Allen Hayosh Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 439 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

ALLEN HAYOSH INDUSTRIES
Allen Hayosh Industries, Inc., and its Subsidiary A
H I Machine Tool & Die , Inc. and International
Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW). Cases 7-CA-6761 and 7-RC-8901
June 6, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULI.OCH AND MI•MBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On February 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Morton D.
Friedman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. In Case 7-RC-8901, the Trial
Examiner further recommended that 1 challenge be
sustained and that the challenges to the remaining 5
ballots be overruled. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed
a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, A H I Machine
Tool & Die, Inc., Mt. Clemens, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as modified below:
'These findings are based, in part , upon credibility determinations of the
Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has excepted. After careful review
of the record , we conclude that these credibility findings are not contrary
to the clear preponderance of all relevant evidence . Accordingly, we find
no basis for disturbing these findings . Standard Dry Wall Products, 91
NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3).
'The Respondent has requested oral argument . This request is hereby
denied as the record , the exceptions and briefs adequately present the
issues and positions of the parties.
439
Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and reletter
the following paragraphs accordingly:
(b) Notify the above-named employee if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of
their right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Regional
Director for Region 7 shall, pursuant to the Rules
and Regulations of the Board, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, open and count the ballots of
Richard Cartwright, William B. Emerick, Peter R.
Osterman, Gerald Theriault, and Donald Eller in
Case 7-RC-8901, and prepare and cause to be
served upon the parties a revised tally and the
appropriate certification.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MORTON D. FRIEDMAN, Trial Examiner : Upon a charge
filed in Case 7-CA-6761 on May 20, 1968, by
International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America , herein
called the Union or UAW, and an amended charge filed
by UAW on June 5 , 1968, the Regional Director for
Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board , herein
called the Board , issued a complaint and notice of
consolidated hearing on July 30, 1968, on behalf of the
General Counsel of the Board against Allen Hayosh
Industries, Inc., and its subsidiary A H I Machine Tool &
Die, Inc ., herein called the Company or the Respondent,
alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, el
seq.), herein called the Act.
On July 30, 1968, the said Regional Director issued his
report on challenges in Case 7- RC-8901 in which he found
that the challenges to the ballots of eight voters raised
questions of fact which could be best resolved by hearing.
On the same day, July 30, 1968, the Regional Director
issued his order consolidating for hearing, ruling, and
decision Cases 7-CA-6761 and 7-RC-8901.
In its duly filled answer to the complaint in Case
7-CA-6761 the Respondent , while admitting certain
allegations of the complaint , denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , as aforesaid , the hearing of the
consolidated cases was held before me in Detroit,
Michigan , on October 8, 1968 . All parties were
represented and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard , to introduce relevant evidence , to present oral
argument , and to file briefs . Briefs were filed by the
General Counsel , the Respondent , and the Charging
Party . Upon consideration of the entire record, including
the briefs of the parties, and upon my observation of each
of the witnesses as they appeared before me, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Allen Hayosh Industries, Inc., hereinafter called
Respondent Allen Hayosh, is a Michigan corporation
176 NLRB No. 57
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which is engaged in the city of Warren, Michigan, in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of tools and dies
During the year immediately preceding the issuance of the
complaint herein , a representative period, Respondent
Allen Hayosh sold and distributed at its plant in Warren,
Michigan, products of a value in excess of $100,000, of
which products valued in excess of $50,000 were furnished
to General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company,
and Chrysler Corporation, each of which annually
manufactures, sells, and distributes at its installations in
the State of Michigan products valued in excess of
$500,000, which are shipped from said installations in the
State of Michigan directly to points located outside the
State of Michigan.
A H I Machine Tool & Die, Inc., hereinafter called A
H 1, also a Michigan corporation, is engaged at the city
of Mt. Clemens, Michigan, in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of tools and dies. During the year
immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint
herein, a representative period, A H I sold and distributed
at its plant in Mt. Clemens, Michigan, products valued in
excess of $100,000, of which products valued in excess of
$50,000 were furnished to General Motors Corporation,
Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Corporation, each of
which annually manufacturers, sells, and distributes at its
installations in the State of Michigan products of a value
in excess of $500,000 which are shipped from said
installations in the State of Michigan directly to points
located outside the State of Michigan.
Respondent Allen Hayosh and Respondent A H 1, its
subsidiary, are affiliated businesses with common offices,
ownership, directors, and operators and constitute a
single-integrated business enterprise and a single
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act,
the said directors and operators formulate and administer
a common labor policy for the aforenamed corporations,
affecting the employees of said corporations.
It is admitted, and I find that Respondent Allen
Hayosh and Respondent A H I are individually and
collectively an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.'
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The UAW is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Pleadings and Issues
The complaint alleges, in substance, that on March 18,
1968, four employees of A H I concertedly ceased work
and walked out to protest the fact that on that day A H I
discharged a fellow employee and that A H I thereafter
discharged the four employees who walked out in concert
because they engaged in the concerted work stoppage. The
General Counsel contends that the walkout of the four
employees was concerted protected activity within the
meaning of Section 7 of the Act because the employees
engaged in the said activity for their mutual aid and
protection. The General Counsel further contends that the
In accordance with a stipulation entered into at the hearing herein, it
was agreed that the remedy , if any, be assessed only against A H I and not
Allen Hayosh, the parent corporation
alleged discriminatees were coerced into signing
termination slips by agents of A H I and were thereby
constructively discharged as a result of their protected
activities
The Respondent's answer to the aforesaid complaint
generally denies all the material allegations thereof The
Respondent, on its part, contends that the activity was not
protected and that the employees quit and were not
discharged.
In connection with the challenges to the ballots in the
representation proceeding, there are eight individuals
whose ballots are contested. The Union challenged the
ballots of Donald Eller and Louis Hypnar on the grounds
that these individuals are supervisors within the meaning
of the Act. The other six individuals challenged were the
four individuals who walked out on March 18, 1968, plus
the individual who was discharged on that day and in
sympathy for whom it is alleged the other four walked
out, and another individual who evidently was named in
the original charge as a discriminatee but who was not
named in the complaint. During the hearing the individual
who was discharged, Virgil Jolly, and the individual who
was not named in the complaint, William Terry, were
stipulated to be ineligible to vote. Thus there remains for
consideration the two alleged supervisors and the four
alleged discriminatees.
Thus, the issues presented by the pleadings and by the
report on challenges are as follows.
1. Are Louis Hypnar and Donald Eller supervisors as
defined in the Act?
2. Was the walkout of the alleged discriminatees
protected concerted activity within the meaning of Section
7 of the Act?
3. Were the alleged discriminatees constructively
discharged because of their protected concerted activities?
B. The Events
The events of the morning of March 18, 1968,' are not
contested. The Respondent offered no testimony to
contradict the testimony of the four alleged
discriminatees. On that Monday, not long after work
began at 7 a.m., Louis Hypnar, who General Counsel
alleges is a supervisor, but who the Respondent contends
is merely a head leader, came over to the workbench of
employee William Emerick to look over work being
performed by Emerick. At that time, Emerick told
Hypnar that Emerick wanted to leave work at 9:30 a.m.
to which request Hypnar assented. Shortly thereafter,
Hypnar approached employees Richard Cartwright and
Peter Osterman who were discussing a work problem at
Cartwright's desk. Using profanity, Hypnar accused
Osterman and Cartwright of not being attentive to their
work. At that point Osterman left and returned to his own
workbench.
About a half hour later, Gene Jolly, another employee,
came to Cartwright's bench and asked for a tool. While
Jolly was there Hypnar approached and again using
profanity told Jolly that the latter was "goofing off" on
his job. Jolly asked, "Are you accusing me of goofing
offs"
Hypnar answered in the affirmative and, with that,
Jolly grabbed Hypnar by the shirt and pushed the latter
over a set of workhorses. With that, several of the
employees came over, grabbed Jolly by the arms and
'All events herein occurred in 1968 unless otherwise specified
ALLEN HAYOSH INDUSTRIES 441
assisted Hypnar to his feet. Immediately thereafter,
Hypnar told Jolly that he was fired and to get his tools
and to get out. Hypnar then went into the plant office
from which he emerged a few minutes later. When
Hypnar appeared, Art Jernburg, a leader, said to Hypnar,
"I think we should meet with Al Ferns (executive vice
president and manager of Respondent). Have a meeting
and discuss this." To which Hypnar answered, "Nothing
doing, there is nothing to discuss. He's fired."
Then Hypnar turned to the rest of the employees who
were gathered around and said, "If any of you guys think
I can't run this plant without you, you can pack your
boxes and get out too."
At this point Emerick went back to his bench and
Osterman asked Emerick what the latter was going to do.
Emerick answered, "I don't know what you're going to
do, but I've had it." Emerick then gathered up his tools,
shut his toolbox, and proceeded along with Jolly,
Osterman, Cartwright, and Gilbert Theriault to the
timeclock. They each punched out and left the plant. This
was about 8:30 in the morning. It was not the planned
leaving that Emerick had spoken about to Hypnar earlier
than morning.'
In connection with the walkout, each of the four
discriminatees testified as to their individual reasons for
walking out. Thus, Emerick stated that the reason he
walked out was that he had received harassment from
Hypnar in regard to the manner in which he should work
and the performance of the work. Also, Emerick testified
that he walked out because Hypnar refused to discuss with
the men the incident involving Jolly. Cartwright testified
that he left because of Hypnar's actions including the
profane language and the fact that Hypnar would not
meet with the men to discuss the Jolly incident. Osterman
testified that he left because there was just too much
harassment going on for quite a period of time and
Osterman felt that the situation was such that if it had not
been Jolly who had been involved with Hypnar it would
have been Osterman or somebody else. Theriault's reason
was somewhat different than the reasons of the other men.
He testified that he left with the other men because they
were all his friends and he was going to "stick with them"
no matter what. He felt that he was supporting the other
men by walking out. In connection with his reasons for
walking out, Theriault also stated that the other men all
disliked Hypnar.
It should be noted that when the men walked out of the
plant they did not inform any representative of
management as to their reasons for walking out.
The testimony of what occurred in the days following
the walkout is conflicting. According to Emerick and
Osterman they returned to the plant the next morning,
Tuesday, March 19, to go to work at the regular starting
time. Osterman remained at the employees' entrance.
However Emerick went into the plant and found that the
timecards of the four who walked out the day before had
been removed from the card rack at the timeclock.
Emerick saw that Jernburg was working and upon
Emerick's asking, Jernburg told Emerick that they had
"pulled" Emerick's card and that Emerick was fired.
Shortly thereafter, Vice President Ferns came in and
Emerick asked Ferns what had happened. In reply Ferns
told Emerick, "As soon as Ed Jewell comes in, he'll check
out your tools."
According to Emerick this was the entire conversation
between the two and Emerick and Osterman left the plant
and drove away.
On the same morning, according to Cartwright, he
drove to the plant parking lot at approximately the time
of the beginning of the work shift and observed that none
of the cars of the employees with whom he walked out
were parked in the lot. Cartwright thereupon left the
vicinity of the plant and later that morning met with
Emerick and Osterman who told Cartwright that their
cards had been pulled, that they were fired, and that there
was no point in going back to the plant.
According to Emerick, the next time he made contact
with A H I was on Thursday, March 21, when he phoned
the office to see if his paycheck was ready and was
advised that his check had not yet arrived from the parent
corporation. On Friday, March 22, Emerick went to the
plant office and asked the office girl if he could have his
paycheck., She told Emerick that he would have to speak
to Ferns, who was then summoned on the intercom. Ferns
told Emerick that the latter would have to take his tools
out of the plant if he wanted his paycheck.
Upon being thus informed, Emerick went into the plant
and began gathering up his tools when he was approached
by Ed Jewell, the toolcrib man, who gave Emerick a quit
slip and instructed Emerick to sign . Emerick refused,
whereupon Ferns was summoned. Ferns informed Emerick
that not only would Emerick have to remove his tools but
would have to sign the quit slip before he could receive his
check. Finally, Emerick did sign the quit slip but it was
only under protest that he did so. He explained this to
Ferns. He indicated to Ferns that the signature was being
placed on the slip under protest because he, Emerick, had
not quit.
Emerick further testified that the only portion of the
quit slip that bore his handwriting was his signature
thereon. The rest of the quit slip was filled in by someone
else. On the slip were written the words "walked off job
without authorization." The quit slip is also signed by
Ferns and Jewell and is dated March 18, the day the
employees walked out.
After Emerick signed the quit slip he took his toolbox
and was leaving the plant when he encountered President
Dale Smith who had come into the plant. Emerick told
Smith that he was sorry that it had happened and Smith
said, "Well, we're sorry it happened too but your timing
was off." Emerick further testified that at no time did
anyone offer him his job but finally admitted that Smith
did say to him that sometime in the future if Emerick
wanted employment he should see Al Ferns. Emerick
additionally testified that at the time of the events the
tool-and-die employees did not have any bargaining
representative in the plant nor was there any established
grievance procedure. Insofar as the grievance procedure is
concerned, Emerick and the other employees testified that
at one time, some time before the events herein, they had
gone to speak to Smith and Ferns with regard to getting
additional working hours to increase their take-home pay.
As noted above, on Tuesday, March 19, Cartwright
met with Osterman and Emerick and was told by them
that their cards had been pulled and that they had been
fired. According to Cartwright, the next time Cartwright
went back to the shop was on Thursday, March 21. When
he arrived there he was informed that he could not have
'Because of the date of deposit on Emerick's paycheck this meeting must
'A11 of the foregoing from the uncontroverted credited testimony of have occurred on the 22d and not on the 23d as originally testified by
Emerick , Cartwright , Osterman , and Theriault. Emerick.
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his paycheck unless he checked out his box. This was told
to him by the office girl. At that point Cartwright left and
did not return until Saturday, the 23rd. On Saturday,
Cartwright returned with Jolly and Terry, another
employee who walked out but who was not named as a
discriminatee in the instant proceeding . The three
proceeded to the office and again asked for their
paychecks. The office girl again said that they could not
get paid unless they signed the quit slip. Cartwright asked
at whose orders it was necessary to sign the slip and the
girl answered that it was Ferns ' and Smith ' s orders.
Thereupon Cartwright left the plant again and returned on
the following Tuesday with Terry and Jolly. He went
directly to his toolbox and started to check it over to see
if everything was in there. Ed Jewell went to the box with
him and presented Cartwright with the quit slip which was
an exact duplicate of the quit slip signed by Emerick.
Cartwright signed the slip telling Jewell that he was
signing it but that he did not want to sign it . It should be
noted that at the bottom of this slip signed by Cartwright
and of the slips signed by the other discriminatees are the
words "This must be returned to office for payroll
clearance."
Like Emerick, Cartwright testified that at the time of
the events herein the employees had no bargaining
representative. Nor was Cartwright aware of any
grievance procedure having been established at the plant.
As heretofore set forth, on Tuesday, March 19,
Osterman returned to the plant with Emerick and was
told by Emerick that their cards were not in the rack and
that they had been fired. Thereafter Emerick proceeded
with Osterman to a meeting place with Cartwright where
they told the latter that they had been discharged.
Osterman testified that on either Thursday or Friday of
that week, he returned to the plant to get his paycheck
and went directly to the front office where he talked to
Ferns and Smith. The conversation lasted about 15
minutes . Ferns and Smith stated that they had liked
Osterman's work and that they were very sorry to see this
happen but they "could not afford to have this pressure
going on in the shop ." At the same time , when Osterman
asked if he could get his paycheck, either Ferns or Smith
told him "check your tools out and sign a quit slip and
you can have it." At that time Osterman refused to do
what was requested and left.
Approximately a week later Osterman finally ran out of
money and he decided to pick up his paycheck. When he
returned to the shop he was again informed that he had to
remove his tools and sign the quit slip in order to get his
paycheck. Ferns informed him of this. Osterman finally
capitulated in order to get his money . His slip was the
same as the slip of Cartwright and Emerick . The only
thing that he placed on that slip was his signature
although the slip was filled out to the effect that he had
walked out without authorization.
As did the other employees, Osterman testified that at
the time of the incidents herein the tool-and-die employees
at A H I plant had no bargaining representative nor was
there any established grievance procedure in the shop.
According to Theriault, he returned to the plant on
Thursday, March 21. He went into the office where he
saw Dale Smith, Respondent ' s president . Theriault told
Smith that he wanted his paycheck and Smith told
Theriault that the latter would have to clear his toolbox
and sign a quit slip before he could receive his check.
Theriault thereupon had his toolbox checked out, signed
the slip, and did receive his paycheck. As in the case of
the other employees, Theriault merely signed his signature
on the slip but all of the handwriting was placed thereon
by someone else and contained the same wording that the
other slips contained, namely, that Theriault had walked
out without authorization.
In his testimony, Theriault admitted that no member of
supervision ever told him directly that he was fired. Nor
did they ever tell him that he couldn't have his job.
However, Theriault further testified that during the same
period of time neither Smith nor Ferns ever suggested that
he, Theriault, go back to work. Theriault further admitted
that during the period of time in which the events herein
occurred, A H I was working overtime and that most of
the employees in the tool-and-die shop were working 58
hours a week. Theriault further admitted that during the
same period of time skilled craftsmen in the tool-and-die
industry were very scarce.
It is noted that in connection with the testimony of all
of the foregoing individuals , there was no testimony to the
effect that any employee upon his return to the plant
presented to either Smith or Ferns any grievance
regarding Jolly's discharge or the working conditions in
the tool-and-die shop before the walkout. It should also be
emphasized, however, that during the same period of time
and upon the employees' visits to the plant they were
never told, according to their testimony, that they should
return to work nor were they ever asked by any member
of management why they had walked out or what their
grievance was.
President Smith and Vice President Ferns testified to
the events which followed the walkout but their testimony
directly contradicts the testimony of the four alleged
discriminatees. Ferns testified that on March 18 Ferns was
in his office when Hypnar came in and told Ferns that he
thought Jolly ought to be let go. Hypnar said that he was
tired of telling people to do things and not having them do
it. He told Ferns that Jolly was working on a job and he
was not getting it done . Ferns agreed that Jolly should go.
After the conversation with Hypnar, Ferns went out to the
shop and found that the four discriminatees had gone
along with Jolly.
Later that morning Ferns was approached by Jernburg
who said that things had happened in the shop that upset
him and that he wanted to go home. Ferns asked him to
try to stick it out. At that point Ferns realized that
something more serious had happened than Hypnar had
told him. Ferns then realized that Hypnar's shirt had been
dirty when the latter spoke to Ferns and that there were
some scratches on Hypnar's face. This was the first
inkling that Ferns had that Hypnar had been punched.
Ferns then asked Hypnar why the latter had not told him
about the incident and Hypnar said that he did not think
that he had to tell Ferns. Then Ferns went back to his
office and had hardly gotten back into his office when he
heard the timeclock being punched. He went out into the
shop and heard the door close. He looked out the window
of the door and saw the four discriminatees and Jolly
leaving . He then proceeded back to where Hypnar was
working and asked the latter what was going on. Hypnar
told him, "I guess they are going out in sympathy with
Jolly." However, Ferns testified that none of the men
protested the discharge of Jolly to him. To Ferns'
knowledge they have never protested the discharge since
March 1968.
According to both Smith and Ferns, on Tuesday,
March 19, Emerick and Theriault came into the shop to
check out their toolboxes. Smith remembers this because
ALLEN HAYOSH INDUSTRIES 443
he was out of town on March 18 , the day Virgil Jolly was
discharged . He returned on the evening of the 18th. He
went to the plant on the morning of the 19th about 9:30
a.m. He was told by Ferns what had happened the day
before. Ferns told Smith that Jolly had hit Hypnar and
that he had fired him. Smith then asked Ferns why the
men had walked out and Ferns answered that they had
just walked off the job. There wasn ' t much time for
discussion because that was approximately the time that
Theriault and Emerick came into the plant. They were in
there checking out their toolboxes and Ferns told Smith
that they were leaving . Again Smith asked what were they
quitting for and Ferns answered , "They 're leaving , they're
just quitting."
With that Smith went over to Emerick and asked the
latter what the problem was. According to Smith,
Emerick said , "There 's too much water over the dam for
me." Emerick said further , " I've gone along this far and
that 's it, I'm leaving ." Smith then said to Emerick, "Why
don't you take off your coat and go to work."
At that time Ferns was in the immediate area and
Theriault was nearby . Theriault was near enough to
overhear the conversation between Smith and Emerick.
Then Smith turned to Theriault and asked the latter what
his problem was and Theriault answered that he was going
to quit anyway and this incident brought it to a head.
Theriault did not explain further , he just said that he was
quitting . Then Smith addressed both Theriault and
Emerick and said , " Why don 't you fellows go to work.
You know we ' re satisfied with your work . We need help,
we're in trouble with some of this work . We need men."
However , his appeal to the men was unavailing and
each of the men got their toolboxes out of the shop that
morning . Smith stated that he never at any time told the
men that they were fired nor did he ever tell them they
could not come back to work for A H I.
On the following Thursday, March 21, Theriault came
into the shop and picked up his check . Theriault said he
was sorry but he was leaving.
The next time Smith saw any of the men who walked
out was on the following Tuesday which would be March
26. Cartwright , Jolly, and Terry came into the plant. He
was told about this by the office girl, Ferns was not
present . Smith went out and asked Jolly what was the
matter with him and Jolly said he was disgusted on the
morning of the 18th and celebrating St. Patrick's day and
that he felt tough; that Hypnar said a few things to him
that he did not like and he hit Hypnar. Smith told Jolly
that he didn 't think that was a very nice thing to do
whereupon Jolly walked over to Hypnar and Jolly
apologized and they shook hands.
While this was going on Cartwright and Terry went
over to their toolboxes and had the toolcrib man check
out their boxes . Jolly refused to sign for the tools and
Smith said that it didn 't matter just so long as his box
was clear. Jolly said that he knew he was done and it
didn 't matter because he could get a job anywhere but
Cartwright had some children and he needed a job. So
Smith said to Jolly, "Why doesn't Cartwright go back to
work ." Smith told Jolly that the only thing Cartwright
had to do was to talk to Al Ferns. That was the extent of
the conversation.
According to Smith , the only time he had any
conversation with any other of the men was on Saturday,
March 30, when Pete Osterman came into the shop. Ferns
and Smith were in the office when Osterman came in and
sat down in the lobby . Osterman began to talk to Ferns
and Smith . Osterman was slightly inebriated and he said
that as soon as he got himself straightened out he was
going to come back to work. Osterman finally went inside
and picked up his tools and cleared out. Smith never told
Osterman that he was fired. Nor did he ever tell
Osterman the latter could not come back to work at A H
1. In fact , according to Smith , it was Smith 's impression
that Osterman was coming back to work. Osterman
however never did come back after that Saturday that he
came to pick up his tools. To Smith's knowledge no one
ever protested the discharge of Jolly to him. Ferns'
testimony was m conformity with that of the testimony of
Smith as to the return of the men and the manner in
which they picked up their tools and left the plant.
Both Smith and Ferns testified that the quit slips were
merely a formality. The signing of slips was merely a
practice in the shop because the men are issued tools and
the only control they have over the tools in the crib is the
use of tool clearance. In the event that a man checks out
and some of the tools are missing and he has them he has
to give them back or pay for them before his final check
is cleared. Smith further testified that therefore the only
purpose for the slips is to verify to the office that all the
tools have been cleared and that the men's boxes have
been checked out. Any time an employee quits or leaves
the employment of A H I the slips are used. A copy of
the slip is only used for the crib man to communicate to
the office that it is all right to issue the final check.
Actually the only signature that has to be placed on this
slip is the signature of the toolcrib man and not of the
employee.
With regard to the pulling of the timecards of the four
dischargees, Ferns testified that he pulled the cards of the
four dischargees after they walked out because he wanted
to talk to them. This was the way in which he knew they
would come to talk to him when they found that their
cards were not in the rack in the usual place. Ferns
insisted that this was his usual method of getting to talk
to one of the men when he found it necessary to talk to
the men. He also testified that this was common
procedure in the tool-and-die industry.
C. Concluding Findings
Before considering the issue of whether the walkout of
the four alleged discriminatees constituted protected
concerted activity and the further issue of whether the
four were constructively discharged, it is necessary that
the issues of credibility be considered and disposed of. The
General Counsel, of course, contends that the testimony of
his witnesses is credible and that the events occurred as
related by the four alleged discriminatees. As is usual,
counsel for A H I claims the testimony of the General
Counsel witnesses is, for the most part , fabrication and
that the events really unfolded as related by the
Respondent's witnesses . To support their contentions, both
General Counsel and A H I counsel point to discrepancies
in time and dates of their opposing witnesses . I have given
due consideration to these discrepancies and find that with
regard to dates , the witnesses of both parties were in error
in some instances and, therefore , I cannot make credibility
resolutions on this basis.
However, I was very much impressed by the manner in
which General Counsel's witness Theriault testified. He
freely admitted that he did not walk out because of the
Jolly affair but rather that he walked out in sympathy
with his friends. He did not attempt to elaborate on the
manner in which Hypnar treated those who worked under
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him. He did not in any way attempt to place any of the
Respondent's officials in a bad light. He told forthrightly
how he walked out and how he came back to get his
paycheck and what was told to him.
Thus, I find that Theriault was a reliable witness. What
is of greater importance, his testimony supports and
bolsters the testimony of Emerick who was, in many
respects, the General Counsel's chief witness. Theriault's
testimony also agrees in many respects with the testimony
of other General Counsel witnesses.
Theriault did not testify that he came back to the plant
on Tuesday, March 19, but rather on Thursday, March
21. His testimony is supported by the testimony of both
Emerick and Osterman who testified that they, alone,
came back to the plant to go to work on Tuesday, March
19, and saw only Ferns.
Thus I find and conclude that the testimony of Smith
and Ferns to the effect that Emerick and Theriault came
to the plant together on Tuesday, March 19, is not
reliable and cannot be considered as the basis for my
factual findings herein. This conclusion is bolstered by
other factors. In the first place, noticeably missing from
the testimony of both Ferns and Smith is any denial that
the four discriminatees were asked to sign the quit slips
before they could obtain their final check. Ferns did not
testify as to the quit slips and Smith testified the quit slips
were merely routine and used for the purpose of toolbox
clearance so that checks could be issued. Smith further
testified that there was no necessity for discriminatees to
sign the quit slips that the only necessary signature was
that of the toolcrib man. If this were so, the question
could well be asked why it was necessary, then, for the
slips to contain the statement that the four men had
walked out without authorization and why did not only
the signatures of the four appear on the slips but also the
signature of Ferns?
I cannot perceive that if these slips were merely routine
why all this material appeared thereon. Accordingly, I
find and conclude that the testimony of Ferns and Smith
regarding the quit slips is not reliable.
Another basis for the crediting of General Counsel's
witnesses over the testimony of Smith and Ferns is the
candor with which the General Counsel's witnesses readily
admitted that (1) they gave no specific notice of their
leaving to anyone in higher management and (2) they did
not testify that they gave to management at any time the
reasons for leaving . To the laymen, at least, this would
appear to be a deficiency in their case. But, nevertheless,
none saw fit to fabricate in this regard.
Accordingly, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I conclude that the General Counsel' s witnesses were
generally more reliable and that the events occurred as
related by these individuals. They walked out on the day
and in the manner they related and each came back on or
near the date each testified to. Each was made to sign the
quit slip with the damaging notations thereon before each
received his check. Moreover, each was told to check out
his tools in addition to signing the quit slip so that each
could obtain his check.
The General Counsel contends that the facts as related
by his witnesses show conclusively that the employees'
walkout constituted protected concerted activity. The
Respondent claims that the walkout was not protected.
The undisputed facts establish that the walkout was
concerted. After Jolly's discharge and Hypnar's refusal to
act on Jernburg 's suggestion that they go to the office to
talk over the matter with Ferns, all four alleged
discriminatees, with Jolly and Terry, walked out together.
There thus remains the question of whether the walkout
was protected.
The alleged discriminatees almost simultaneously made
up their minds to walk out with Jolly upon a suggestion of
Emerick. As noted, this came at a time after Hypnar had
refused to permit the men to take up the matter with
Hypnar's superiors. The record further establishes that the
men were unhappy with Hypnar's conduct for some time
and that the Jolly incident was the explosion that resulted
from what the men considered the constant harassment
visited on them by Hypnar. It should be noted that earlier
that morning, Hypnar twice reprimanded employees for
real or fancied failures to perform their work, each time
using profanity in doing so. Thus I find and conclude that
the walkout was the culmination of a series of incidents
that affected the welfare and working conditions of the
employees in A H I's tool-and-die shop.
In N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Company, 370
U.S. 9, the Supreme Court established, after many Board
decisions to the same effect, that a group walkout by
employees for the purpose of protesting their working
conditions is protected concerted activity. The facts of the
instant case parallel the facts of that case to a marked
degree. There, the employees walked out because of what
they considered their employer's indifference to the frigid
condition of their working quarters. Here, the employees
in protest of harassment by their immediate superior and
because of what they considered the unfair conditions
which brought about the discharge of their fellow
employee walked out. As in the case at bar, in the
Washington Aluminum Co. case, the employees were
unrepresented and there was no established grievance
procedure.'
Although in the cited case the employees involved had
individually requested that the heating situation be
corrected before the walkout, there was no specific
demand made upon management at or after the time of
the walkout. The Supreme Court held that the employees
did not have to make such a demand at the time of the
walkout but that demand may be made before, after, or at
the time of the walkout. In the instant case there was no
demand made at all.
This would seem to be a fatal defect, but, it must be
noted that the employees' attempt to air their grievances
was blocked by Hypnar who refused to permit the men a
hearing when he refused Jernburg's suggestion that the
men take their case to higher management. Moreover, it
cannot be claimed that A H I did not know what the
cause or the purpose of the walkout was. As noted
heretofore, Ferns admitted in testifying that Hypnar told
Ferns in answer to the latter's question as to the reason
for the walkout, "I guess they are going out in sympathy
with Jolly."
Thus, A H I knew that the walkout was in furtherance
of its employees' efforts to make management more
responsive to their demands for improvement in existing
conditions. The Board has held that such a walkout for
such purpose is protected.' The Respondent contends that,
in any event, the walkout was unreasonable. It argues that
Jolly struck Hypnar and, therefore, Jolly's discharge was
based on good cause, and, therefore, the walkout in
'1 do not find that testimony to the effect that on several occasions in
the pact the employees had spoken to management concerning hours and
wages is proof of an established grievance procedure
'See Electromec Design and Development Company, Inc., 168 NLRB
No. 107.
ALLEN HAYOSH INDUSTRIES 445
sympathy with Jolly was unjustified . It is not necessary to
decide whether Jolly's striking Hypnar was a reasonable
action . In the Washington Aluminum Co . case' the
Supreme Court held "that the reasonableness of workers'
decisions to engage in concerted activity is irrelevant...." °
In the Washington Aluminum Co . case the employer
was attempting to correct the condition of which the men
complained but the Supreme Court held that nevertheless
the walkout was protected even if the conduct of the
employees in leaving was unnecessary and unwise.
In any event in the case at bar the striking of Hypnar
by Jolly and the latter ' s discharge were but the
culmination of a series of disagreeable events . Therefore,
it cannot be affirmatively held that the walkout was
completely unreasonable.
Accordingly, and by reason of all the foregoing, I find
and conclude that the walkout by the four alleged
discriminatees on March 18 was a concerted protected
activity.
There remains for consideration the question of whether
the four alleged discriminatees quit their jobs or were
constructively discharged.
As set forth earlier in this Decision , on Tuesday, March
19, Emerick and Osterman reported for work . They found
upon arrival at the plant that their cards were removed
from the timecard rack and were told by Jernburg that
their cards had been pulled and that they were fired.
Cartwright also reported to work but observed that the
cars of his coworkers were not in the parking lot and he
therefore left the premises without talking to anyone.
Later that morning he was advised by his coemployees
that it was futile to return to the plant . Theriault refused
to return until his fellow employees were permitted to
return , a condition I find was certainly legitimate in view
of all the circumstances . Then, when each of the
employees finally sought their paychecks , the Respondent
repeatedly insisted that they sign quit slips which the
Respondent maintains were for the purpose of tool
clearance. However, it should be noted , that President
Smith admitted that the employee's signature was not
necessary for tool clearance . Moreover , on the so-called
quit slips, which were completed in advance and were
dated the date of the walkout , was written the comment
that the employees had walked off their jobs without
authorization . These slips were signed not only by the
employees themselves but also by Vi etPresident Ferns.
In connection with the signing of the slips were the
statements of management representatives that the
employees ' timing was off and that A H I could not
afford to have this pressure going on in the shop. As
found heretofore at no time during these visits to the
shop were any of the discriminatees offered an
opportunity to return to work . Moreover , the credited
testimony of the alleged discriminatees establishes that
they did not want to check out their tools much less sign
their quit slips . It was only after they refused upon several
occasions to abide by the demands of management and
after each employee had become hard pressed for the
paycheck that the alleged discriminatees finally
capitulated and even then they stated their desire for work
and that they were signing the quit slips under protest.
The signing of a quit slip does not necessarily constitute
a voluntary termination of employment .' Whether the
signing of a quit slip constitutes a voluntary termination
'370 U S. 9.
'Citing N.L.R.B. v . Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co.. 304 U.S. 333, 334.
depends upon the circumstances leading up to and
surrounding the signing . Thus, as in the instant case, the
signing of such a slip in order to obtain a paycheck does
not, by itself, spell out a voluntary quit .10 Here, the
employees involved were coerced into signing the quit slips
and to check out their boxes^at a time when they were in
need of funds. As their credited testimony shows, they
were not given an opportunity to return to work. Indeed,
the quit slips are dated March 18, which demonstrates
that A H I had no intention of putting the men back to
work. These factors, in the light of the credited testimony
of the alleged discriminatees to the effect that they stated
to their superiors that they did not want to quit and that
they signed the quit slips under protest, indicate that their
termination was anything but voluntary.
Because all of the men were told that they had
performed satisfactorily and because A H I's witnesses did
not recite a single reason why men should be discharged,
it is evident that they were forced to sign the quit slips
because they had walked out in protest of their working
conditions and Jolly's discharge and for no other reason.
Thus, I conclude that A H I constructively discharged
Emerick, Cartwright, Osterman, and Theriault because
they had engaged in protected concerted activity. This
consitutes violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
D. The Challenged Ballots
1. The ballots of the discriminatees
Inasmuch as it has been found that William Emerick,
Richard Cartwright, Peter Osterman, and Gilbert
Theriault were discriminatorily discharged, they were, at
the time of the election herein, eligible to vote.
Accordingly, it is found that their ballots should be
opened and counted.
2. The supervisory status of Louis Hypner and
Donald Eller
The uncontroverted testimony of the four discriminatees
establishes that Manager Ferns, in August 1967,
introduced Hypnar to the employees of the tool-and-die
department as their foreman, indicating that the
employees were to take orders from him; that Hypnar was
in complete charge and that the employees were to work
directly under him and give Hypnar their cooperation. At
various times , and in the absence of Manager Ferns and
President Smith, Hypnar interviewed applicants for
employment at the Respondent's plant. Emerick testified
that on an occasion in either December 1967 or January
1968 Hypnar interviewed a man by the name of
Schernowski. Emerick knew Schernowski and while
Schernowski was talking to Hypnar, Emerick went over
the Schernowski and heard Hypnar tel Schernowski to
come to work the following morning . Following this
interview Schernowski reported for work. I credit this
testimony of Emerick despite the testimony of Smith and
Ferns to the effect that Hypner did not have the authority
to hire or discharge or to effectively recommend the same.
Each of the four employees testified credibly that they
conversed with Hypnar five or six times every day during
'Detroit Gasket and Manufacturing Company, 78 NLRB 670, 674, set
aside on other grounds 179 F.2d 241 (C.A. 6)
"Burlington Industries , Inc, Vinton Weaving Co, 144 NLRB 245,
257-258.
"N.L.R.B. v Washington Aluminum Co, 370 U.S. 9.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the course of employment concerning their work.
Additiona ly, Cartwright and Emerick testified that during
the course of their employment they were transferred from
one operation to another within the tool-and-die
department by Hypnar. This testimony is affirmed by lie
testimony of Smith and Ferns to the effect that, as Smith
admitted , Hypnar ' s work encompassed "doing all
necessary to complete a job." Hypnar started from the
beginning , which was the blueprint , the inception of the
order when it first came into the shop, and oversaw the
job until the job was completed and out of the shop. This
testimony is further buttressed by President Smith's
testimony that leaders assigned jobs on the basis of their
evaluation of an employee's capability, and that they do
this independently day by day based on the requirements
and the need of the day. Hypnar' s overseeing the work of
the employees is exemplified in one instance related by
Emerick in which Hypnar , unsatisfied with a particular
die which had been made by Emerick, required Emerick
to correct the alleged deficiency specifically in accord with
Hypnar ' s instructions and Hypnar personally supervised
the corrections for approximately 7 hours while Emerick
performed the work as Hypnar instructed.
With regard to the claim by both President Smith and
Vice President Ferns that Hypnar could not effectively
recommend the hire or discharge of any individual, the
Jolly incident, in and of itself, shows that Hypnar not only
discharged Jolly on the spot, but that when he went into
the office of the plant to confer with Ferns, Ferns gave
Hypnar his immediate consent to discharge without
Hypnar's telling Ferns that Jolly had struck Hypnar.
Additionally, Hypnar effectively made recommendations
relative to job assignments and also made job assignments
in accordance with his judgment after considering
individual employee's capabilities and job deadlines. Smith
and Ferns admitted that they relied on Hypnar's judgment
in this regard. Moreover, Hypnar did discipline employees
as exemplified in his speaking to the four discriminatees
regarding their alleged work lapses on the morning of the
Jolly incident.
In addition to all of the foregoing, the record shows
that Hypnar oversaw the work of about 20 employees in
the tool-and-die shop. Smith admitted in his testimony
that he was absent from the plant the greater part of the
time and that Ferns also was absent upon certain
occasions . Ferns admitted that his absence usually
amounted to several hours every week . This absence was
for the purpose of calling on customers of A H I. During
the times of the absence of both Smith and Ferns, Hypnar
was the only one in charge of the tool-and-die shop.
Moreover, Ferns in testifying stated that much of his
work was in the office of the plant and that during those
periods of time Hypnar was the only leader in the
tool-and-die department.
Thus, I find that Hypnar had upon occasion hired
employees for the tool-and-die shop. Also, Hypnar had
the power to effectively recommend discharge as
exemplified in the case of Jolly. As noted above, the
testimony of the four discriminatees established that
Hypnar had the authority to change men in the
tool-and-die shop from job to job and to make
assignments as he saw fit and exercise independent
judgment in the manner in which he did this . Moreover,
Hypnar did from day to day discipline the men in their
work and had the authority to change the methods of the
men's work and to closely oversee the manner in which
the work was performed. Additionally, Hypnar was in
complete charge of the 20 employees in the tool-and-die
department at times when Smith and Ferns were not in
the plant. Moreover, I find and conclude that in light of
the number of employees in the shop and the fact that
Ferns was in the office and not in the shop a large portion
of his working time, that Hypnar was in complete charge
of the shop much of the working time of the employees.
On the basis of all the foregoing indicia of supervisory
authority, I find and conclude that Hypn It is a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act. I therefore recommend
that the challenge to Hypnar's ballot be upheld and that
his ballot not be opened and counted.' 2
The record with regard to the supervisory status of
Donald Eller is very meager. Eller is the leadman in the
jig and fixture shop. None of the employees who testified
worked in that department and therefore had little
opportunity to observe the work performed by Eller.
Emerick testified that at one time his brother worked for
the Respondent in the jig and fixture department. One
morning Emerick's brother came in late and wanted to
know what to do because he failed to punch in. Emerick
told him to see Eller. Thereafter Emerick's brother went
to see Eller and Eller initialed his brother's card.
Osterman testified that there is no physical division
such as a wall between the tool-and-die shop and the jig
and fixture shop. During the time that he worked for A H
I Osterman noticed that Eller directed men in their work
day after day. Osterman further testified that Eller held
specific interviews with certain employees. For instance, a
man by the name of Walter Burr was interviewed by Eller
and the next day the man was hired. In Osterman's
estimation , Eller's direction of the men at work under
Eller is similar to that of Hypnar.
On the other hand, Smith testified that Eller is a
working leader. He is hourly rated and makes about 25
cents more per hour than do the other craftsmen. He
testified that Eller does not have the authority to hire or
fire and he punches a timeclock and performs manual
functions between 80 and 30 percent of his time and
sometimes even more. However, Smith did testify that as
far as Eller's authority is concerned it is about the same
as Hypnar's. Smith testified that neither could discipline
any employees or lay them off nor could either promote
employees or discharge them or effectively recommend
such action.
The foregoing represents all of the testimony with
regard to Eller's supervisory authority. Although Smith
admitted that Eller and Hypnar had approximately the
same authority, it should be remembered that such
testimony was with regard to both of these individuals.
While I have found that Smith's denial of supervisory
authority in the case of Hypnar is not reliable, there is
little in the record to show that Smith's denial of
authority with regard to Eller is not reliable. Accordingly,
I cannot find on the basis of the record before me that
Eller is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that Eller is not a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act on the basis of
the record before me and recommend that his ballot be
opened and counted.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE$
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
"See Research Designing Service , Inc.. 141 NLRB 211, 212-213.
ALLEN HAYOSH INDUSTRIES 447
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that A H I has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices it will be recommended that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found the Respondent has discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the
above-named employees , it will be recommended that the
Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges , and that each be made whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him , by payment to him of the sum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned as
wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of
the Respondent ' s offer of reinstatement less his net
earnings during such period . Backpay shall be computed
in the manner established by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289, plus interest at 6
percent per annum as prescribed in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716. The Respondent shall make
available to the Board its payroll and other records to
facilitate the checking of amounts due.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A H I Machine Tool & Die, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. By discriminating in the hire and tenure of
employment of William Emerick, Richard Cartwright,
Peter Osterman, and Gilbert Theriault, A H I has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the Act and by such discrimination
thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act and has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any and all such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Richard Cartwright, William Emerick,
Peter Osterman, and Gilbert Theriault immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges discharging if necessary any
employees hired to replace them.
(b) Make whole said employees in the manner set forth
in the section of this decision entitled "The Remedy" for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
Respondent's discrimination against them.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its plant in the city of Mt. Clemens,
Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director fN Region 7, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily pdste l Reasonable steps shall be taken by A
H I to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.14
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director
Region 7, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, it is ordered that A H I Machine Tool & Die,
Inc., its officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging concerted activities of its employees
by discriminatorily discharging any of its employees, or by
discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) In any like or related manner , interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage concerted activity by
discriminatorily discharging any of our employees or in
any other manner discriminating against them in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any other term
or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of their right to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , and to refrain from any or all such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
WE WILL offer to Richard Cartwright, William
Emerick, Peter Osterman, and Gilbert Theriault
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
any seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination, discharging if
necessary any persons hired to replace them.
WE WILL notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
Dated By
A H I MACHINE TooL &
DIE, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 500 Book
Building , 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan
48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.