Adams Automation & Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 1255 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

ADAMS AUTOMATION & MFG. COMPANY
Adams Automation & Manufacturing Company and
(George Smith . Case 7-CA-11501
June 30, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On March 31, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Almira Abbot Stevenson issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions 1 and
brief and has decided to affirm the rulings,2 findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Adams Automation
& Manufacturing Company, Redford Township,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order.
1 Respondent excepted generally to the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision as contrary to the evidence and law but failed to except
specifically to her findings that Respondent committed independent
violations of Sec. 8(axl) of the Act or to discuss said findings in its brief. In
these circumstances we seriously doubt whether Respondent has complied
with Sec. 102.46(b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, which provides:
Each exception ( 1) shall set forth specifically the questions of
procedure, fact, law, or policy to which exceptions are taken; (2) shall
identify that part of the administrative law judge's decision to which
objection is made; (3) shall designate by precise citation of page the
portions of the record relied on; and (4) shall state the grounds for the
exceptions and shall include the citation authorities unless set forth in a
supporting brief. Any exception to a ruling , finding, conclusion, or
recommendation which is not specifically urged shall be deemed to
have been waived . Any exception which fails to comply with the
foregoing requirements may be disregarded.
However, we do not find it necessary to decide whether Respondent has
complied with the above rule inasmuch as we find , in any event , that the
Administrative Law Judge's findings of violations of Sec. 8(axl) are
supported by the record.
2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing her findings.
218 NLRB No. 189
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1255
ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard at Detroit, Michigan, February 20,
1975. A copy of the charge, filed October 17, 1974, was
served on the Respondent October 19, 1974. The complaint
was issued December 17, 1974.
The issues are whether or not the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, by interrogating and threatening its employees if
the Union were successful in its organizing efforts, by
promising employees benefits and granting them pay
increases for the purpose of defeating the Union; and
whether or not it violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by
discharging George Smith because of his activities on
behalf of the Union. For the reasons fully set forth below, I
conclude that the Respondent violated the Act substantial-
ly as alleged in the complaint.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the Respondent and the General
Counsel, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a Michigan, corporation located in
Redford Township, Michigan, where it is engaged in the
fabrication of special machines, dyes, fixtures, and related
products. During the year ending December 31, 1973,
which period is representative of its operations during all
times material hereto, the Respondent purchased and
received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points outside Michigan, and sold and
shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points outside Michigan. The Respondent admits, and I
conclude, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
I find that International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
The Respondent admits , and I find, that Robert H.
Spengler, its vice president, and Ralph Donnay, plant
manager, are supervisors within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act.
The events of this proceeding occurred during the
months of October and November 1974, a period marked
by a union campaign to organize the Respondent's
employees. Union-authorization cards were obtained on
October 9; the Union advised the Respondent of the
organizational drive by letter of October 14; a petition was
1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
filed October 17; and an election was held November 25,
which the Union lost by vote of 4 to 14.
George Smith has been employed at this plant since June
1972, before it was acquired by its present owners. He is a
skilled tool-and-dyemaker and machine builder. In the fall
of 1974 he was one of the three employees classified as a
leader. His pay rate was $7 an hour. On Wednesday,
October 9, after there had been some discussion of
unionism among the employees, George Smith visited the
office of Local 157 of the Union and obtained authoriza-
tion cards'. On Thursday, October 10, he obtained the
signatures of 19 of the Respondent's 22 employees.
B. Violations of Section 8(a)(1) by Plant Manager
Donny
Early the following morning, Friday, October 11, Plant
Manager Ralph Donnay called Dye Leader Eldon Clare
into his office and asked him what he knew about the
Union talk in the shop. Clare replied he had first heard of
it the day before when he was asked to sign a card. Donnay
demanded to know why Clare had not told him when he
first heard about it, and Clare said he had forgotten to do
so. At that point, Smith entered the office and Clare told
him that "the boss tells me they're organizing the shop," or
words to that effect. Smith asked Donnay what was wrong
with union organization , and Donnay replied that "he was
afraid the union would come in and the shop would be
closed up, and with the union in there we possibly wouldn't
be.able to hire any part-time help." A discussion of the
subject ensued, Smith naming benefits employees had to
gain by union representation, and Donnay arguing against
unionization. The discussion broke up, and the three left
the office . As Donnay passed by the bulletin board, he tore
off the posted Saturday work schedule, threw it on the
floor, 'cursed, and said, "Nobody works Saturday now." 1
The above facts establish, and I fmd, that early on the
morning of October 11, Plant Manager Donnay coercively
interrogated employee Eldon Clare; threatened him and
Smith that the shop would be closed and the hiring of part-
time employees would be discontinued if the Union drive
was successful'; and threatened to cancel Saturday over-
time work because of the employees' union activities. I
conclude that this conduct tended to restrain and coerce
the Respondent's employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and therefore violated
Section 8(a)(1).
C. Unlawful Discharge of George Smith
Shortly after this encounter, Smith obtained Donnay's
permission to leave work because he was'not feeling well.
On his way home, Smith went by the local union office and
left the signed authorization cards he had collected the
preceding day: Shortly after 4:30 that afternoon, Smith
received a telegram from the Respondent to the following
effect:
JOB CANCELLED NO WORK AT PRESENT EMPLOYMENT
TERMINATED PICK-UP TOOLS ADAMS AUTOMATION &
MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
Smith telephoned Plant Manager Donnay and asked him
the reason for his termination, and Donnay told him only
that he had nothing to do with it, that it was "strictly Mr.
Spengler. Smith saw Donnay when he went into the plant
the next day to pick up his tools, and Donnay told him "he
was sorry it happened," and repeated that he had had no
part in Smith's termination. Smith had received no
advance indication that he might be terminated, and the
evidence indicates that there had been no talk in the plant
of a layoff. Leader Eldon Clare credibly corroborated
Smith's testimony that there were jobs on the floor for
Smith to do, one of which was still there at the time of the
hearing. Indeed, William Bloink, a machine builder doing
work similar to Smith's and whom I find below was biased
toward the Respondent, testified that he worked 50 hours a
week until Christmas 1974; and the evidence set forth
above in connection with Plant Manager Donnay's
unlawful conduct indicates that employees were scheduled
to work on Saturday the day after Smith was fired.
The Respondent contended, in its opening statement at
the hearing, that Smith was laid off because of a poor work
record and because business and economic conditions
mandated his layoff. In its brief, the Respondent contends
that Smith was discharged because he was, the leader on a
machine-building job for Fruehauf Company, which was
the biggest job in the shop, and the Respondent had been
previously advised, on September 30, that it would lose, the
Fruehauf job; that Smith had been selected at that time for
layoffbecause he was a liability to the Company, as
contrasted with ' other workers who could do the Respon-
dent's work at less cost; that Plant Manager Donnay
persuaded Vice President Spengler to let Smith stay on for
2 weeks to see if other work might come in to the shop; and
that the Respondent had no knowledge of Smith' s union
activity, or of any union activity in the, plant, before
October 14 when it received a letter from the Union to that
effect. These contentions are supported almost exclusively
by the testimony of Vice President Robert Spengler. His
testimony was, however, unconvincing.
Spengler created the strong impression of dissembling by
beginning his testimony with the flat statement that the
Respondent lost the' Fruehauf job in September, and by
thereafter conceding that he had ,merely ordered the work
on the Fruehauf job held up at that time pending the
outcome of negotiations for more money for the job. He
insisted nevertheless that at the negotiations, which took
place September 30, it was made "pretty evident" that the
job was going to be cancelled. He then went on to admit
that the job was not "officially" lost until some subsequent
time, and was not finally moved out of the shop until early
1975.
In further support of his contention that the decision to
terminate Smith was made prior to his union activity, and
doubtless in an attempted explanation of the timing of the
discharge, Spengler testified that when he returned to the
1 The findings as to Plant Manager Donnay's statements and conduct and Eldon Clare, who was a generally credible witness, and whose
are based on the undenied and mutually corroborative testimony of Smith testunony'was not impeached in any respect . Donnay did not test.
ADAMS AUTOMATION & MFG. COMPANY 1257
plant on September 30, after the failure of the Fruehauf
negotiations, he instructed Donnay to lay Smith off, but
Domiay "said he had 2 weeks of work and asked if I would
keep George 2 weeks to see if we got anything else, if I
could bear with him." I cannot believe this. Donnay failed
to take the witness stand and confirm it, and I hold for
naught the purported corroboration offered by William
Bloink to the effect that Donnay told him about it at the
time , because I am convinced that Blomk had reason to
tailor his testimony to fit his own and the Respondent's
purposes. Moreover, if this had really happened, the
natural, logical thing to do would have been to inform
Smith of his precarious situation, and yet he was given no
notice or advance warning that at the end of a 2-week
period he might be terminated. Indeed, Smith was not told
then, or at any other time, that the Fruehauf job had been
lost or that it was that loss which might, or did, bring about
his termination. .
The Respondent's explanation of the selection of Smith
as the employee to be terminated also breaks down under
analysis . Thus, Spengler said at one point that it was his
father who suggested George Smith for layoff, on their way
home from the negotiations with Fruehauf, when he told
Spengler "to lay George off or anybody else I didn't feel I
needed that was related to that job." Spengler explained
that his father selected Smith "Because he was the leader
on the job." His father did not testify, so Spengler added
that it was his normal practice to get rid of the reader first
"when he's the highest priced man working on a job." Such
self-serving testimony seems , unlikely, because there had
never before been a layoff at this plant by the Respondent,
and its other plant, which is not involved in this
proceeding, operates under a union contract.
Spengler went on to say that he selected Smith rather
than machine-builder William Bloink, who was not a
leader - but who also worked on the Fruehauf machine,
because Spengler felt Bloink was a better mechanic and his
rate of pay was cheaper, being only $6.75. And yet
Spengler admitted that he gave 25-cents an hour pay raises
to Clare, Butler, and- five other employees (but not Bloink)
only 3 days after Smith's termination, and to an eighth
employee 3 weeks after that, as fully discussed below.
Although Spengler admitted that "a good sixty-five
percent of the hours posted" by all the employees in this
shop were on the Fruehauf job, he'asserted that Smith was
chosen for termination when that job was lost instead of
either of the other two leaders, Clare and Butler, because
the latter were "different types of leaders]." Butler did not
testify, but 'Clare corroborated Smith's' testimony that
Smith was qualified to work on all the jobs which came
into the plant, adding that Clare himself was not .2
Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondent ever
expressed dissatisfaction with Smith's work performance,
before, at the time of, or after his termination.
2 In view of Spengler's admission that so many employees worked on the
Fruehauf job and the clear indication that Smith was the most highly
qualified and versatile employee in the shop , I fmd it unnecessary to resolve
the issue as to how much time Smith had been spending on the Fruehauf
machine. Both the Respondent's timecards and Smith's testimony in
relation to them prove to be unreliable. Indeed, Smith was so self-
contradictory on this matter that I have credited him as to other matters
I cannot see that Spengler's additional testimony to the
effect that he hadlost two other smaller jobs in September,
as well as a third such job which was -thereafter regained,
and that he was forced to layoff four additional employees
the week after,he laid Smith off, supports the Respondent's
case. It is not contended that the decision to layoff those
four employees was also made . in September at the time.
those jobs were lost, as in the case of Smith and the
Fruehauf job. On the contrary, the decision with respect to
the four is said to have been made after Smith was
terminated 2 weeks after the other-jobs were lost, and put
into effect sometime after that. Moreover, as the four
employees were not shown to have had the seniority,
experience, or qualifications possessed by Smith, the better
treatment accorded them merely further undermines the
Respondent's position.
Summarizing, I fmd that the reasons advanced by the
Respondent for the termination of Smith are inconsistent,
contradictory, and inherently implausible.3 It follows that
the reasons advanced were a pretext contrived for the
purpose of concealing the true motive behind the termina-
tion.
The Respondent strongly urges that a discriminatory
motive nevertheless cannot be found in the absence of
direct evidence of knowledge of Smith's union activities.
Despite the holdings in the specific cases cited by the
Respondent, it is well established that such knowledge can
be proved by circumstantial evidence from which a
reasonable inference may be drawn. Here, George Smith
obtained union-authorization cards and passed . them out
among the employees in the plant, obtaining signatures of
19 of the 22 employees. 'Early the next day, Plant Manager
Donnay questioned Eldon Clare about the Union activity
in the shop and learned of the solicitation of signatures to
union cards. He reacted to this intelligence by admonish-
ing Clare for not informing him immediately" of the -card
solicitation, and in the ensuing discussion, Donnay was
made fully aware of Smith's advocacy of unionization. Thus
evidence alone is sufficient to impute knowledge by the
Respondent of Smith's union activity. In addition, howev-
er, there is evidence fully supporting the inference that
Spengler himself obtained this information. Thus, Spengler
conceded that he depended on Donnay to keep him
informed about what was going on in the plant including
any union activity, and that he would consider'any such
information to be important. He also conceded that he was
in the plant from about 10:30 or 11 a.m. until 1:30 or 2
p.m. on Friday, October 11; that he talked with Donnay
while he was there; and that he and Donnay both had
heard rumors of union activity before the Union's letter of
October 14. In these circumstances and in view "of
Donnay's awareness of the card solicitation and Smith's
strong union stance , and the importance attached to union
activity intelligence by both Donnay and Spengler, it is
only where his testimony was undemed or corroborated by credible
evidence.
3 On the basis of the above discussion and of the General Counsel's
impeachment of Spengler on the basis of his pretrial affidavit, I fmd the
testimony of Robert Spengler not credible generally, including testimony
that he had no first-hand knowledge that the Union was attempting to '
organize his shop prior to October 14.
1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reasonable to infer that the Respondent knew or suspected
Smith's leadership role in the Union campaign. .
In the light' of all the circumstances, accordingly,
including Smith's superior seniority, experience, and
qualifications; the evidence of the Respondent's union
animus; the, unfair labor practices found herein to have
been committed;, the timing of Smith's discharge without
prior warning the day after he obtained signed union cards
from almost all the employees; the pretextual nature of the
reasons, given for the discharge; and the reasonable
inference of knowledge of his union activities, I find that
the real motivation was unlawful. I conclude therefore that
a preponderance of the credible evidence establishes that
George Smith was terminated for discriminatory reasons to
discourage union activity and that it therefore violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act .4
D. Violations of Section 8(a)(1) by Vice President
Spengler and-Plant Manager Donnay
Roger Goniwicha, a welder employed by the Respondent
from April 22, 1974, until January 10, 1975, when he was
permanently laid off, testified in support of this allegation.
I credit Goniwicha because his demeanor was that of an
honest disinterested witness and because the relevant
events which he recounted were consistent with the other
facts as found herein.5
On October 15, the Tuesday after Smith's termination,
Goniwicha asked Donnay for a wage increase on the
ground that he had been working for the Respondent 6
months without a raise , and Donnay responded that he
would ask Spengler about it. The next day, October 16,
Spengler and Donnay came to Goniwicha's work station,
and Spengler asked him how he liked working at the plant.
Goniwicha said he liked it fine. Spengler then asked him,
"You did fill out a Union card, didn't you?" And
Goniwicha confessed he had done so. Spengler asked why
Goniwicha would want a union in the plant. Goniwicha
named some of the benefits he hoped to gain from
unionization , but Spengler told him that a union would
only hurt him because Goniwicha was not a journeyman
welder and he would not be allowed to do other jobs, such
as training on the heliarc and grinder, when welding ran
out as he had been doing, but would either be laid off or
reduced to sweeping, if the Union did come in. Donnay
then told Goniwicha that "they were more or less feeling
out who was with them and who was against them."
Goniwicha then stated, "If the union will hurt me, I don't
want th e union," and asked whether this was a good time
to request a raise . Spengler replied that "the company was
not financially set to give raises," but that he had
authorized a raise for Goniwicha starting Monday.
Spengler also told Goniwicha, "that,, as soon as the UAW
man came in and said that he was going to take over for
the men and do their bargaining for them he would just
close down the shop" and "bring in the pattern shop," the
other plant owned by the Respondent, because "he
wouldn't want to wrestle with two different unions."
4 Morgan Precision Parts v. N.L.RB., 444 F.2d 1210 (C.A. 5, 1971);
N.LR B. v. Ampex Corporation, 442 F.2d 82 (CA. 7, 1971); cert. denied 404
U.S. 939 (1971); Texas Aluminum Co., Inc v. NL.RB., 435 F.2d 917 (C.A.
5, 1970); Patrick Plaza Dodge, Inc., 210 NLRB 870 (1974).
It is clear and I fmd that in this conversation on October
16, Spengler and Donnay coercively interrogated Goniwi-
cha, threatened him, and impliedly ,promised him benefits
in return for his opposition to the Union campaign. I
conclude that the Respondent thereby interfered with,
coerced, and restrained its employees in the exercise of
Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
E. Wage Increases
It is undisputed, and I find, that the Respondent gave the
following wage increases to employees on the dates
indicated: October 14, 1974: Fred Butler, $6.25 to $6.50,
Eldon Clare, $6.75 to $7.00, Elmer Kottke, $6.00 to $6.25,
Robert Gorlitz, $4.25 to $4:50, Gerald Garavaglia, $5.25 to
$5.50, Roger Goniwicha, $5.00 to $5.25, and Michael Kay,
$3.00 to $3.25. November 4, 1974: Wade Cowen, $2.75 to
$3.00.
Spengler's explanation of this action was to the effect
that he discusses pay raises with'his father every,Thursday
at which time they go over "anything and' all that
happened throughout that week." He said that the decision
to give the October 14 raises was made the preceding
Thursday, before he knew about the UAW organization
effort. He also testified that he apprised the employees
affected on the Thursday before October 14. He added, "In
fact, in one instance it was a Wednesday where a fellow
confronted me with it right there and I told him I already
authorized one for him." Although Spengler conceded that
his alleged weekly wage reviews had resulted in only two or
three increases during the entire period of several, months
before October 14 that he ran the plant, he explained that
the comparatively large number given at this time was a
"blanket raise" given to some of his people "to bring them
up to, par with other people. When I went in there I had
leaders that were making more than other leaders, and
people that were on the same scale weren't making the
same rate. I brought people up to the equivalent rates."
This testimony follows the same pattern of inconsistency
and self-contradiction as other testimony of Spengler as
discussed above. It- is also contradicted by, the, credited
testimony,of Roger Goniwicha, heretofore set forth to the
effect that Spengler did not advise him of his October 14
increase until the Wednesday after that, October 16, and
that the good news was imparted during a discussion of the
Union interlaced with coercive interrogation and threats.
On this basis, and the entire record, I fmd that the
Respondent gave wage increases in unprecedented num-
bers after learning about the Union campaign for the
purpose of enticing employees to oppose the Union. I
conclude that by such conduct the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act .6
IV. THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, 'I
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found and, in view of
5 Spengler's denials, couched in general terms, are not credited for the
reasons given elsewhere herein regarding his unreliability.
6 N.L R B v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 U.S. 405 (1964).
ADAMS AUTOMATION & MFG. COMPANY 1259
the nature thereof, to cease and desist from infringing in
any manner on its employees' rights guaranteed by the Act.
N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4).
I shall also recommend that the Respondent take the
affirmative action provided for in the recommended Order,
below, which I find necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act. Having found that the Respondent discriminatori-
ly discharged George Smith, I recommend that it be
ordered to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position, or if that position no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make him
whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him, plus interest at 6 percent per
annum . F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950);
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).7
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDERS
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees
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.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this recommended Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
7 Nothing in my recommended Order shall be taken as a requirement for
or justification of depriving employees of the wage increases found to have
been unlawfully given.
8 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.
9 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
The Respondent, Adams Automation & Manufacturing
Company, of Redford Township, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee for supporting International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, (UAW), or any other union.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees about their union
activities or the union activities of other employees.
(c) Threatening employees with reprisals because of their
union activities.
(d) Promising or giving wage increases or other benefits
to employees for the purpose of enticing them to oppose
the Union.
(e) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer George Smith immediate and full reinstatement
to his former position, or if that position no longer exists to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for his lost earnings in the manner set forth in the
section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Redford Township, Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 7, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any of you for supporting International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America (UAW), or any other
union.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you about your
union activities or the union activities of other
employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with reprisals because of
your union activities.
WE WILL NOT promise or give wage increases or
other benefits to you for the purpose of enticing you to
oppose the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer George Smith immediate and full
reinstatement to the position he held prior to his
discharge on October 11, 1974, or if his position no
longer exists , to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL make whole George Smith for any loss of
pay he may have suffered as a result of his discrimina-
tory discharge, plus interest at 6 percent per annum.
ADAMS AUTOMATION &
MANUFACTURING COMPANY