Armstrong Mould Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 435 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

ARMSTRONG MOULD INCORPORATED 435
Armstrong Mould Incorporated and American Flint
Glass Workers' Union of North America, AFL-
CIO and John Edward Riley. Cases 25-CA-6120
and 25-CA-6219
June 13, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
All parties were represented by counsel, and were
afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, and
to engage in oral argument. Subsequent to the close of the
hearing, timely briefs were submitted by counsel for the
General Counsel and for the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, and their demeanor on the
witness stand, and upon substantial, reliable evidence
"considered along with the consistency and inherent
probability of testimony" (Universal Camera Corp. v.
N.L.RB., 340 U.S. 474, 496 (1950)), 1 make the following:
On March 11, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Wellington A. Gillis issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law
Judge'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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Armstrong Mould
Incorporated, Winchester, Indiana, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WELLINGTON A. GILLIS, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me on July 30 and 31, 1974, at
Winchester, Indiana, and is based upon charges filed on
February 20 and April 4, 1974, by American Flint Glass
Workers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
referred to as the Union, and John Edward Riley, an
individual, respectively, upon a consolidated complaint
issued on April 30, 1974, by the General Counsel for the
National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter referred to as
the Board, against Armstrong Mould Incorporated, herein-
after referred to as the Respondent or the Company,
alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (61 Stat. 136), and upon an answer timely filed by
the Respondent denying the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
218 NLRB No. 83
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Armstrong Mould Incorporated, an Indiana corporation,
maintains its principal office and place of business at
Winchester, Indiana, where it is engaged in the manufac-
ture, sale, and distribution of moulds and related products.
During the 12-month period immediately preceding the
issuance of complaint, the Respondent purchased, trans-
ferred, and delivered to its Indiana facility goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were trans-
ported to said facility directly from States other than the
State of Indiana. During the same period, the Respondent
manufactured, sold, and distributed from said facility
products valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped
from said facility directly to states other than the State of
Indiana. The parties admit, and I find, that the Respon-
dent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties admit, and I fmd, that American Flint Glass
Workers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
1) Whether the Respondent discriminatorily discharged
Richard McCollum on February 18, 1974, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2) Whether, in changing the work assignments of John E.
Riley for the period March 25 through April 22, 1974, the
Respondent did so for discriminatory reasons in violation
of Section 8(aX3).
3) Whether, on specified dates between February 9 and
March 25, supervisors engaged in conduct constituting
interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section
8(a)(1).
B. The Facts
On November 4, 1973, Richard McCollum, an employee
in Respondent's miscellaneous department, went to the
436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Winchester House, Winchester, Indiana, where a grievance
committee meeting with Local 113 was scheduled.'
McCollum, by prearrangement, met with Eugene Bowling,
International vice president of the Union, indicating to
Bowling that the miscellaneous employees would like the
Union to represent them. Bowling, along with Internation-
al Representative Virgil Ostendorf, talked with McCollum
and gave him some authorization cards. McCollum
subsequently got a number of cards signed, as did one
other employee, Lee Frazier, and then gave them to John
Teale, president of Local 113, who, in turn, sent them in to
Bowling at the Union's office in Toledo, Ohio.
On December 10, 1973, Bowling was in Winchester for
another Local 113 grievance meeting with management.
After concluding the discussion of grievances, Bowling,
with eight signed authorization cards in his possession,
presented them to company official Dave Thress, stating
that the Umon would like representation for the Compa-
ny's miscellaneous employees. When Thress started to put
them in his briefcase, Bowling said he just wanted him to
look at them, not to keep them. Thress returned the cards
and Bowling decided to take them personally to Sherman
Armstrong, company president.
Bowling and Ostendorf went to Respondent's plant, and,
after a wait, the two went into Armstrong's office,
presented the cards to him, including those signed by
McCollum and employee John Riley, and told him that the
Union would like representation. Armstrong took the
cards, went through them one by one, pitching them up on
the table accompanied by comments on each, comments
reflecting his opinion as to the unit eligibility of each. After
the last one, Armstrong repeated an earlier comment to the
effect that perhaps he needed a union in there, that he
would not have to pay the employees as much as he was
paying, indicating that Overmyers, an organized competi-
tor, did not pay polishers as much as he did. At some point,
Armstrong volunteered that he did not object to Bowling's
union representing this group, that it would be far less grief
for him if the Union did organize them. When Bowling
asked if he would' recognize the Union as the bargaining
representative, however, Armstrong declined, replying that
he would have to contact his attorney, Rex McCoy, and
that Bowling would be hearing from McCoy.2 Armstrong
never did honor the recognition request and, pursuant to
the subsequent filing of a representation petition, an
election among Respondent's miscellaneous employees
was scheduled for February 15, 1974, with a preelection
conference set for 3 p.m.
By letter dated February 7, 1974, Bowling advised
McCollum that he had submitted his name to the NLRB to
act as union observer at the election, and requested that
McCollum make arrangements to be excused from work at
1:30 p.m. that day to meet with Ostendorf and Bowling at
2 p.m. at the Winchester House. Enclosed in the union
letter were instructions for observers and a list of eligible
1 Local 113 of the American Flint Glass Workers' Umon of North
America, AFL-CIO, contractually represents the Respondent's mould
makers and apprentices, who make new mould equipment for the
production of glass containers . At the time of thus meeting the Respondent's
miscellaneous employees, comprised of mould polishers and mould
cleaners, among other hourly rated employees, were not represented by a
union.
employees submitted to the Board by the Company.
Bowling also requested that McCollum study the contents
in order that the three might "review what our approach
will be."
Upon receiving Bowling's letter, the following Tuesday,
February 12, McCollum took it to the plant. McCollum
asked Melvin Young, working foreman, if he could get off
for the election, who referred him to Donald Strahan,
Respondent's plant manager. Strahan took the letter and
went into his office. Armstrong happened in and, upon
reading the letter, advised Strahan that he did not know
whether he had to let McCollum off or not, but would call
his attorney. Upon checking with his attorney and being
advised that he could excuse or not excuse McCollum as he
desired, Armstrong told Strahan that he saw no need for
McCollum to get off 2 hours early, that the election was 3
days away, and that the matter could be handled during off
hours. Armstrong told Strahan to see if McCollum could
make arrangements to meet with the union representatives
on his own time "because of the workload." Strahan then
went to McCollum, returned his letter, and told him that
the Company would not excuse him and instructed him to
make other arrangements to meet the union officials
"because we couldn't spare him as far as production and
we didn't want him to be off work."
The following day, Wednesday, February 13, Straham
asked McCollum whether he had contacted the Union and
learned that he had not.3 Strahan advised Newell, another
International vice president, and offered McCollum the
International's telephone number, suggesting that he call at
noon. Strahan wrote it down and gave it to McCollum. At
1 p.m., Strahan asked McCollum if he had reached the
International, to which McCollum replied that he had not
but that Teale had. Strahan indicated to McCollum that he
was not satisfied with his answer, that he would take care
of it, and that he still was not going to let McCollum off.
Later, Strahan called Newell. Upon assuring Newell that,
contrary to the information assertedly supplied him by
Teale, the Company had no objections to McCollum
acting as observer, Strahan asked Newell to tell Bowling
that he would like for Bowling and McCollum to meet on
their own time, that he, could not spare him as far as
production goes . Newell told Strahan that when Bowling
called in that afternoon from West Virginia he would relay
the message. Strahan still later that day got back to
McCollum and apprised him of his telephone conversation
with Newell.
The following day, Thursday, February 14, as hereinafter
alluded to, Armstrong called a number of employees,
individually, into his office and discussed with them the
election. While McCollum was in Armstrong's office on
this occasion, with Strahan present, McCollum asked
Armstrong whether he were going to let him off the next
day. Armstrong said, no. Armstrong told McCollum that
"he would not let me off work to go up and plot against the
2 In scanning the eight cards, Armstrong was of the opinion that three of
the employees "were not representative of the miscellaneous group," and, as
there were some 16 unit employees , he questioned that the Umon had a
majority.
3 I credit Strahan over McCollum's denial that he talked with other than
Armstrong.
ARMSTRONG MOULD INCORPORATED 437
Company ... that would be like me wanting to burn his
house down and me borrowing matches off him to burn the
house down with." The company officials again asked
McCollum to make other arrangements, and to try to meet
with one of the union officials that night. When McCollum
expressed his feeling that he did not know what to do, that
he did not want to let the people in the shop down and that
he felt it was his duty to meet, Armstrong reminded
McCollum that he was working for him and that the
Company could not let him go without permission, that he
was putting his job in jeopardy if he did.
The next morning, Friday, February 15, around 10 a.m.,
Strahan again asked McCollum if he had contacted any of
the union representatives. Upon receiving a negative reply,
Strahan told him that he could not let him go, that if he
went he was going to have to fire him. When McCollum
asked Strahan to put that in writing, Strahan refused but
told McCollum that he could have a witness to it if he
wanted. McCollum so indicated and Strahan called in
Dave Armstrong, plant superintendent and brother of
Company President, Sherman Armstrong, and, in his
presence, again told McCollum that he did not have
permission to leave, and that if he left he was going to have
to fire him. McCollum replied that he guessed he would
have to be fired.
Early that afternoon, Strahan went to McCollum's
polishing machine, and, learning from Dave Armstrong
that McCollum had clocked out, went to see Sherman
Armstrong. The latter, apprised of the situation, instructed
that McCollum's timecard be pulled, stating ' that "he was
discharged."
McCollum, who left the plant at 1:30 p.m., went over to
the Winchester House where he met Ostendorf. Bowling,
who was driving in from out of state, arrived around 2:15
p.m., and the three discussed the election and McCollum's
duty as an observer, including which ballots the Union
wanted to challenge . During the meeting, McCollum told
Bowling and Ostendorf that Armstrong had told him that
he could not get off for the meeting, that it would be like
giving him matches to burn his house down. Around 2:45
p.m., Ostendorf, Bowling, and McCollum went to the plant
where they met the Board agent and, in Strahan's office,
Strahan, company attorney, Rex McCoy, and employee
Tom Johnson, a polisher who was to act as company
observer.
At the outset of the preelection conference, which started
late because of the Board agent's late arrival, the Union
indicated that it was going to challenge certain employee
votes, and McCoy stated that the Company would
challenge McCollum acting as observer on the ground he
no longer was an employee of the Company. McCoy
repeated the statement at Ostendorf's request. McCoy left
the office and at the Board agent's suggestion that they
appoint another observer, McCollum went out and
brought back employee Lee Frazier. At that, McCollum
left the room. Bowling inquired of Strahan if McCollum
were discharged, and Strahan told Bowling that he would
have to talk with counsel. McCoy returned shortly and
announced that the Company would not contest McCol-
lum°s being the observer, but that "we are going to contest
his vote because we have not decided what action we are
going to take against him." Frazier was sent to get
McCollum, who reappeared and took over as the Union's
observer. McCollum's vote was challenged by company
observer, Johnson, as instructed by McCoy, on the ground
that he had left his job while working in direct contraven-
tion of his supervisor's order that he could not leave, and
was subject to discharge and, therefore, not eligible to vote.
Shortly thereafter the election was held with McCollum's
ballot challenged by the Company and the ballots of four
other employees challenged by McCollum, as observer for
the Union.
According to Strahan, the following morning, Saturday,
February 16, Armstrong and Strahan attempted without
success to locate McCollum, ostensibly to inquire of him as
to whether he had been "told that he could not be
discharged for leaving the shop without permission" and, if
so, to ascertain who it was that told him, or whether
McCollum had left work on his own to test whether the
discharge would stand.
On Monday, February 18, McCollum reported to work,
found his timecard missing, and asked Melvin Young if he
were officially fired. Upon being referred to Dave
Armstrong, McCollum was informed that Sherman Arm-
strong wanted to meet with him in his office at 9:30 a.m. At
that meeting, with Young and Strahan also present,
Armstrong first ascertained from McCollum that no one
had told McCollum that he could not be discharged for
leaving without permission, and that McCollum had left on
his own. Armstrong asked McCollum if he could give him
any reason for not letting the discharge stand. McCollum
said that he could not, and Armstrong stated that he was
sorry but it would have to stand. According to McCollum,
Armstrong also told him that he was not going to let one
man run his shop, stating that McCollum had let him down
and had challenged two ballots that he did not think he
would challenge.
The General Counsel asserts that McCollum was
discharged because of his union activities, including his
serving as a union observer, and the fact that he challenged
certain ballots. The Respondent contends that McCollum
was terminated solely for taking off work prior to the
preelection conference on February 15 after having been
specifically denied permission to do so.
I am of the opinion, and so find, that McCollum was in
fact terminated for having disregarded the Company's
repeated instructions not to leave on this occasion. At the
same time , however, the real question to be answered, in
my opinion, is why was McCollum's request for time off
denied.
Notwithstanding the Respondent's effort to have McCol-
lum get together with the union officials to handle the
necessary union matters after work hours, and the fact that
production was given him as a reason, the record does not
support the Company's assertion in this regard. Strahan
testified that no other employee was required to work
overtime that day, election day, to make up for the 1-1/2
hours that McCollum was off work. Nor was it necessary
for any round polishing, McCollum's job, to be performed
the next day, Saturday. 'Furthermore, it is undisputed that
just a few weeks prior to his termination, McCollum had
sought and was granted permission to be off work for
438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
personal reasons. The key, I find, to the company
motivation in refusing McCollum's request on this occa-
sion is in Armstrong's statement to McCollum on February
14, as testified to by McCollum and acknowledged by
Armstrong, to the effect that "he would not let me off work
to go up and plot against the Company ... that would be
like me wanting to burn his house down and me borrowing
matches of him to bum the house down with."
Motivated by an -unlawful purpose in denying McCol-
lum's request for 1-1/2 hours time to meet with union
officials, the Respondent is estopped to assert what
otherwise would constitute a valid reason for a lawful
discharge. Accordingly, I fmd that the Respondent's
reason for denying the permission sought was, at least in
part, based upon union considerations, and therefore, in
subsequently discharging McCollum for having disobeyed
the unlawful directive, the Respondent discriminated
against McCollum in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
Turning to the alleged discrimination concerning John
Riley, on March 22 a janitor's job opened up. At a
foreman's meeting on that day, Armstrong decided that
Riley, one of the miscellaneous employees assigned to
polishing rings, should temporarily fill the open position.
As a miscellaneous employee, Riley over a 5-year period
had as needed performed a number of duties, including
sweeping floors, round polishing, cleaning machines,
unloading iron, and straight janitorial work. According to
Armstrong, Riley was picked for this assignment because
he would be capable of switching to polishing at any time
they got overloaded in polishing. The move was to have
been, and in fact was, temporary until the spring when
college students were normally hired for janitorial work
through the summer months.
Upon making the change from nights to days, starting
March 25, the first week Riley performed janitorial work,
the second week he went on vacation, and the third week
he did some round polishing in addition to janitorial work.
A week later, in real need again for a full-time polisher, the
Respondent put Riley back in his former job on the night
shift as a polisher, performing polishing duties as well as
occasionally janitorial and sweeping functions. During the
4-week period, Riley worked a 6-day week rather than his
normal 5-day week. In so doing, however, Riley worked
the same number of hours and received the same earnings.
The General Counsel contends, and the Respondent
denies, that, in assigning Riley to the janitor job during this
4-week period between March 25 and April 22, the
Respondent did so because of Riley's union activities.
Apart from his having been one of a number of
employees who earlier had signed union cards, there is no
evidence that Riley engaged in other union activity. The
only evidence connecting Riley with the Union is con-
tained in a February 14 conversation with Armstrong
during which Armstrong said to him, "Well, John, I see
you was trying to get a union in," to which Riley replied
"Yea, that's what they are trying to do." Riley then told
Armstrong that he did not know what it was all about but
if that is what the men wanted he was with them. At that,
Armstrong said, "Well, I see you signed a card." Riley
admitted that he did as he had before, to which Armstrong
said, "Well, I have been good to you boys and I felt if you
had a complaint that you would come to me and we could
get it ironed out . . . . Beings this, there is nothing I can
do." Armstrong concluded with his statement that Riley
could vote either way he wanted to vote.
As hereinafter noted, this conversation is very similar to
other conversations that Armstrong had with miscellane-
ous employees on this date. I am unwilling to draw the
inference from these facts that, in changing Riley's job
during the 4-week period in question, the Respondent was
discriminatorily motivated.4 Accordingly, I find that the
General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of
the credible evidence that the Respondent discriminatorily
changed the work assignment of John E. Riley between
March 25 and April 22, 1974.
On February 9, 1974, having heard rumors in the shop
that some of the men had been talked to by both union and
company people, Strahan, in the company of Dave
Watson, plant superintendent, talked with McCollum and
Lee Frazier in the plant. Strahan commenced by telling
them that the Company was not making any promises or
any threats, and that the Union could not promise them
anything. Both employees indicated that they understood,
and Strahan continued by stating that he did not want to
see them get hurt, and thought they should check with
other impartial parties to fmd out exactly what the score
was, that as far as wages or benefits and union contracts
were concerned they could check with the employees at
Overmyers or Ball Brothers, because both companies were
under contract with the Union covering miscellaneous
employees. Strahan told McCollum and Frazier not to take
his word for it or anybody else's, that they should do their
own checking.5
During the day on February 14, 1974, Sherman Arm-
strong called most of the miscellaneous employees into his
office and,- with Strahan present, talked for 3 to 5 minutes
with each one individually about the election scheduled for
the next day. According to Armstrong, and corroborated
by Strahan, his purpose in so doing was to explain to the
employees their rights and privileges, and he proceeded to
tell them that if they felt the Union would be good for them
they should vote for it, if not, they should vote against it.
To some of the older employees, Armstrong added that he
also stated that he did not realize that anyone was
dissatisfied, that he wished they had approached him, but
that he could not make them any promises or any threats.
One of the employees called in, Thomas Johnson,
testified that Armstrong told him that he was not going to
fight the Union but wished that the employees had come to
him and talked with him first before it all started.
Armstrong also stated that he was surprised when he saw
Johnson's name on a union card inasmuch as he had been
good to him, having given him 5 hours' Saturday overtime.
4 I credit the testimonial denial of working foreman, Melvin Young, a 5 McCollum corroborates the testimony of Strahan as to the above
most forthright witness I find, that on the day Riley started his janitor work According to the uncorroborated testimony of Frazier, Strahan also added
Young suggested to 'him that his union activity was responsible for the that if a union came in the Company would have to classifyjobs according
transfer. In view of this credibility resolution , I find it unnecessary to resolve to the higher or lower pay scales, and that if this happened , he (Strahan)the supervisory issue as to Young. could move him from his job to a lower payingjob or a higher paying job.
ARMSTRONG MOULD INCORPORATED
Johnson indicated that the miscellaneous employees had,
contrary to the fact, been under the impression that they
had a pension plan like the mould employees, and that this
probably gave rise to interest in the Union. Johnson
corroborated Armstrong and Strahan to the effect that
Armstrong explained to him that he had the right to vote in
the election anyway he wanted to vote.
Testifying to the February election conversations with
Armstrong, another employee, Lee Frazier, testified that
Armstrong commenced by telling him that he understood
he had a right to talk with his employees up to 24 hours
before the election and that he had not heard of any of his
employees being dissatisfied and wanting a union until he
was presented with it. Armstrong then asked Frazier if he
(Armstrong) had not been good to him, to which Frazier
replied _ that he had, and retorted with a question of
Armstrong as to whether he (Frazier) had not been doing
his job. Armstrong replied that he had.
I find, on the record as a whole, particularly the credible
testimony of Anderson and Strahan,-and including that of
Johnson and Frazier as well, that, as to the February 9 and
14 conversations with his miscellaneous employees, which
were concluded more than 24 hours before the February 15
election, Anderson made no threats of any kind and
engaged in no unlawful interrogation, and that his
statements- on these occasions are protected under Section
8(c) of the Acts
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Armstrong Mould Incorporated is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. American Flint Glass Workers' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Richard McCollum on February 18, 1974,
thereby discouraging membership in and activity on behalf
of labor unions, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
5. By changing the work assignment of employee John
E. Riley between March 25, 1974 and April 22, 1974, the
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
6. The Respondent did not engage in any independent
8(a)(1) conduct as alleged in the complaint.
6 Apart from the March 25 allegation attributing to Young an unlawful
statement , which incident I have found did not take place , the complaint
allegations as to alleged 8(aXl) conduct are confined to these two dates,
February 9 and 14.
7 in the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
IV. THE EFFECT UPON COMMERCE OF THE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES
439
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
- It having been found that the Respondent discriminato-
rily discharged Richard McCollum on February 18, 1974,
thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, it is
recommended that the Respondent offer the above-named
individual immediate and full reinstatement to his former
job or, if his job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to any rights and
privileges to which he is entitled, and make him whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him, by making payment to him of a
sum of money equal to the amount that he would have
earned from, the earliest date of the discrimination to the
date of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings during
said period to be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and which shall include
the payment of interest to the rate of 6 percent per annum
to be computed in the manner set forth by the Board in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
It is further recommended that the Respondent preserve,
and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents for examination and copying, all payroll records
and reports, timecards, and all other records necessary to
compute the amount of backpay.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER?
The Respondent, Armstrong Mould Incorporated, Win-
chester, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in or activity on behalf of
American Flint Glass Workers' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging
or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any like
manner discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of
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.
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment, or any term or condition of employment, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the-policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Richard McCollum immediate and full re-
instatement to his former job, or if his job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
any rights and privileges to which he is entitled, and make
him whole in a manner and in accordance with the method
set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve, and upon request, make available to the
Board or its agent, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records and reports,
timecards, and all other records necessary to compute the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this recom-
mended Order.
(c) Post in conspicuous places, at its Winchester,
Indiana, plant, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."8 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25,
shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representa-
tive of the Respondent, be posted by it, as aforesaid,
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for at
least 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to ensure'that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges discrimination against John E. Riley or
any other violations of the Act not specifically found.
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or refuse to reemploy, or
otherwise discriminate against our employees in order
to discourage membership in, or support of, American
Flint Glass Workers' Union of North America, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, or infringe in any
like manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL offer Richard McCollum immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job 'or, if his job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to any rights or privileges to which he
is entitled, and will make him whole, with interest, for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of our
discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain or
refrain from becoming or remaining members of American
Flint Glass Workers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
or of any other-labor organization, 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.
8 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
ARMSTRONG MOULD
INCORPORATED