
A. I think I made a comment to him that his work
was not as good as it should be. I'm not sure.
When Dakin was recalled by the counsel for the General
Counsel on rebuttal he credibly testified that Williamson
reprimanded him two or three times about complaints
from Stacey's about his work, and that Williamson told
him he had received a call from Mr. Whitlock, and Whit-
lock said, "not to send me back over there any more."
Although Williamson testified on the second day of the
hearing that Stacey's had only requested that Denton be
kept off their job, on the third day of the hearing on being
recalled for redirect examination, he admitted that Stacey
officials had also requested him to remove Dakin from
their work. Under cross-examination Williamson also ad-
mitted that he had reprimanded Dakin for not stenciling at
Stacey's.
Denton testified emphatically that Williamson never
told him that he could not go back to Stacey's. The record
is crystal clear that Williamson sent Denton to Stacey's on
August 7, 8, and 9. Also, the record is clear that Denton
was not accused by Stacey, or anyone else, that Denton
performed poor quality work on August 9. The
Respondent's complaint against Denton for August 9 is
that he forgot to take with him a list of the shots to be
taken.
I do find that Stacey's chief inspector asked Williamson
to keep Dakin off their job, not Denton, thus as (a) Whit-
lock admitted that he spoke to Dakin and criticized his
work, but never spoke to Denton; (b) Dakin admitted that
Whitlock had complained to him about his work; (c) Da-
kin admitted that Williamson told him that he could not
send him back to Stacey's because he had received so
many complaints about his work; (d) Williamson con-
firmed this testimony of Dakin's; (e) and the record shows
conclusively that Denton had been sent by Williamson to
Stacey's practically up to the date of his discharge.
f. Oberlie-Jordre-8/12 /74
This customer was building a power plant at Miami
Fort. On Friday evening, August 9, Williamson had sent
radiographers Back and Weber to shoot three welds. Back
shot two welds and after reviewing his films found them to
230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be too light. Back reported this problem to Williamson. On
the following Monday afternoon, August 12, Williamson
sent Denton with Back to go to Miami Fort to complete
the job. After shooting some welds, upon reviewing the
films Denton also found them too light. Denton and Wil-
liamson both testified that Williamson told Denton to go
over to the nearby Power Piping's darkroom trailer and as
Williamson testified, "See the night superintendent there
and get the keys and develop it in their trailer." Denton
testified that he replied to Williamson as follows: "I ex-
plained to Mr. Williamson that the people had done left."
Back, who was present when Denton called Williamson
confirmed Denton's testimony, stating, "Well, like I say, as
I remember, I remember hearing Lloyd tell Mr. Williams
that the man from the other x-ray company had left the
area." Williamson denied that Denton had told him this. I
credit Denton because of Back's forthright corroboration.
Williamson testified that he gave no further instructions
to Denton. However, Denton and Back testified that Wil-
liamson then instructed them to load six films in each ca-
sette and take the shots. The films were shot, and the next
morning Back ran them and again they were too light, just
as had been the films taken by Back and Weber on August
9.
However, it is noted that the Respondent did not charge
Back and/or Weber for any lost hours for the too-light
films taken by Back on August 9. Yet, on Respondent's
Exhibit 11, the Company charged Denton with 12 lost
hours for his too-light films taken on August 12. This is a
classic example of disparate treatment by an employer.
According to Williamson's testimony, the final event
that triggered Denton's discharge was Williamson's belief
that Denton had cheated in turning in 2 extra hours of
work. Williamson described his August 15 meeting with
Spieker as follows:
I said all of this bad work that he's had. And I
said, Last night I found out that he turned in ten hours
and he only worked eight or eight hours and he only
worked six. And this is dust last night. I said, That's
going too far. There's no hope for him. It's been minor
things that we've had against him. It's things that actu-
ally I thought could have been overcome. And it's the
end of the line.
Williamson had assigned Denton and Lindner to a job in
Dayton on August 13. Denton testified that when he got
back in the evening he added one half hour to his time. He
claimed that this was a company approved procedure on
late jobs.
However, Williamson claimed that Denton added 2 ex-
tra hours. It should be noted that the Respondent failed to
produce any documentary evidence to support
Williamson's claim of 2 extra hours. The Respondent did
produce Denton's Report of Wages and Expenses for the
week of June 17, and did produce Lindner's similar report
for the week of August 12, and Dakin's similar report for
the week of May 5. The Respondent's failure to produce
Denton's Report of Wages for this week of August 12 rais-
es the inference that the evidence contained in that report
would have been adverse to the Respondent' s case, and
would have shown one-half hour, not 2 hours.' I do find
that Denton added one-half hour to his time for the work
done in Dayton, not 2 hours.
6. Concluding findings re Denton 's discharge
It is well established that an employer may terminate an
employee for any reason, good, bad, or indifferent, without
running afoul of the Act, provided he is not motivated by
unlawful considerations . The existence of justifiable
grounds for dismissal is no defense if the motivation for the
discharge was in part because of the employees' participa-
tion in protected activities. With these established princi-
ples in mind and recognizing that the burden of proof to
show the illegality of the discharge rests with the General
Counsel, we now analyze Denton's discharge.
In support of the General Counsel' s case , we have the
most experienced, competent radiographer employed by
the Respondent fired precipitately, without warning, the
first or second day after Williamson learned that Denton is
the leader of the union organizing campaign.
The record is clear that Denton was the Respondent's
leading rank-and-file radiographer. Back and Bragg both
testified that Williamson had repeatedly praised Denton's
ability and speed as a radiographer. This was never contra-
dicted by Williamson.
In addition to the verbal support of Back and Bragg, we
have what Williamson actually did in making assignments
to jobs. The crew of radiographers dispatched by Wil-
liamson to the New Richmond Water Tank job consisted
of Denton , Rump , and Sellers . Rump was also a level two
radiographer, yet Williamson made Denton the radiogra-
pher in charge, and when there was defective work on the
job, charged Denton with the "MAKE GOOD" hours. On the
Stacey job, Williamson had sent Rump and Back on Au-
gust 6 to shoot a big tank. On August 7, when Whitlock
telephoned to complain that the films were too dark, Wil-
liamson turned to his top technician and sent Denton with
Gunter to straighten out the job. On the Oberle-Jordre job
at Miami Fort, Williamson dispatched Back and Weber,
on August 9, to shoot three welds. Back found them too
light and reported this problem to Williamson. So, on the
following workday , Williamson sent Denton with Back to
solve the problem and complete this job.
Denton had quit his job in 1973 and 1974, and each time
had been immediately rehired when he applied to return.
Denton was assigned to the highest amount of overtime
hours, together with Rump, by Williamson's own orders.
However, in the latter part of June, Denton contacted
the Union, secured union authorization cards, and started
securing signatures . The campaign was carried on sub rosa.
There is no direct evidence that Williamson knew of the
union campaign or knew that Denton was the spearhead at
that time. However, starting in July, whenever the question
of a union would be brought up to or by Williamson, his
answer would be harsh and clear, that if the Union came in
the Company would close the steel department down, or
shut the whole Company down.
The Respondent in his brief states correctly that in an
Wigmore, Evidence, § 1017 (3 ed . 1940).
H. C. NUTTING COMPANY 231
8(a)(3) case an employer must first have knowledge that
the employee was engaging in some activity protected by
the Act. Then the Respondent flatly asserts, "Respondent
had no knowledge that Denton was engaged in protected
activities at the time of his termination." This is completely
inaccurate.
It is clear that the General Counsel met the test of estab-
lishing knowledge by the employer, prior to Denton's dis-
charge. While I do not credit Lindner's version of what was
said at his meeting with Lennertz on August 12 or 13, I do
credit Lennertz' testimony. Respondent's brief character-
izes Lennertz' conversation with Lindner as a slim reed for
the General Counsel to rely on for the first, most vital part
of his case, knowledge of union activity. To the contrary, it
was not a slim one, but a very strong one.
There is no doubt that there was a meeting between
Lindner and Lennertz, either on August 12 or 13. I believe
Lennertz' testimony that Lindner brought up the question
of the Union and Denton's name. But this makes no differ-
ence in assessing what was done by Vice President Len-
nertz after he received the information about union activi-
ties. Lennertz testified that following this conversation he
went almost immediately to Spieker's office. Certainly Len-
nertz did not go to the office of the general manager to tell
him of a trainee's petty complaints. Lennertz went to tell
him that there was union organization in the NDT divi-
sion, that solicitation cards were being distributed, and that
three employees in the NDT division, Denton, Gunter, and
one other whose name he could not recall, were passing out
the authorization cards.
The chain of this knowledge passing to Williamson is
clear and absolute. The very next morning, August 13, or
14, at the regular daily meeting of the department heads,
Spieker testified on cross-examination that he told Wil-
liamson that "I had heard a rumor that there was organiza-
tional activity going on in his department. And I told him
that the rumor has it that Gunter and Denton and someone
else was involved." Why Spieker would characterize Len-
nertz' statement to him as a rumor is unknown, as it was no
rumor. Lindner had told Lennertz about the union activi-
ty as a fact, and Lennertz had passed it on to Spieker as a
fact, and had not watered it down to a rumor. So, in any
event, the Respondent, through the supervisory chain of
Lennertz, Spieker, and Williamson, knew of Denton's
union activity at the time of his termination, 1 or 2 days
later.
It is true that Williamson told Spieker "he didn't believe
it," but in the context Williamson expressed this disbelief it
was that of a friend who had been betrayed. After all, he
and Denton had been friends and neighbors. Williamson
had gotten him his job, had trained him, and had gotten
him his job back after quitting twice. Williamson was stun-
ned by such ingratitude, and expressed this feeling of be-
trayal to Denton in the Airport Inn on the afternoon of the
discharge, when he told Denton that "the Company had
been good to you and you pull a nasty stunt like this."
Respondent denies that the discharge of Denton was an
unfair labor practice, and argues that the discharge was
attributable basically to the poor quality of work done by
Denton on a variety of jobs. It would furnish no useful
purpose to re-review these jobs at this time. Suffice to say,
that the Respondent furnished two substantially different
lists of jobs that contained alleged poor work , one list
being submitted to Region 9 on August 30, and one sub-
mitted at the hearing, having been prepared about January
14, 1974.
It must be noted that radiography is not an exact sci-
ence . The customer is absolute king . If he says the films are
too light, the Respondent simply takes his word and does
the films over. Conversely, if a customer says they are too
dark, no argument is made , and the films are done over.
But even with this subjective system , Denton was recog-
nized by Williamson's assignments as his best radiogra-
pher.
Even though dozens of paves of testimony were given on
the status of the "MAKE GOOD' jobs on Respondent 's Exhibit
11, as well as many pages in the brief, there is no way to
make these incidents into major mistakes . Williamson
termed these "minor things" when he went to see Spieker
on August 15, and they were minor things . As each oc-
curred no warning notice of dismissal was given to Denton.
No list of these incidents was made by Williamson until 5
months after Denton's discharge.
At the hearing the Respondent sought to shore up its
reasons for justifying the termination of Denton by adduc-
ing testimony from Williamson about a day in June when
Denton called in sick . It was Williamson 's belief that Den-
ton had gone fishing . Denton testified that he had trouble
with his legs and stayed home that day. The determination
of this question is not important to this case . What is im-
portant is that the Respondent thought it necessary to but-
tress its reasons for discharging Denton by this vague, mi-
nor incident.
The General Counsel at the hearing and in his brief as-
serts that the Respondent was in no way concerned with
the quality of the work of its employees. In support thereof
the General Counsel introduced testimony in the use of
tests other than x-rays performed by Nutting employees.
Bragg testified that he was sent on a job at Crawford Steel
by Williamson to make a magnetic particle probe in some
steel beams. Bragg was a roofing inspector and from the
roofing department, not the steel department . Bragg testi-
fied that he was not qualified in the use of the probe, that
he did not know what he was doing, and did not know how
to interpret the test. Williamson admitted that before em-
ployees were sent out on such jobs the Company normally
required that they pass two tests. However, in Bragg's case,
Williamson weakly claimed a state inspector was present to
interpret the test. Bragg testified that this unqualified state
inspector just watched the test for about an hour and then
left, with Bragg continuing to use the probe for a couple
more hours. Lindner, the other half of the probe team, had
only been with the Company several weeks and had no
knowledge of the instrument.
Another service offered by the Respondent to customers
was a dye penetrant test applied to steel welds so as to
show surface cracks. In the summer of 1974 Williamson
assigned Back and Dakin to conduct a dye penetrant test
on a pipeline job in Kentucky. Back told Williamson that
he was not qualified and had not taken the two tests estab-
lished by the Respondent to qualify a person for perform-
ing a dye penetrant test. Back testified that Williamson
232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
told him , "Go out there and do the job and just try to get
by." Back did go out to the pipeline and performed the
tests by the slipshod method of reading the directions on
the can containing the dye penetrant.
Unlike the General Counsel , I do not find that Respon-
dent was in no way concerned with the quality of work of
its employees . However, by sending out unqualified mag-
netic particle probe operators and unqualified dye pene-
trant operators , and by assigning Denton as a waterproof-
ing inspector on a nuclear power plant , when he had had
no experience in waterproofing , shows that the Company
does not demand quality performance by its employees on
all jobs that it undertakes.
The Respondent had advanced no credible reasons for
the discharge of Denton . By Williamson 's own words his
complaints about Denton's work were for "minor things."
Yet suddenly and without warning the union leader in the
organizational campaign is fired . Hence it is clear that the
real motive of the Respondent in Denton 's discharge was
to utilize his discharge for the stamping out of employee
affection for the Union.
On the day of discharge, Williamson characterized
Denton's discharge as for "minor things" This is not to say
that the Respondent could not have discharged Denton for
any or all of those minor things listed on Employer's Ex-
hibit 11, prior to the Employer 's receiving knowledge of
Denton's union activities and its concomitant desire to rid
itself of the union spearhead. However, the fact that the
Employer chose not to discipline Denton for any of his
alleged misdeeds from May to August is a guidepost that
the Employer really did consider the incidents minor things
not calling for any discipline , much less discharge.
On all of the evidence of record I find that Denton was
discharged on August 15 because of his union activities;
that the stated reasons of poor quality of work, and/or
cheating on his time by adding 2 hours , was a pretext to
conceal the antiunion motivation for his discharge . Singer
Company v. N.L.R.B., 429 F.2d 172, 179 (C.A. 8, 1970);
A. P. Green Fire Brick Company v. N. L. R. B., 326 F.2d 910,
916 (C.A. 8, 1964).
I also find that Williamson 's interrogation of Denton at
the Airport Inn on August 15, about other employees'
union activities , violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. Having
just fired Denton , it is incongruous that Williamson invited
him to have a beer in the middle of a workday. Williamson
wanted Denton to reveal to him the names of the union
proponents so that the Company could scotch the union
campaign . No other reason for such interrogation is plausi-
ble.
tioning me about my union activities again and asked who
had signed the Union cards . And I didn't answer him."
Denton further testified that Williamson said to him, "If
you can get five men to sign union cards I'll kiss your ass
on Fountain Square ." When Denton told Williamson he
already had five signed union cards , Williamson replied
that "if we find out who they are, they won't have their
jobs long."
Williamson admitted that he had been in the V.F.W. hall
that evening , but claimed he was only there for a few min-
utes. He denied talking about the Union . "I did not discuss
the Union . He talked some . But I did not discuss. I did not
ask any questions ." Williamson stated that while Denton
was telling him about the Union, "I was just laughing at
it."
Shortly after Denton and Brown joined Williamson at
the bar , Mrs. Thelma Stevens came in and sat down with
the three men, as she had originally been with Brown. She
had known Denton and Williamson for a long period of
time . She was a credible witness . She testified that the first
thing she heard was "Mr. Denton tried to get Mr. Wil-
liamson to admit that he was the one who fired him for
union activities , but that Williamson responded that `he
had had orders from higher up to fire him for not doing
satisfactory work."' Stevens corroborated Denton 's testi-
mony as follows:
A. All right. And so then he went on and he said,
"If you get five people to sign union cards I will bare
my tail down on Fifth Street." And Lloyd laughed at
him and he said-That's Mr. Denton . I'm sorry, sir.
He said, "Well, Fifth wouldn' t be good enough be-
cause I've already got five people signed ." And Mr.
Williamson tried to find out who they were and Mr.
Denton wouldn't tell him the names . And Mr. Wil-
liamson said, "If we find out who they are, who signed
the cards they will be let go ." So they proceeded to sit
and talk back and forth pretty loud. And Mr. Wil-
liamson said to Mr. Denton, "I thought you consid-
ered me a friend . If you'll drop all charges I'll have
your job back with Nutting within a week . If not I'll
get you a job some place else ." And Mr. Denton said,
"If you are talking about Stacey's forget it." And Mr.
Williamson said , "Lloyd, I've got connections. And I
think I can look around and find you a job with some-
body else besides Stacey's ." And so they went on. And
they talked about different things . Then Mr. Wil-
liamson kept referring back to trying to get Mr. Den-
ton to tell who had signed cards . And Mr. Denton
kept laughing and telling him he wouldn 't tell him.
E. The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violation After Denton's Discharge
On the evening of September 10 or 11, Denton was in
the Willowville V.F.W. Post playing pool with his friend
Roscoe Brown . Although Denton had been discharged by
the Respondent , he was still an employee because his work
had ceased as a consequence of the Respondent's unfair
labor practice . Williamson walked in , went to the bar, and
sat down . After the game of pool, Denton and Brown went
up to the bar and sat down, with Denton sitting next to
Williamson . Denton testified : "Williamson started ques-
Mrs. Stevens described Denton's and Williamson's
conversation as loud , argumentative, and mad . Both par-
ties had three rounds of alcoholic beverages while she was
present, whereas she was drinking Pepsi-Cola.
It is found that Williamson 's interrogation of Denton on
September 10 or I1 in the V.F.W. Post about other em-
ployees' union activities , and also by his threatening that
the Respondent would discharge employees who signed
union cards , was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
H. C. NUTTING COMPANY
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent set forth in
section III, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the fol-
lowing:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The H. C. Nutting Company is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Local Union No. 415, Industrial, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a la-
bor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning
union activities; by threatening employees with closure of
its steel department and/or the Company, and discharge of
employees for engaging in union activities, Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discharging Arthur Lloyd Denton, on August 15,
1974, Respondent has discriminated in regard to hire and
tenure of employment to discourage membership in a labor
organization, and is thereby committing unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor prac-
tices found herein and take certain affirmative action, as
provided in the recommended Order below, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act, in accordance with usual
Board practice in such cases.
It having been found that Arthur Lloyd Denton was un-
lawfully discharged on August 15, 1974, it will be recom-
mended that Respondent be ordered to offer him immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if his job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. It
will be further recommended that Respondent be ordered
to reimburse him for any loss of pay he may have suffered
as a result of its discriminating action against him, in the
manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, 291-293 (1950), together with 6 percent interest there-
on, in accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962).
It will be further recommended that Respondent be re-
quired to post the notice referred to in the Order herein
below in its Cincinnati, Ohio, facility.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDERS
233
Respondent, The H. C. Nutting Company, Cincinnati,
Ohio, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from: :
(a) Discharging its employees or otherwise discriminat-
ing in any manner with respect to their tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of employment, because
they have engaged in concerted activity or activity in be-
half of Local Union No. 415, Industrial, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or
any other union.
(b) Unlawfully interrogating employees regarding their
union activities or the union activities of their fellow em-
ployees.
(c) Threatening employees with reprisals for engaging in
union activities.
(d) Threatening employees with discharge for engaging
in union activities.
(e) Threatening to close the steel department if the em-
ployees chose to be represented by a union.
(f) Threatening to shut the Company down if the em-
ployees chose to be represented by a union.
(g) In any manner interfering with, restraining , or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Arthur Lloyd Denton immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or if his job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for any loss of pay suffered by him by reason of his
discriminatory discharge , in the manner set forth in the
section herein above entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll and other
records containing information concerning its backpay
obligation under this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its facility in Cincinnati, Ohio, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 9, after being duly signed by an authorized represen-
tative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for
a period of at least 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places , including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
S In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
6 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
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."
234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other than those
found in this Decision.
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 a
hearing that we violated the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, has ordered us to post this notice, and we
hereby notify you that:
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees
these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representative
of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for supporting
Local Union No. 415, Industrial, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or
any other union.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your union ac-
tivities or attitudes or the union activities or attitudes
of others.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with reprisals for engag-
ing in union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with discharge for engag-
ing in union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close down any department
or the Company if you elect to be represented by a
union.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with any of
your rights set forth above.
WE WILL offer Arthur Lloyd Denton full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if the job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, and make him
whole for any lost earnings , plus 6-percent interest.
THE H . C. NUTTING COMPANY