Thomas Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1990

297 N.L.R.B. 1025 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

THOMAS STEEL CORP 1025
Thomas Steel Corporation and General Chauffeurs,
Sales Drivers, and Helpers Local 179, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-
CIO. Case 13-CA-28357
March 23, 1990
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND OVIATT
On November 8, 1989, Administrative Law
Judge Wallace H Nations issued the attached deci-
sion The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the General Counsel filed an an-
swenng brief
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Thomas
Steel Corporation, Lemont, Illinois, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order
'The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge'i credibility find-
ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are Incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cu 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
Robert Hayes, Esq , for the General Counsel
David M Novak, Esq , of Chicago, Illinois, for the Re-
spondent
Roger N Gold, Esq , of Chicago, Illinois, for the Charg-
ing Party
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE H NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge
Based upon a charge filed February 10, 1989,' by the
General Chauffeurs, Sales Drivers, and Helpers, Local
179, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO
(Union or Charging Party), the Regional Director for
Region 13 issued a complaint on March 31, alleging that
Thomas Steel Corporation (Respondent or Thomas
'All dates are in 1989 unless otherwise noted
Steel) is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act (Act) The complaint was amended on June 29 to
add an additional alleged violation of Section 8(a)(/) Re-
spondent has filed an answer and an amended answer ad-
mitting the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, but
denying the commission of any unfair labor practice
Hearing was held in these matters in Chicago, Illinois, on
August 9 and 10 Briefs were received from the parties
on or about October 10
The issues presented for determination by the plead-
ings are as follows
1 Did Respondent on or about February 8, pro-
mulgate and since that date maintain a no-solicita-
tion rule in order to discourage its employees from
exercising rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act?2
2 Did Respondent on or about February 8, main-
tain and enforce its no-solicitation rule selectively
and disparately by prohibiting union related solicita-
tions and distributions while permitting nonunion
related solicitations and distnbutions93
3 Did Respondent on or about February 8, sus-
pend and then discharge its employees Alex Betten-
hausen, Edgar Reed, and Jim McNamara because of
their activities on behalf of the Union and to dis-
courage further Union activity, or in the alternative,
because they violated the no-solicitation rule and to
discourage further Union activity?
4 Did Respondent on or aboat February 4 or 6,
create the impression with one of its employees that
his Union activity was under surveillance by Re-
spondent?
5 Did Respondent on or about February 13, in-
terrogate its employees regarding their Union ac-
tivities and sympathies?
Based upon the entire record, and upon my observa-
tion of the demeanor of the witnesses and in consider-
ation of the briefs submitted, I make the following
a At the outset of the hearing, the parties entered Into the following
stipulation
Respondent, Thomas Steel, does not and did not have a specific no-
solicitation rule and no employees have been discharged prior to
February 8, 1989 for distributing and soliciting on company time and
property
Although this stipulation would on its face seem to settle the first issue
raised by the complaint, one of the reasons advanced for the Involved
discharges was solicitation on company property on company time
Therefore, contrary to the stipulation, Respondent evidently did promul-
gate and enforce a one time no-solicitation rule This matter will be fully
discussed in relation to the discharges
'This Issue is totally interrelated with Issue No 3 and will be deter-
mined in conjunction with that Issue As can be seen from the stipulation,
there was no rule prohibiting solicitations, but the question remains
whether the alleged chscnnunatees' solicitation on behalf of the Union
prompted a response from Respondent different from that It gave to
other forms of solicitation
297 NLRB No 171
1026 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
At all times material to this proceeding Respondent
an Illinois corporation with an office and place of busi
ness in Lemont, Illinois has engaged in the business of
melting scrap steel and the manufacture of rolling bar
mill products It admits the jurisdictional allegations of
the complaint and I find that it is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and
(7) of the Act
II LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted and I find that the Union is now and has
been at all times material to this proceedmg a labor or
gamzation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background Facts
Thomas Steel began operations in Lemont Illinois m
1983 taking over the operations of a failing company
Lemont Manufacturing Respondent engages in the man
ufacture of reinforcing steel and flats utilizing purchased
scrap metal and alloys The scrap is melted in arc fur
naces and then alloys are added to meet different specifi
cations This process takes place m the melt shop The
steel manufactured in the melt shop is taken to a contmu
ous caster and put into a described length and size
Thereafter, it goes to the rolling mill where it is put into
a reheat furnace and put through a reduction process
which results in the finished product The finished steel
is then shipped out by the shipping department to Re
spondent s customers
The United Steelworkers of America represented a
unit of Respondent s employees from the Company s
ception in 1983 until it was decertified in 1988 Respond
ent s president, Robert Thomas testified that the Compa
ny became aware of organizational efforts by the Union
in January In response the Company called a supervi
sors meeting where the supervisors were told of the
effort and given advice as to what could and could not
be done under the circumstances
B Did Respondent on or about February 8 Suspend
and then Discharge its Employees James McNamara
Alex Bettenhausen and Edgar Reed Because of Their
Activities on Behalf of the Union?
In January Thomas Steel employees Jim McNamara,
Alex Bettenhausen and Rick Sows went to the offices of
the Union in Joliet Illinois, and spoke with Bill Mach
secretary treasurer of Local 179 The three employees in
quired about the Union representing Respondent s em
ployees previously represented by the Steelworkers
McNamara testified that Mach told them that they could
get authorization cards distributed and signed on compa
ny property in the locker room or lunch room on break
Mach also advised them that they could not get cards
signed on company time, and gave them a book entitled
It is the Law, setting forth certain rules of the Board
The three employees took about 100 authorization cards
and left
1 Evidence relating to James McNamara
McNamara a switch engine operator for Thomas Steel
worked for the Company from October 1986 until his
discharge in February In February, he was working the
3 to 11 p m shift on the buddy system 4 He customanly
clocked in about 2 25 p m and clocked out about 10 40
or 10 45 p m His timecards for the first week of Febru
ary corroborate these times In his job he was required
to use a wallue tallue radio which he turned over to the
employee who relieved him at the end of his shift
McNamara who had about 30 of the authorization cards
from Local 179 began getting them signed on February
1 He got about 5 cards signed m the Respondent s
locker room before reporting for work gave 15 blank
cards to another employee and then went to his job On
February 2 McNamara received signed cards back from
employees one or two in the locker room and another
one in the company parking lot on his way home He did
not get cards signed on February 3 but resumed on Feb
ruary 4 getting a couple more signed McNamara testi
fled that none of the cards were signed at a time when
either he or the employee signing were being paid to
work
On February 4 McNamara received a telephone call
from Richard Pnnz a Foreman in Respondent s melt
shop McNamara and Prinz had been friends for about 25
years and at the time belonged to the same fraternal or
gamzation In the phone conversation Prinz first asked
for a phone number and then told McNamara that Bob
Thomas Respondent s president had heard that McNa
mars Alex Bettenhausen, and Butch Bettenhausen were
getting authorization cards signed for Local 179 Pnnz
said that Thomas was really pissed off about it and
that McNamara had better watch yourself McNamara
responded that Butch Bettenhausen was not involved
After receiving this phone call McNamara continued so
licitmg and distributing tuuon cards at Thomas Steel 5
On February 8, McNamara received a telegram from
Respondent which stated
You were engaged in solicitation on company prop
erty during work time and during time that you
were required to be on your job and you were de
tammg other employees preventing them from per
forming their work assignments As a result of the
above, you are hereby being given a five day disci
plmary suspension February 9 10 11 12 and 13
4 The buddy system allowed an employee to relieve an earlier shift em
ployee in his Job a half hour before the scheduled shift change and be
relieved a half hour before the end of his shift
5 This telephone call is the evidence relied upon by General Counsel to
constitute a violation of Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in Issue 4 I do
not find that the conversation creates the impression of surveillance
McNamara and Bettenhausen were openly soliciting union support in the
company locker room according to them on their own time Such open
activity would of necessity come to the attention of management and It
should come as no surpnse to McNamara that word of his solicitation
efforts had reached the company president However I do believe this
prophetic and fnendly warning is important as it bears strongly on the
questions of credibility and employer motivation
THOMAS STEEL CORP 1027
1989, pending discharge If you feel that this is
unjust, you may request a meeting within five days
through the personnel department
The meeting mentioned in the telegram was held on
February 13 in the conference room at Thomas Steel
Present on behalf of management were Gary Baron, the
melt shop superintendent, Ed McCormick, a melt shop
foreman, Dan Zdumch, roller mill superintendent, Ray
Roche11, vice president, and William Langer, vice presi-
dent-treasurer Three other employees who received
identical telegrams were also present, Alex Bettenhausen,
Edgar Reed, and Bruno Winniky Roche11 asked if the
employees were represented by Roger Gold, an attorney
representing the Union, and the employees replied, yes
Each of the employees was then called individually to
meet with the management personnel present
McNamara testified that Langer asked if he considered
himself discharged and he replied, no Langer then read
a statement saying that McNamara had been suspended
pending discharge because management felt that he was
soliciting on behalf of Local 179, getting cards signed on
company property on company time McNamara was
asked if this was true and he replied, "Whatever I did I
did within the laws set forth by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board" Rochell remarked that McNamara was in
the wrong vocation, saying he should have been a
lawyer The management panel then told McNamara
that they would make a decision and let him know the
results The meeting lasted 3 to 5 minutes On the fol-
lowing Saturday, McNamara received a telegram inform-
ing him that he had been discharged
On cross-examination, McNamara denied being in the
company locker room between 6 and 6 30 p m and
denied taking his lunchbreak there that day He did not
recall when he took his lunch or any other break that
day He testified that he was not aware that employees
are allowed in the locker room only at the beginning and
end of shifts McNamara denied having a conversation
with or meeting Ed Smith on February 5 He testified
that on February 7, he clocked in at 2 25 pm and actu-
ally began working about 2 40 p m, relieving employee
Kurt Spencer He testified that he was not in the locker
room on February 7 between 2 50 p m and 3 10 p m
„
2 Evidence relating to Alex Bettenhausen
Alex Bettenhausen was employed by Thomas Steel as
a First Helper on an electric arc furnace He worked for
Respondent from August 1967 until his discharge in Feb-
ruary 6 In February, he worked under the supervision of
Richard Prinz on the 3 to 11 p m shift As a first helper,
Bettenhausen dumps in charges, turns the furnace power
on, and melts them, adding electrodes when they are
needed and adding the correct alloys He also conducts
melt tests and takes temperature readings to ensure Cor-
rect heat This is a vital job in the production process,
and he is required to remain in close proximity to the
furnace at all times If he leaves for any reason he is re-
8 Bettenhausen evidently worked for Respondent's predecessor(s) at
the same location since 1967 and for Respondent since its operations
began in 1983
quired to tell someone, presumably his supervisor His
timecards for the first week of February reflect that he
clocked in between 2 10 and 2 20 p m each day and
clocked out between 11 42 and 11 51 p m He was re-
quired to be at his job at 3 p m In the interim between
the time he clocked in and started work, he went to the
locker room to change clothes and then either to the
storeroom for safety equipment or to the coffee shack for
coffee His pay does not start until 3 p m however
As noted earlier, Bettenhausen went with McNamara
and Sowa to the offices of Local 179 in January and re-
ceived solicitation instructions and authorization cards
He began passing out cards on February 1 in the locker
room at Thomas Steel He continued on February 2 and
3, but ran out of cards He did not receive any more
cards to pass out He received signed cards back in the
company locker room, according to his testimony always
on his own time He testified that the employees return-
ing cards did so on their time, when they were getting
ready for work
Bettenhausen received an identical suspension pending
discharge telegram as did McNamara and attended the
meeting with management on February 13 At the meet-
ing, Bettenhausen was asked by Rochell whether he had
passed out cards Bettenhausen answered, yes, but only
in the locker room
On cross-examination, Bettenhausen testified that the
only times he was supposed to be in the locker room and
in fact the only times he was in the locker room was
when dressing for work before his shift and cleaning up
after it He testified that he does not take lunches in his
job He could not recall when he took breaks on Febru-
ary 5, stating that it would have been when the furnace
process allowed as it is a continuous process
3 Evidence relating to Edgar Reed
Edgar Reed was employed by Respondent from Octo-
ber 1986 until his discharge in 1989 His job classification
was locomotive craneman on the 7 a m to 3 p m shift
Like McNamara, he was working on the buddy system
He testified that his shift ended when he was relieved
and he turned his walkie-talkie radio over to the employ-
ee relieving him During the first week of February,
Reed clocked out at 2 30 p m each day From February
2 until he was discharged, no one from management
spoke to him about leaving his crane unattended, and
Reed denied leaving his crane unattended during this
timeframe
Reed became aware of union activity in the plant
when he was asked to sign an authorization card in the
company locker room on February 2 He testified that he
was about to clock out when an employee asked him if
he had signed a card He replied that he had not, and a
few seconds later, Alex Bettenhausen came in and gave
him one to sign He signed and returned the card on the
spot This took place at about 2 25 p m This time fits
Bettenhausen's schedule because he comes to work at
about this time and clocks in about 2 20 p m Reed testi-
fied that, other than the card he signed, he was never in
possession of any other authorization cards and did not
1028 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
solicit or distribute cards McNamara and Bettenhausen
confirmed this testimony and I credit it
On February 9, Reed received his suspension pending
discharge telegram and attended the meeting with man
agement on February 13 At the meeting, he was asked
by Langer if he understood the reason for his 5 day sus
pension pending discharge Reed said yes meaning that
he understood what the telegram said Roche11 then
asked if he had solicited an employee on or about Febru
ary 2 on behalf of the Union Reed answered no Ro
chell then said We think you did' Reed replied I
know I didn t You think and I know I didn t Langer
then thanked him and said management would inform
him of its decision Reed received his discharge letter on
February 17 Before his discharge, he was not told by
management anything about detaining other employees
or creating safety problems by soliciting
On cross examination Reed testified that he did not
know that the only time employees were supposed to be
in the locker room was at the beginning and end of their
shifts He knew he was not supposed to leave his crane
unattended during his work hours, but was under the im
pression that he could go to the bathroom, mcluding the
one in the locker room when necessary He stated that
there were also times when he returned to the locker
room to get things he had left there Reed testified that
on February 3 he was working his regular shift which
ended with him being relieved by George Franklin about
2 30 p m He is certain that he did not go to the locker
room during his working hours on that day
4 The role of Supervisor Edward McCormick in
the discharges
Edward Red McCormick assistant superintendent in
the melt shop played a pivotal role in the discharges of
McNamara, Bettenhausen and Reed At the outset of
this discussion of his testimony, I would point out that
McCormick was a very uncomfortable witness and I did
not believe much of his testimony Aside from his de
meanor, which did not lend credibility to his answers
much of his testimony about the events he says occurred
is either contradictory or defies common sense With this
caveat in mind, I will set out below the part played by
McCormick in each of the firings Respondent went to
some length to establish that McCormick had been a
member of a labor union in the past evidently to estab
lish that he personally did not harbor union animus
Whatever his feelings vis a vis unions might be his em
ployer clearly is not in favor of having a union return to
the operation and the employer calls the shots
McCormick testified that on February 3, he worked at
Respondent s facility between 7 a m and 5 p m He
noted that Reed operated the locomotive crane that day
This crane brings scrap metal from rail cars to the over
head cranes located inside the plant The overhead
cranes carry huge buckets of scrap to the furnaces for
melting The Company has experienced problems with
the overhead cranes breaking down and in extreme
breakdown situations, the locomotive crane is used to
take scrap directly to the furnaces to keep the melting
operation from shutting down On February 3, only one
of the two overhead cranes was working and McCor
mick remembers that the locomotive crane was being
used in the plant as described above
About 1 30 p m that day McCormick received a call
from Rochell while he was alone in his office m the
plant Rochell asked McCormick to meet him in the
scrap yard without giving a reason for the meeting
McCormick immediately went to the scrap yard where
he met Rochell, who wanted to know why the locomo
live crane was not loading scrap He testified that there
was no operator in the crane at that time Rochell asked
where the operator was and McCormick said he did not
know Rochell then told McCormick You fucking well
better find out where he is at McCormick testified that
he then went to the melt shop washroom which was up
stairs in the plant and finding no one went downstairs
to the employee canteen again not finding Reed the
crane operator He then walked to the locker room and
opened the first of two doors and walked in 7 He then
opened the second door and allegedly saw Reed passing
out some kind of literature right inside the door McCor
mick did not at the time and does not now know what
kind of literature Reed was allegedly passing out, mclud
mg whether it had anything to do with a union McCor
mick stated that he did not know for sure that Reed was
soliciting for the Union, but thought he may have been
He did not tell Reed to get back to work Nor did he tell
the other employees that Reed was supposedly soliciting
to get back to their assignments
McCormick who had Just been told by his boss that
he had better fucking well find out where he is at, in
order to keep the plant from shutting down for lack of
scrap, did not say anything to Reed He testified that he
had been instructed not to get involved in this kind of
thing Just stay completely out of it By thing, McCor
mick means union organizing His instructions in this
regard had come from Rochell who Just wanted to be
informed of what was going on 8 McCormick is sure that
his spotting of Reed was no later than 1 40 p m, because
he had been running to find Reed so that the plant
would not shut down In any event he left the scene and
called Rochell to tell hmi what he had seen Rochell
made no comment about McCormick s revelation, simply
saying okay and hanging up the phone McCormick does
not know whether Reed ever went back to his crane that
day testifying that about 2 30 he looked out of the plant
and saw the crane moving
Rochell who was not sequestered and heard all the
testimony testified and basically corroborated the testi
mony of McCormick insofar as it related to him He also
testified that Reed could not have been relieved by
7 While acknowledging that Respondent has no wntten policy con
cemmg the times employees may use the locker room McCormick testi
fled that the company policy is that an employee goes to the locker room
when coming to work or when leaving work Based on this policy and
company shift tunes no one should have been in the locker room at the
time when McCormick entered
8 As will be discussed shortly McCormick dui not hesitate a day or
two later to have conversations with an employee who wanted to tell
him about the alleged union activity of McNamara and Bettenhausen
McCormick had attended a supervisors meeting some time earlier where
the supervisors had been told by Rochell not to get Involved in any kind
of union activity and not to talk to any of the employees about unions
This was a firm order
THOMAS STEEL CORP

1029
Franklin until after 1 57 p m, according to company time
cards His explanation of why he was no longer con-
cerned about the missing crane operator when he was
called by McCormick at 2 p m is interesting He testified
that McCormick told him that the crane was operable
and that the operator had been found This conflicts with
McCormick's testimony about this conversation which
contains no mention of either the locomotive crane or
the overhead crane Clearly, if one believes McCormick,
the locomotive crane was not operable because its opera-
tor, Reed, was in the locker room If McCormick was
supposedly talking about the plant overhead crane which
had been broken, he indicated no knowledge of its condi-
tion during his own testimony, though questioned exten-
sively on this subject Rochell testified that company
logs show that the inoperative overhead crane which
was the cause for concern that lead to the search for
Reed came back on line about 1 45 p m On cross-exami-
nation, Rochell testified that he observed the overhead
crane working from his office McCormick did not testi-
fy that he knew the crane had been repaired
With respect to Reed's discharge, Rochell testified that
on February 7, he reported what McCormick had told
him to Respoiident's president, Robert Thomas Thomas
told him that he understood what he was being told, that
he was going to talk to his attorney, and would get back
to him Rochell testified that Reed could have been dis-
charged on the spot for leaving his job during duty
hours, but was not He acknowledged that Reed had
denied soliciting a, the meeting held on February 13 He
also testified that employees were to remain on their jobs
except for lunch, at breaks, and to go to the bathroom
Breaks are not set, but depend upon production needs If
things are slow, employees get breaks, and if they are
not slow, they may not get them There is no prescribed
lunchtime If employees are going to be away from their
work stations, they should notify their foreman of the
fact There is no record kept of when employees take
breaks Rochell never asked Reed's immediate supervi-
sors, Gary Baron and Fred McCaffrey about Reed's
whereabouts on February 3
I do not credit the testimony of McCormick as set out
above I find this testimony, McCormick's uncomfortable
demeanor aside, patently incredible The plant is sup-
posedly about to shut down for lack of a crane operator
The operator is supposedly found passing out literature
of an unknown nature to other employees in the locker-
room, a location which the Employer contends is off
limits to on-duty employees, and nothing is said Even
accepting McCormick's selective reluctance to get in-
volved in the union thing, no direction is given to Reed
to go back to work, direction which could have been
given without inquiring why Reed was in the locker
room And thereafter, though the plant is supposedly in
imminent danger of shutting down, McCormick calmly
forgets the pressing need for a locomotive crane opera-
tor, until some 30 minutes later, he offhandedly notices
the crane is again operating Reed worked from the date
of this alleged occurrence, February 3, on a daily basis
until he was suspended, February 9, without anything
being said to him by management about his absence from
duty His pay records show that he was paid for the time
he was supposed to be passing out literature
Reed was ultimately discharged at the direction of
Robert Thomas, who also made the ultimate decision to
discharge Bettenhausen and McNamara His reasons
given for these discharges and my findings with respect
thereto will be set forth after a discussion of the evi-
dence relating to events leading up to the discharges of
Bettenhausen and McNamara
McCormick, as noted above, was also critically in-
volved in the discharges of McNamara and Bettenhau-
sen McCormick testified that on the morning of Febru-
ary 6, he had a conversation with Ed Smith, at the time
a bricklayer for Thomas Steel 9 McCormick testified that
this conversation took place in the canteen in the melt
shop about 8 a m, and that no one else was present At
his meeting on the February 6, McCormick stated that
Smith handed him a union authorization card and com-
mented, "Do you want to join the union" McCormick,
at this juncture deciding to ignore his firm order not to
discuss union activity with employees, asked Smith
where he got the card
According to McCormick, Smith replied, "McNamara
and Bettenhausen had been giving them out" On cross-
examination, he added that Smith identified the locker-
room as the location where the cards were being passed
out McCormick testified that he said nothing else to
Smith at this meeting McCormick reported the meeting
to Rochell within the hour, telling Rochell only, "Ed
Smith said that McNamara and Bettenhausen was hand-
ing out cards in the locker room" He gave Rochell the
union card at this time
On February 8, McCormick had another conversation
with Smith, this one taking place early in the morning at
a location McCormick was not sure of, maybe the can-
teen or the tonnage area of the plant Again, no one _else
was present McCormick testified he said nothing to
Smith, who volunteered that "McNamara was passing
out cards in the locker room" On cross-examination, he
amended this to add that he asked Smith what time the
card passing took place and Smith had indicated that it
took place abOut 6 p m the previous day He reported
this conversation to Rochell that morning McCormick
testified that he never again spoke with Smith about the
Union
On redirect examination, the following exchange took
place which I consider important as I firmly believe that
the whole management story concerning the involved
discharges lacks credibility
By Mr Novak (Respondent's counsel)
Q Now, I believe that you testified on direct that
Smith told you on the first conversation that Bet-
tenhausen and McNamara were passing out cards
from 6 On the second conversation, a couple days
later, the second incident was around 3 o'clock—
A Around 3 o'clock
9 Smith s bricklayer position was rated as a 17 point job in the Compa-
ny's job classification system and paid $10 per hour About 3 weeks prior
to the heanng in this case, he was promoted to the job of mechanic,
which is classified at 25 points and pays $10 97 per hour
1030 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q —and you just testified to—In response to Mr
Gold s question that in the second conversation
Smith told you that the second incident involved
passing out cards around 6 Which is the correct
version?
A I thought I said 6
Q 6 if for—
MR HAYES Objection, he is leading the witness
Q Is 6 the—
A 6 is the first one It was 3 o clock for the
McNamara I thought that was what I said
MR HAYES I am going to object to leading the
witness The record says what the record says
THE WITNESS I am sorry that is what I thought
I said, I am sorry
What the record reveals, as noted above in my recita
ton of the testimony is that McCormick on direct exam
ination made no mention of time whatsoever and was
very insistent that he asked Smith nothing other than
where he got the union card in the first conversation It
was only on cross examination that he mentioned that he
had asked for a time with respect to McNamara s alleged
solicitation on February 7 The times Novak suggested
to the witness were those given by Smith in his testimo
ny, which McCormick did not hear as the witnesses in
this case were sequestered None of the Smith McCor
nick tale hangs together if McCormick s testimony that
Smith told him that McNamara was soliciting at 6 p m
on February 7, because Smith left work at 3 p m on that
date This is yet another example of testimony from Re
spondent s witnesses that seriously detracts from the
credibility of Respondent s position There are many
others
5 The role of employee Smith in the discharges
Smith a 3 year Thomas Steel employee, testified that
on February 5, he worked as a bricklayer on a 7 a m to
6 p m shift, and worked on February 7 on a 7 a m to 3
p m shift There is no explanation in the record concern
mg why Smith worked 3 hours longer on February 5
than on February 7 Timecards were Introduced for the
other employees involved in this case but not for Smith
The different times are important because at least with
respect to February 5 Smith would not have been at the
plant to observe alleged solicitation had he worked a
normal shift
With respect to February 5, Smith testified he finished
working about 5 55 p m, and went to the locker room
In the locker room were Bettenhausen and McNamara
and some other employees that he did not pay attention
to According to Smith, Bettenhausen asked him to sign
a card to join the Union while they were standing at
their lockers about 3 to 4 feet apart Smith testified he
responded by telling Bettenhausen, who he characterized
as a friend, Go fuck yourself and the union too Bet
tenhausen did not respond A few minutes later, at the
other end of the locker room McNamara allegedly
asked Smith 'Are you going to fill one of these out or
what? Smith said he responded to McNamara in the
same fashion as he had to Bettenhausen, but took a card
He testified that he wanted to see what the card said and
then decided to turn it over to management to let them
know what was going on Smith testified he left the
locker room about 625 p m and Bettenhausen and
McNamara were still there 10
The next morning February 6, Smith had his first con
versation with Supervisor McCormick He testified that
he told McCormick, Well, they are trying to get me to
sign up for the union here is the card McCormick
asked Who is passing them out? Smith replied, 'Well,
Bettenhausen and McNamara is passing out the cards
Smith testified that he told McCormick that it happened
in the locker room In response to the question from Re
spondent's counsel, Did you tell him what time it had
taken place? Smith answered He actually knew, but I
told him 6 o clock—when I start One wonders how
McCormick was supposed to know the time of the al
leged distribution without being told, and further won
ders whether Smith does mean 6 a m about the time he
reports to the plant to start work or when he allegedly
finished on February 5 On cross examination, he ex
plamed that McCormick had known what time he fin
shed work as he had told him to get the jobs done Of
course McCormick denied asking him about the time in
this first meeting, according to his direct testimony
Smith remembers this conversation taking place in his
work area, not in the canteen as McCormick testified
Smith testified that upon finishing work about 3 p m
on February 7, he went to the locker room He stated he
observed McNamara trying to get employees to sign
umon cards ' 1 He testified that a fellow employee, Keith
Smith approached him and said If you don t sign up
we can persuade you to sign up Witness Smith re
sponded, 'Well, if you are going to play games that way,
let s go outside and get it on On February 8„ Smith
walked up to Supervisor McCormick and told him they
were still passing out cards in there McCormick asked
who was passing out cards, and Smith said it was McNa
mars
Smith also remembers a conversation a few days later
with McCormick wherein McCormick approached him
on coffeebreak and asked Is everything okay over
there now? Smith said Yes nobody is giving me no
problems, no hassle Smith denied having spoken to
anyone in management about the alleged solicitations
other than his conversations with Supervisor McCor
mick
As was the case with McCormick s testimony, I do
not give much credence to the testimony of Smith
There are numerous contradictions between what he said
he told McCormick and McCormick s version of the
conversations On cross examination Smith admitted that
he had told a Board investigator that on February 5 'he
saw Reed with union cards in hand talking to about six
other employees in the locker room This was at the
same time that McNamara and Bettenhausen were also
I ° As will be discussed in detail later R Exhs 4 and 5 would appear
to prove that Bettenhausen was at his job station at 5 43 p m 601 p m
and 6 38 p m on February 5
I ' McNamara reports to work at 3 p m Therefore he may well have
been on his own time if in fact he was observed at about that time on
February 7 by Smith -
,
THOMAS STEEL- CORP 1031
,
allegedly passing out 'cards Smith did not mention Reed
in his direct testimony, and Respondent's counsel object-
ed to this information being placed in evidence, saying
that Respondent was not using Smith as a witness against
Reed It should be remembered that Reed's shift ended
about 2 30 p m and Smith placed this locker room activ-
ity about 6 p m, some 3-1/2 hours after Reed would
have gone home It appears to me that even Respondent
has some questions about Smith's credibility, albeit sever-
al months after it allegedly relied on his statements to
discharge McNamara and Bettenhausen Moreover, after
characterizing Bettenhausen as a friend of longstanding,
the first thing Smith does when asked by Bettenhausen
to sign a union card is to curse him Smith also exhibited
a very strong antiunion animus which certainly calls into
question his objectivity
Roche]] put into evidence as Respondent's Exhibits 4
and 5, company doduments which relate the times cer-
tain production functuins were accomplished on the fur-
nace on which Bettenhausen was first helper It is the
normal function of the first helper to make the entries on
this form Reference to Exhibit 4 will reflect that the fur-
nace' was tapped out at 5 43 p m on February 5 This
process takes a few minutes according to Roche!! The
next entry indicates the first step in a new 'melting proc-
ess started at 601, and entries were made at 603 and
6 38 as pertinent Rochell did not contend that Betten-
hausen did not make the entries as he is supposed to The
locker room is about two buy blocks from the furnace It
does not appear possible to me that Bettenhausen can
oversee the tar out at 5 43' and for several minutes there-
after, then walk to the locker room and be passing out
union cards when Smith walks in about 5 55 Even more
difficult to believe is Smith's* testimony that Bettenhausen
Wag.' still there it-6 25, when Exhibit 5 shows that he was
at the furnace 'at 601, and thereafter
Rochell also testified that he inquired of Bettenhau-
sen's supervisor, Richard Pnnz, whether Bettenhausen
was at the furnace at 6 p m on February 5 He testified
that Pnnz had replied, "I don't know for sure if he was
there or not there I can't categorically say" Rochell
found it unusual for Prinz not to know, even though
there is evidence that Prinz is not always at the 'furnace
I find ,it .unusual that Rochell, when given records indi-
cating Bettenhausen, a 22-year veteran employee at the
facility and one of its critical production employees, was
at the furnace at times immediately before and after 6
p m, and with no verification from his supervisor that he
was missing, would accept the hearsay accusation of a 3-
year employee and proceed 'with the discharge process
Rochell never questioned Smith about his accusations
and outside. of the brief meeting on February 13, never
asked ■ Bettenhausen • Rochell never' questioned McNa-
mara's supervisor to determine if he was on duty when
Smith claimed he was passing out cards
"6 The reasons for the discharges
The foregoing sets the stage for the actual discharge
process and the various reasons espoused for the dis-
charges As with every other aspect of this case, Re-
spondent's witnesses' testimony is inconsistent and con-
tradictory Rochell testified that he reported the matter
of Reed's absence to Thomas on February 7, though the
alleged absence from duty had occurred on February 3
On. direct , examination, he testified that he related the
facts he had discovered from his conversation with
McCormick and was told by Thomas that he understood
and would get back to him after checking with the com-
pany attorney On cross-examination, Rochell -testified
that lie told Thomas that Reed' had 'left his job without
being relieved He stated that he did nothing about it be-
cause he suspected it was a union-related activity He
then told Thomas about the conversations he had had
with McCormick with respect to McNamara and Betten-
hausen and their alleged solicitation activities on Febru-
ary 5 He then testified that he reported McNamara's al-
leged activities of February 7 to Thomas on February 8,
showing Thomas the union card ,:given to him by
McCormick 12 Rochell described Thomas' reaction to
the card first as not pleased and then as registermg no
emotion On February 8, Thomas indicated thai=all three
employees were to be discharged They were to be 'given
a 5-day suspension pending discharge and then a hearing
Respondent then sent each of the three a telegram an-
nouncing this decision The full text of the itelegrams is
set forth at page 4 of this decision I find significant that
the first 'thing Respondent acctisigithe- employees of
doing is soliciting on company prbterty on "company
time At the meeting preceding discharge held on Febru-
ary 13, Rochell asked each of the employees if he were
soliciting on company time for a union McNamara and
Bettenhausen answered yes, but- they were o'n their own
time Reed denied any solicitation activity- Langer also
asked them if they were soliciting for a imiOn on compa-
ny time In his testimony herein, ROchell now 'takes the
position that the solicitation questions were unnecessary
because the employees could have been fired for being
away from their jobs during work hours without permis-
sion ,
Rochell commented on this interrogation saying, "It
didn't make any diffeience to me one way' . or another
what they were soliciting or doing They coUld have
been reading the newspaper The point was,' they should
have been on their jobs I was concerned,that they were
not properly relieved We treat every employee, hopeful-
ly, the same" Earlier, Rochell stated that these employ-
ees would have been fired if they 'were soliciting for the
Boys Club of Amenca, adding they would have been/fired for not being on their jobs _
With regard to employee solicitations, Reed testified
that a fellow employee, Steve Massur, on two bccasions
had solicited him to buy food products while on the job
Another employee, company guard Anthony Thomas,
was on one occasion selling candy on the job These so-
licitations were made while the soliciting employee Was
on company time Thomas was in the guardhouse when
he solicited Reed, and Massur was in the company
locker room .
McNamara testified that a group of employees started
a lottery pool in November 1988 which was still in exist-
12 Rochell vanously remembered recen mg this card on February 6,
and then on February 8, and then whatever day I received it" ‘
1032 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ence at the date of his discharge On a weekly basis
McNamara or another pool member would collect $5 or
an equivalent number of lottery tickets from the 10 or 11
members of the pool which Included 4 persons in man
agement 13 After tickets had been purchased someone in
the pool took them to the shipping room copying ma
chine and made copies of them for each pool member
McNamara testified that he personally had used the
copying machine for this purpose and had been observed
without complaint by Fred Knott the shipping room su
penntendent
Bettenhausen testified that Supervisor Richard Pnnz
had sold him raffle tickets for the Fraternal Order of
Moose while both were on the job Bettenhausen did not
have any cash with him on the day of the sale so the
next day he sent his second helper to Pnnz office with
the money owed This occurred during work hours A
copy of Bettenhausen s raffle ticket was placed in evi
dence On another occasion Bettenhausen was again
asked while working to purchase a raffle ticket Pnnz
was again the solicitor
The above testimony offered by Reed McNamara,
and Bettenhausen was not denied or in any way ques
tioned It defmitely shows that contrary to Rochell s as
sertion that solicitation for virtually any reason or orga
mzation other than a union is okay, and management par
ticipates in solicitations These solicitations were on corn
pany time and company property and in more than one
case required an employee to leave his work station or
job No employee was shown to have ever been disci
Oiled, much less fired for soliciting on company time
and on company property before the discharges of the
discnmmatees herein Therefore I find that Respondent
created a one time no solicitation rule strictly for the
purpose of hindering its employees protected activity
and/or to give it a basis for disciplining its employees
who engaged in protected activity I find that Respond
ent s promulgation, maintenance and enforcement of the
no solicitation rule under these circumstances is violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Harry M Stevens Inc 277
NLRB 276 (1985)
In addition, I believe and find that the interrogation of
the discnnunatees focusmg on whether they were solicit
mg on behalf of a union does hold great significance As
will be discussed in detail below I believe that their
union activity, and nothing else caused them to be dis
charged In the overall context of this case, I believe the
interrogation by company officials of the discrunmatees
about their union activities was definitely coercive and in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in the
complaint 14 Great Dane Traders 293 NLRB 384 (1989)
Sunnyvale Medical Clinic 277 NLRB 1217 (1985) Ross
more House 269 NLRB 1176 (1984)
Thomas testified that he was responsible for the dem
mon to terminate Reed He stated he based the decision
on reports by some of his employees including Roche11
that Reed was not at his job when he was supposed to
13 The members of the pool who were in management were Benny
Smith Ralph Molle Pete Gnbisich and Bob Highbaugh all foremen in
the melt shop
14 This finding determines Issue 5
be there and was in fact in some other part of the
plant He testified that this has always been a discharge
able offense and has in fact resulted in discharge The de
cision to discharge Reed was made on the day he first
heard of Reed s absence from his duty station He testi
fled that he made the decision to terminate Bettenhausen
and McNamara on the same date for the same reason
Thomas testified that he did not believe that Roche11
had shown him a union card in connection with his re
ports on the discharged employees Thomas also testified
that he did not recall if he had been told that these em
ployees had been handing out union literature He fur
ther stated I don t know that they were engaged in
union activity I know that somebody has alleged that
they were engaged in union activity I don t know that
He could not recall being told at any time pnor to
making the decision to discharge that Bettenhausen and
McNamara were in the locker room with union cards
He later denied bemg told by Rochell what Alex Betten
hausen was doing in the locker room when he was sup
posed to be at the furnace
Thomas further testified that We don t discharge em
ployees for engaging m union activity That is not legally
permissible He testified that after becoming aware of
the Union s organizing effort in January, he contacted
the company attorneys to fmd out the do s and don ts if
somebody is trying to organize One of his concerns
was to know what he could legally do to inform the em
ployees that he opposed the Union He testified that
smce that time he has conveyed to his employees that he
opposes representation by the Union
Based on the foregoing testimony and all the other
evidence of record I fmd that the Respondent harbors
antiunion animus I do not credit Thomas stated reason
for discharge of Reed McNamara and Bettenhausen and
believe they were clearly discharged for engaging in
proumon activities Thomas denial of knowledge of the
allegations of union activity on the part of the three di
rectly contradicts the testimony of Rochell the tele
grams sent the employees and the questions asked them
at their termination hearing Respondent did not deny
the truthfulness of McNamara s testimony wherein he re
lated the warning given him on February 4 by Supervi
sor Pnnz that Thomas had heard that both McNamara
and Alex Bettenhausen were getting authorization cards
signed and that Thomas was really pissed off about it
Therefore I find that the testimony of Thomas that he
was not aware of the alleged union activity of the dis
charged employees and that this activity did not moti
vate or form the basis for his decision to discharge is
simply not truthful
I believe that the company manufactured a reason to
fire Reed and either manufactured the reason for firing
Bettenhausen and McNamara or seized upon the tale
told by Smith For all of the reasons heretofore given I
do not credit Respondent's evidence that Reed was in
the locker room on company tune on February 3 that
McNamara and Bettenhausen were in the locker room
passmg out union cards at or near 6 p m on February 5
or that McNamara was soliciting for the Union at or
near 3 pm on February 7 Based on the uncontradicted
THOMAS STEEL CORP

1033
evidence of knowledge of union activity on the part of
McNamara and Bettenhausen related in the Prinz call to
McNamara Respondent had knowledge of this activity
as early as February 4 and found a reason to fire them
on February 5 To discharge these three, presumably
good employees without even interrogating them about
the circumstances for which they were being discharged
indicates to me that Respondent did not care about the
truthfulness of the allegations against them, it simply
thought they were union activists and was determined to
get rid of them If their union activity did not play a part
in their terminations, why were they and especially
Reed, not fired on the spot If the Employer s policy
about being away from the job without permission is so
rigid certainly Rochell could have fired Reed as soon as
McCormick a supervisor said he spotted him off the
job 15
Moreover why was there absolutely no concern about
the other employees who were allegedly in the locker
room and were the targets of the alleged solicitation ef
forts Although the telegrams to the discnmmatees state
that they were detaining other employees preventing
them from performing their work assignments no one
with management made any attempt to learn their identi
ty It is as if these employees do not count and it does
not matter that they may have been in the locker room
while on duty No one with management gave them a
minutes thought There is no testimony that the Comps
ny goes into the locker room to inspect for employees
who may be off the job without permission The only
factor that singled out the three involved discnmmatees
was management s belief that they were engaged in
union activities At their hearing they were not simply
asked if they were in the locker room on company time
They were asked by the two ranking company officials
present if they were soliciting for the union on company
time
In conclusion I find that General Counsel has made a
compelling case that the three discnmmatees were dis
charged for either union activity or in the case of Reed
perceived union activity For its part even if I credited
its evidence against the discnmmatees, which I have not,
Respondent has not shown that a legitimate business
reason existed which would have caused their termma
tions in the absence of protected activity They obvious
ly did not walk off of their jobs and leave the plant or
defy a supervisor as did the persons shown to have been
fired by Respondent in its Exhibit 6 There is no showing
' 5 Respondent Introduced as its Exh 6 a group of nine telegrams in
forming individual employees that they were being discharged for the
reason stated generally walking off of their job without permission or in
defiance of a supervisor s direction to stay They were introduced
through Rochell who could not provide any information about the mci
dents beyond what was stated m the telegrams In almost all of these in
=dents It would appear that the involved individual s supervisor began
the discharge process immediately as most received their discharge tele
grams the day following the one when they walked off their job None of
these individuals were discharged for soliciting Also no immediate su
pervisor of the discnmmatees in this case were shown to have reported
the discrimmatees off their job at a time when they were supposed to
have been working except for the situation involving Reed which I do
not believe If Reed had been found off his job as alleged and the corn
pany followed its policy supposedly demonstrated by the telegrams Reed
would have been discharged immediately not a week later
that a supervisor complained about their alleged absence,
and if one could believe McCormick about Reed s al
leged absence no one even inquired of his direct supervi
sors whether the absence was with permission or not
There was no showing that any problems were caused to
plant production that any safety hazards were created
or that any other employees were actually detained from
performing their jobs Its actions with respect to these
discnminatees appears to be unique in its documented
history of disciplinary proceedings, with its treatment of
their alleged solicitation efforts departing totally from its
past hands off treatment of employee solicitation I find
that Respondent s discharge of Edgar Reed, James
McNamara and Alex Bettenhausen was caused by their
protected activity and is therefore in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083
(1980) Yaohan of California 280 NLRB 268 (1986)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent Thomas Steel Corporation is now and
has been at all times material to this decision an employ
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act
2 General Chauffeurs, Sales Drivers and Helpers
Local 179 International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America
AFL-CIO is now and has been at all times material to
this decision a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
3 Respondent by its promulgation maintenance, and
enforcement of a no solicitation rule designed to interfere
with its employees protected activity engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices m violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act
4 Respondent, by its discriminatory suspension and
discharge of its employees Edgar Reed, James McNa
mara and Alex Bettenhausen on February 8 and 17
1989 engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
5 Respondent by interrogating Edgar Reed James
McNamara and Alex Bettenhausen on February 13
1989 about their union activities and sympathies en
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in vio
lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
6 The unfair labor practices set out above affect com
merce within the meatung of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent did engage in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act I order it to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action de
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act
I order that the Respondent offer employees Edgar
Reed James McNamara, and Alex Bettenhausen immedi
ate and full reinstatement to their former positions or if
those positions no longer exist to substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or rights
and privileges previously enjoyed discharging if neces
sary any employee hired to replace them I further order
1034 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Respondent make the three discrimmatees whole for
any loss of earnings or any other benefits they may have
suffered as a result of Respondent s unlawful discnmma
tion against them, to be computed in the manner de
scribed in F W Woolworth Co 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Re
tarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987)
I also direct that Respondent remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful discharge of Edgar Reed,
James McNamara, and Alex Bettenhausen and notify
them in writing that this has been done and these matters
will not be used against them in any way
On the basis of the above findmgs of fact and conclu
mons of law and on the entire record in this proceeding
I issue the following recommended"
ORDER
The Respondent, Thomas Steel Corporation, Lamont,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Promulgating, maintaining and enforcing a no so
licitation rule designed to interfere with its employees
protected activity
(b) Discriminatorily discharging employees because of
their union activities
(c) Interrogating its employees about their union ac
tivities or sympathies
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer Edgar Reed, James McNamara, and Alex
Bettenhausen immediate and full remstatement to their
former positions and if those positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights or privileges previously en
joyed, discharging if necessary any employee hired to re
place them, and make them whole for any loss of earn
ings or other benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful
discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of this decision
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
discharge of Edgar Reed James McNamara and Alex
Bettenhausen and notify them in wntmg that this has
been done and that these matters will not be used against
them in any way
(c) Rescind it discnmmatonly promulgated rule pro
hibitmg unauthorized soliciting on company time during
working hours
(d) Preserve and on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copymg, all pay
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports and all other records nec
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order
j e If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s
Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended
Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur
poses
(e) Post at its Lemont, Illinois facility copies of the at
tached notice marked Appendix 17 Copies of this
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being signed by Respondent s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme
diately upon receipt and be maintained for 60 consecu
tive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered defaced or covered by any
other material
(0 Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps have been
taken to comply
,/ If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation
al 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 Umted States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that he
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or
dered us to post and abide by this notice
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these nghts
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec
ton
To choose not to engage in any of these protect
ed concerted activities
WE WILL NOT promulgate maintain and enforce no
solicitation rule m order to discourage our employees
from engaging in protected activity
WE WILL NOT discharge you because of your activities
(on behalf of Teamsters Local 179 or any other labor or
garuzation
WE WILL NOT mterrogate you with respect to your
union activities or sympathies
WE WILL NOT m any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you m the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL offer Edgar Reed, James McNamara, and
Alex Bettenhausen immediate and full reinstatement to
their former positions or, if those positions no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions without preju
dice to their semonty or any other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed, discharging if necessary an employee
lured to replace the and we will make them whole for
any loss of eanung or other benefits resulting from their
discharge, less any net earnings, plus interest
THOMAS STEEL CORP 1035
WE WILL permanently remove form our files any ref WE WILL rescind our no solicitation rule prohibiting
erence to the unlawful discharge of Edgar Reed James unauthorized solicitation on company premises during
McNamara, and Alex Bettenhausen and notify them in active working time
writing that this has been done and that these matters
will not be used against them in any way THOMAS STEEL CORPORATION