Computronics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 709 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

WILLIAM WALTERS, INC. 709
William Walters, Inc. a/k/a Computronics , Inc. and
United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of
America (UE). Case 30-CA-883
November 25, 1969,
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On August 7, 1969, Trial Examiner Henry L.
Jalette issued his Decision' in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to 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 the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, except as modified herein.
1. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent's
use of a written questionnaire to poll its employees
about whether, and under what circumstances, they
had signed union authorization cards constituted
unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(I )
of the Act. While we adopt this finding as one which
is adequately supported by the evidence, we disavow
the Trial Examiner's finding that the employees
were not advised of the purpose of the
questionnaire We find that the declared purpose of
the questionnaire was set forth in its text, namely, to
enable the Respondent to "properly" act in a
situation where it had received not only a demand
for recognition from the Union but also reports that
some of its employees had signed union
authorization cards on the basis of material
misrepresentations or as the result of improper
duress.
2. Respondent has excepted, inter alia, to the
Trial Examiner's finding that employee Greer's
discharge on September 5, 1968, violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The Trial Examiner
found that the discharge of Greer, as well as the
discharge of four other employees who were
terminated on September 5, was violative of the
Act. We find merit in Respondent's exception as to
As amended by an erratum issued on August 13, 1969
Greer, on the basis of the principal testimony
relating to her discharge adduced by the General
Counsel and credited by the Trial Examiner,
namely, that of ex-foreman Wilder. Wilder testified
that, on September 5, Respondent's vice president
Warner said that he wanted to get rid of the girls
who were "instigating" the union. Wilder
recommended that, while the Respondent was doing
so, it also discharge employees who were "dead
weight." He testified that Joyce Greer "was just
dead weight" and that "she wasn't involved in the
Union." Asked at the hearing, "What about
Greer?" Wilder explained, "She was absent a lot
and sat around doing nothing," and again, "She sat
around doing nothing quite a bit of the time,. That's
why she went, that's the only reason she was laid
off " (Emphasis supplied.) The evidence shows that
Greer was not involved in the Union and that
Respondent did not believe her to be involved.
Under such circumstances, we find Greer was
discharged for cause, that the cause was inadequate
work performance, and that her discharge did not
violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1), since it was not
motivated by any discriminatory considerations
forbidden by the Act
We shall modify the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order and Notice as they pertain to
Joyce Greer in accordance with our findings above,
and dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that
her discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and hereby orders that William
Walters, Inc., a/k/a Computronics, Inc.,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as herein modified.
1. Delete paragraph 2(a) and substitute the
following:
"(a) Offer Emma Alvarez, Carmen Rivera, Lydia
Suarez, Maria Rivera, Joyce Wachendorf, and
Dorothy Wisniewski, immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights or privileges, and make
them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them by payment to them of a sum of money equal
to the amount they normally would have earned as
wages from the date of their discharge to the date of
their reinstatement in the manner set forth in the
section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled
The Remedy ' "
179NLRBNo 123
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Delete the last indented paragraph in the notice
and.substitute therefor the following:
Since the Board found that we violated the law
-when, we fired Emma Alvarez, Carmen Rivera,
Lydia Suarez, Maria Rivera, Joyce Wachendorf,•
and Dorothy Wisniewski, we will offer them,their
jobs back'and we will pay them for any loss of
pay they may have suffered because we fired
them.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be,
and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that
Joyce Greer was discharged in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and'(l) of the Act. '
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HENRY L JALETTE, Trial Examiner The original
charge herein was filed by the above-captioned Union on
September .3, 1968,' first- amended on September 119,
amended on October 11, and amended for the third time
on February 24, 1969. Pursuant thereto, the Regional
Director issued a complaint on February 28, 1969,
alleging that the above-captioned Employer (herein called
the Respondent) had engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act The issues
presented by the complaint are whether Respondent
discharged certain employees because of their union
activities and whether Respondent engaged in certain
independent 8(a)(1) conduct The trial of the issues was
held on April 15, 16, and 17, 1969
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the brief filed by
Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a Wisconsin corporation with its
principal office and place of business at Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, where at all times material herein it has been
engaged in the fabrication and sale of electronic
components During the year preceding issuance of
complaint, Respondent in the course and conduct of its
business sold and shipped from its place of busines's' in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to points outside the State of
Wisconsin goods valued in excess of $50,000, and during
the same period, Respondent purchased and received from
sources outside the State of Wisconsin goods valued in
excess of $50,000 I find that Respondent is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act The Union is a,.labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
'Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to the year 1968
ii,THE ALLEGED, UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES-
In the period of August-September, Respondent
employed approximately 32 production and maintenance
employees, most of whom were Spanish speaking female
employees On August 21, several of these employees,
with Emma Alvarez as their spokesman, complained to
Foreman Paul Wilder that several newly hired
Anglo-Saxon employees were .receiving' $2 per hour,
whereas Spanish speaking employees employed by
Respondent for several months were receiving $1 70 or
$1.80 per hour' Alvarez was absent from work the
following day, and upon reporting to work on -August 23,
she was terminated by Wilder who told her that she had
been absent too many times
After her discharge, Alvarez was, instrumental in
organizing a meeting between several,of the employees
and a representative of the Union at the-Spanish Center
The first, meeting was on August 29 and was attended by
at least nine Spanish speaking girls.
On September 5, Respondent called a meeting of all
employees at which Respondent's vice president, Wilfred
Warner, explained that the Respondent was having a
difficult time due to the necessity to redo faulty work by
employees and in which he explained how costs had
mounted as a result of this and the Company's financial
posture 'was poor. This meeting was preliminary to the
layoff of five employees on that date. These five are
alleged discriminatees, Joyce Greer, Maria Rivera,' Lydia
Suarez, Joyce Wachendorf, and Dorothy Wisniewski
On September 10, a second union meeting was held
which was attended by the same girls who were present at
the first- meeting, employee Pat Shields and some male
employees -
On September 12, Respondent received a letter from
the Union requesting recognition That same day
Respondent discharged Carmen, Rivera, one of the
employees who had attended both meetings
On September 19, the . Union filed, a representation
petition in Case 30-RC-945, pursuant to which a notice of
hearing was issued by the Regional Director scheduling
hearing for October 7 On October 4, counsel for
Respondent Bernard Goldstein met with Respondent's
production manager Lawrence Langkamp, and gave him
questionnaires to distribute to each employee The
questionnaire was in an envelope bearing Respondent's
letterhead and Langkamp was instructed to distribute the
envelope to each employee and to request each employee
to examine the material inside, fill out the questionnaire if
they so desired and return it to him in the envelope
Langkamp did as he was instructed. He did not,wait for
employees to fill out the questionnaires while ;he was
present but merely distributed the envelopes and went
about his business. Thereafter, the envelopes were placed
on his desk or handed to him by 'employees. and
Langkamp turned them over to Attor'ney' Goldstein
Langkamp never saw the questionnaires and after they
had been returned to Goldstein they remained in his
custody until the hearing in the instant case A copy of
each questionnaire. was given to the General Counsel in
the course of the investigation of the unfair labor practice
charge, but the questionnaire was never seen by any
official or supervisor of Respondent at any time prior to
the hearing in the instant case
WILLIAM WALTERS, INC.
III ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A Preliminary Statement
The General Counsel's case in this matter rests almost
entirely on' the testimony of Paul Wilder, a discharged
foreman.' Circumstantial evidence lends support to the
allegations of the complaint, but it is the ,testimony of
Wilder that conclusively establishes Respondent's
discriminatory motivation in 'the cases of all the alleged
discriminatees His testimony is in direct conflict with that
of Wilfred Warner, vice president 'of Respondent It
conflicts also with that of other witnesses, but the,critical
conflict is between Wilder and Warner.- How that conflict
is resolved determines how the case is' decided
I credit Wilder In forming this conclusion, , I have
carefully weighed the demeanor of both Wilder and
Warner, and I have weighed their testimony against what
appeared to me to be the logical consistencies of the case
considering the record as a whole. Warner's demeanor did
not impress me favorably He was glib and his testimony
was almost totally devoid of content and singular in its
vagueness. On the other hand, Wilder was reticent and
almost sullen, however, there was nothing in his demeanor
to suggest that he was vindictive against Respondent,
rather, his demeanor, suggested an honest attempt to recall
events and to testify truthfully
B The Independent 8(a)(1) Conduct
I The questionnaire
The questionnaire distributed to employees is as
follows.
WILLIAM WALTERS, INC
Dear Employee. , 0
The William Walters Corporation has been requested
to recognize the United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America (UE) as official bargaining agent
for production and maintenance employees. We have
further been advised that certain employees have signed
cards for this -Union, expressing a desire that this
Union represent them in collective bargaining. We have
also received, information that certain employees signed
said cards upon misrepresented information, or under
duress or pressure by a group of persons interested, in
this Union's representation In order for this Company
to properly act in this matter,, we request the following
information
PLEASE MARK WITH AN "X", EITHER "YES"
OR "NO", AS YOU DESIRE
1. DID YOU SIGN A CARD FOR THE UNITED
ELECTRICAL„ RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA (UE) , AS YOUR BARGAINING AGENT?
NO_ YES_
711'
2 IF YOU SIGNED THE UNION CARD, WERE
YOU PRESSOR
YES- - NO-
3. WERE YOU TOLD BY ANY PERSON THAT
THE WILLIAM WALTERS CORPORATION
WANTED YOU TO SIGN THIS CARD
YES_ NO-
4 WERE YOU TOLD BY ANY PERSON THAT
YOU MUST SIGN THIS
YES- NO_
Attorney Goldstein testified that , he had received
information from Vice President Warner and
Respondent ' s President Saltzman which raised questions
about the authenticity and legitimacy of signatures on the
Union ' s authorization cards For example , Goldstein-'was
told that certain of the employees signed cards because
they were pressured by the - Spanish girls and had signed in
fear; that promises were made to employees if they signed
the cards and • that some , employees , were told the
Company wanted them to sign because the Company was
doing Navy ,work and that the Navy favored union jobs or
unionized companies ; that employees might have been told
that they had to sign the cards in order - to, keep their jobs;
and that a number of the employees did not realize 'that
they were appointing or designating the, Union ' as the
bargaining agent when they signed the authorization cards
and had , been told when they signed the cards at the
September . 10 union meeting that this was :an . attendance
device For these reasons , Goldstein prepared' , the
questionnaire as his work product and as a way of
gathering information necessary for the R case hearing
which, was then scheduled for October 7. The
questionnaires were always in his possession and were
never seen by any agent or officer of Respondent
General Counsel contends that Respondent ' violated
Section 8 ( a)(l) of the Act by questioning its employees by
means of the questionnaire irrespective of the fact that
there, is no evidence that the answers of the employees to
the questionnaire were ever revealed 'to any agent or
officer of the Respondent and regardless of the fact that
the information may have ' been in the possession of and
remained with Attorney Goldstein 'at all-times The theory
of the General Counsel is that the questionnaire 'was not
accompanied by'the safeguards enumerated by the Board
for the lawful , polling of employees' in the case' of
Johnnie's Poultry ' Co , ',146 NLRB 770, 'enforcement
denied , 344 F 2d 617 (C.A 8). Additionally, General
Counsel states that many , of the questions had, no
legitimate purpose, mentioning ' only question seven,
however, on the ground it called for a subjective state of
mind
'The complaint, alleges, and the answer denies, that 'Wilder is a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(I 1) of the Act 1 he evidence
conclusively establishes that Wilder is a supervisor within the meaning 'of
the Act Wilder received $3 50 per hour compared to $2 per hour paid to
the highest paid production employee , interviewed applicants for
employment, and effectively recommended the hire of new employees and
the discharge of employees (other than those involved in this case)
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In Johnnie's Poultry, supra, the 'Board stated, ",The
purposes which the Board and the' Courts have held
[interrogation of employees] legitimate are of two types
the verification of a union's claimed majority status to
determine whether recognition should be' extended,
and the investigation of facts concerning issues raised in a
complaint where" such, interrogation 'is necessary' in
preparing' the employer's defense for trial, of the case " In
either type, the interrogation must be accompanied'by'the
following safeguards the employer must communicate to
the employee the purpose of the questioning, assure him
that no reprisal will take place, obtain his participation on
a voluntary basis, the questioning must occur in a context
free from employer hostility to union organization and
must not be itself coercive in nature, and the questions
must not exceed the necessities of the legitimate purpose
by prying into other union matters eliciting information
concerning an employee's subjective state of mind, or
otherwise interfering with the statutory rights of
employees
The first contention to be disposed 'of involves the legal
significance of the'evidence that the employees' answers to
the questionnaire were' never seen 'by any officer or
supervisor of Respondent; and that they were' at'all times
ih the custody of- Respondent's 'attorney. I conclude that
this - is irrelevant in determining ' the validity • of the
questionnaire I It is the impact of the interrogation upon
the employees that needs to be evaluated, and it is for this
reason that • the " 'Board requires that the employer
communicate to the employees the purpose' 'of his
investigation If that purpose is valid, and the other
safeguards of Johnnie's Poultry, are met, the interrogation
is,not rendered invalid' because the Respondent's officers
or agents know how the employees answered
In. this case, the employees were not 'advised, of *the
purpose of the questionnaire and that their answers would
be seen' only by Respondent's attorney As a matter' of
fact, the envelope contained the letterhead of the,employer
and not that'of the attorney In short,' the relevant fact is
the impact' of the interrogation upon employees *as
evaluated in terms of the safeguards set forth in Johnnie's
"Poultry and not the 'subjective purposes of' the
Respondent's agent, in this case' Attorney Goldstein,"in
conducting the interrogation
Next td be considered iS whether the purpose ' of
Respondent's questionnaire fits either of the two'purposes
recognized- as legitimate in Johnnie's Poultry It "is
'conceded by counsel for Respondent that the purpose was
not to verify the Union's claimed m'ajority status since the
questionnaire was' distributed to employees after
'Respondent had rejected the Union's recognition demand.
Nor was it for the purpose of investigating issues raised in
a complaint' since no "complaint' had issued `However,
although no complaint had issued in Johnnie's Poultry,
the Board did not 'rely on that factor' in' finding a
violation Accordingly, I' do not predicate my finding' on
the `absence of a complaint The issue here is whether an
employer can interrogate employees about union meetings
and activities as part of his investigation'of'facts for 'use in
a representation hearing. ' I hold ''that this is 'not a
legitimate purpose. '
The information which Attorney Goldstein had received
from his client related to the validity of the Union's
showing of interest in support of the representation
petition in Case .30-RC-945, and the Board has
- consistently held that the validity of a petitioner's showing
of interest is an" administrative matter which' is "not
litigable in a representation- hearing ''O.D 'Jennings &
Company, 68' NLRB 516. Counsel for Respondent
concedes that the foregoing is the, rule followed by the
Board, but contends that he is entitled to contest the
validity of the rule and to make a record for the purpose
of court review I do not agree ,
,
• ,
Respondent's " interrogation of ., employees must be
analyzed in terms of Board law extant at the time of the
interrogation At that time, as well as at,the present time,
the representations made to employees by a union in
procuring authorization cards were matters which',,were
not litigable in' the representation -, proceeding' and
Respondent h'ad no legitimate purpose in' inquiring into
such representations for purposes of the representation
hearing Where a party questions the validity.of a showing
of-interest, Board procedure permits that,party to request
the Regional Director to conduct an ad'mmistrati3e
investigation See Georgia Kraft' Company, ' 120 NLRB
806 1 have considered the possibility that Respondent
could lawfully conduct an investigation in the manner
attempted in this case to obtain information necessary to
initiate an administrative investigation by the Regional
Director, and I have concluded that the interrogation, of
employees for such a purpose is' not permissible It must
be borne in mind that''interrogation of the type under
consideration herein is permitted despite the risk , of
infringing upon employee rights where it is deemed
necessary to protect a legitimate interest of the employer
In this case, given the information relative to the validity
of the authorization cards which Attorney Goldstein
described he had received from'the officers of Respondent,
Attorney Goldstein could have protected the employer's
interest by requesting the administrative investigation
provided for by the Board's procedure without conducting
his own poll In other words, the conduct of an employer
poll was not necessary to•protect his client's interest
On the basis of the foregoing, I conclude "that'
Respondent's interrogation of employees by the
questionnaire was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
because it was not for -a purpose "cognizable by Board
precedent as legitimate Assuming, arguendo, that the
purpose was within the ambit of Johnnie's Poultry, I
would find it unlawful because it lacked the elements
necessary to assure that employees are not'coerced, in that
employees were not assured that' no reprisals would take
place and the polling occurred in the' context of employer
hostility to union organization, specifically, it' occurred in
a 'situation' where the Respondent had discriminatorily
discharged seven employees as will ' be shown below In
addition,' the questionnaire did not advise employees that
they were not' obligated to answer. Although Langkamp
testified he followed instructions to inform employees to
fill out the questionnaire "if they so desired," I consider
that too brief a statement to advise employees that their
participation' was voluntary. For all of the foregoing
reasons', I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)'of
the Act by the interrogation of employees by means' of the
questionnaire In the circumstances, there is no need to
determine whether the questions themselves exceeded any
privilege which might otherwise have existed
2 Interrogation by Paul'Wilder
The complaint alleges that on or about August 28 and
29, and September 12,"Foreman Wilder interrogated an
employee concerning the' union activities of other
employees, and that early'in September- Wilder and" Vice
President Warner' instructed an employee to engage in
surveillance of a union meeting and the union activity of
other employees
WILLIAM WALTERS, INC.
On August 29, employee Pat Shields volunteered to
Wilder that she,had overheard some of the girls discussing
a union in the lunchroom ' Wilder said nothing to her, but
he reported the matter to Warner who. told him to keep
his ears open and find out all he could He told Wilder,
however, not to let Shields know that Warner wanted the
information Wilder returned to Shields and told her to
keep her eyes open and to let him know if she heard
anything else,
The next day, Shields told Wilder that employee Julia
Colon had told her about a union meeting the night
before' Colon had told Shields who was there and Shields
relayed the information to Wilder identifying among those
present at the meeting as Emma Alvarez, Carmen Rivera
and Lucy Guzman Wilder passed this information to
Warner
On September 10, Pat Shields,told Wilder that she,had
heard there was going to be a union meeting that evening
at the Spanish Center. Wilder relayed this information to
Warner who told him to see if he could get Shields to go
to the meeting to obtain information Wilder asked
Shields if she would go and she agreed to do so The next
day Shields told Wilder what had happened at the
meeting, who had been there, and that she, had signed a
union card- She told Wilder she was afraid that she was
going to get into trouble with the Company for signing a
card and started crying, but Wilder assured her she was
not in trouble Among those identified as present at the
meeting were Emma Alvarez, Carmen -Rivera, and three
male employees. He took all the information that she gave
him and wrote it down. Later Wilder typed up notes of his
conversation which he turned over to Warner Either that
day, or the,next, Warner assured Shields she was not in
trouble for signing the card
Shields partly corroborates Wilder and partly
contradicts him. Thus, Shields admits that either I or 2
weeks after she began work (she had begun working for
Respondent on August 22) she had a conversation with
Julia Colon in which Colon told her that there had been a
union meeting She admitted that she told Wilder that
there was going to be a union meeting and that- he
suggested that she go and find out what it was all about
She admitted that she went to the union meeting .but
claimed that she did not obtain any information because
everyone was speaking in Spanish and she understood
only a few words of Spanish The following day Shields
told Wilder she had been to the, meeting and that she had
signed a card and was upset over the fact because her
husband was angry. with ,her. The critical* point at which
Shields differs,with Wilder is with regard to whether she
ever told Wilder who had been present at either of the two
union meetings Thus, Shields denies that Colon
mentioned the names of any of the employees at the
August 29 meeting, and she could not tell Wilder who was
present at the September 10 .meeting, because she did not
know the names of the employees present Her testimony
was to the effect that the meeting was in Spanish, that the
employees present were, Spanish-speaking girls, none of
whom was known to her For this reason, the. only
information she, ever gave Wilder was that all of the
Spanish girls wanted a• union Shields stated she never
noticed Wilder taking down any notes when she talked to
'The form of General Counsel's question caused Wilder to place the date
of this conversation as- between August 23 and September 3 Wilder's
testimony about his conversation with Shields the following day serves to
establish the date of the first conversation as August 29
'the first union meeting was on August 29
713
him about the union meeting
I do not credit Shields Despite the fact that at the time
that she gave her testimony in this proceeding Shields was
no longer employed by Respondent, her demeanor
suggested a strong desire on her part to please her former
employer Shields admittedly had gone to Vice -President
Warner during the time that she was involved' in these
matters and expressed her fears to him about attending
the union meeting.' Her testimony lacked details and
contrasted sharply with that of Emma Alvarez According
to employee Emma Alvarez, whose demeanor favorably
impressed me and who -testified in a very forthright
manner, before the union meeting had even started on
September 10, she, Shields, Julia Colon, and Lucy
Guzman had discussed the reason for the meeting Alvarez
speaks English fluently and after the meeting she talked to
Shields for at least an hour outside the Spanish Center
while they waited for their husbands to pick them up.
During this period of time, Shields questioned' Alvarez
extensively, including asking whether all the,Spanish girls
had signed cards and Alvarez told her yes'except for Julia
Colon who had not signed because her husband did not
want her to In addition to Alvarez' testimony, I have
credited the testimony of-Union Representative Borowski,
who presided at the meeting and who testified that he does
not speak Spanish and that about 50 percent- of the
conversation at the meeting was in English He testified
that Pat Shields asked several questions which Borowski
answered He testified that certain questions and answers
were interpreted for him and the employees present by
Emma Alvarez
On the basis of the foregoing, plus the fact that Shields
corroborated Wilder in many' respects, I credit Wilder's
testimony about his conversation with Shields and that she
told him the names -of employees attending the union
meetings - ,
Warner denied instructing Wilder to ask Shields to
attend a union .meeting of to obtain information about the
union activities of the employees. He also denied' that
Wilder ever reported orally or gave 'him a list.-of
employees who had attended the September 10 meeting
Warner could vaguely remember a report 'by-Wilder that
the girls were discussing' a meeting (he was not clear
whether it was a union meeting) and Warner replied, "So
they're having a meeting'""
I have indicated earlier that I do not credit Warner and
my reasons therefor In addition as to this particular
matter, Wilder's conduct as confirmed by Shields. is
consistent with his testimony about his conversation with'
Warner' Accordingly,, 'I find that Warner instructed
Wilder to solicit Shields to engage in surveillance of a
union meeting and the' union activities of Respondent's
employees and that Wilder executed 'such instructions
Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act
Although the chain of, events was initiated by Shield's
initial unsolicited report to' Wilder, her reports to Wilder
thereafter were pursuant to his request and the
conversations with Wilder consequently - constituted
interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(!) of the Act.,,
'In her questionnaire , Shields answered yes to the question ` If you
signed the union card , were' you pressured o'r urged against your will or
judgment by any other person to sign such card " There is' nothing in her
testimony to support such an answer
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C The Unlawful Discharges,
I The discharge of Emma Alvarez
Emma Alvarez began working for Respondent on April
24, in the inspection department About 2, months later,
she was transferred to the stockroom and her rate of pay
was raised to $2 an hour
On August .21, following a discussion among the
Spanish-speaking girls in the lunchroom about the rates of
pay being paid to newly hired Anglo-Saxon employees as
compared with their rates of pay, Alvarez, as spokesman
for the girls, asked Foreman Wilder why the girls had not
received a raise He said that the reason the Anglo-Saxon
girls had started at $2 per hour was because of their
experience with other employers, whereas the
Spanish-speaking girls working for Respondent- did not
have prior experience
Wilder reported this conversation with Emma Alvarez
to either Warner and Saltzman, or both, telling them as
much of the discussion as he could remember, what had
gone on', what,had been said, and who had said it It was
Wilder's recollection that Warner did most of the talking
and expressed displeasure that Emma Alvarez was griping
since she was paid $2 per hour, which was the top
production rate of pay
The following day, August 22, Emma Alvarez was
absent from work and Warner told Wilder that he was
going to get rid of her because she was the instigator. He
added that he would wait a few days and then get rid of
her mother That day, August 22, Wilder prepared a
personnel file memorandum' which stated "Cannot control
parts incomming [sic] & outgoing,'in the stockroom do to
the continued absence of the stockroom clerk, Emma
Alvarez Recommend termination due to absenteeism She
has been absent a total of nine times in three months "
When Emma Alvarez reported for work on August 23,
Wilder told her she was fired because of her absenteeism
and that the stockroom could not be run .unless someone
was there all the time
Wilder prepared another personnel memorandum which
stated', "Terminate Emma Alvarez due to absenteeism "
Wilder testified he prepared the memorandum at the
direction of Warner, but that he did not believe it was
necessary to terminate Alvarez because of conditions in
the stockroom The substance of Wilder's testimony is
that it was Warner who directed him to recommend that
Alvarez be discharged and that he.' did not protest
Warner's directions because "there wasn't much else I
could do " i
Vice President Warner admitted that he participated in
the decision to fire Alvarez, but stated that the decision
was made pursuant to the recommendation of Wilder
which was based on his report that her excessive
absenteeism was causing serious problems in stock
control According to Warner, about a month after Emma
Alvarez was put into the stockroom (which had been
about the last week of June) ,Wilder started having
discussions with him about the operation of the stockroom
and came to him on numerous occasions complaining he
could not control parts due to the absences of Alvarez
The Respondent's buyer had also complained to Warner
about the problem in the stockroom in the maintenance of
records and Warner had told Wilder to straighten out the
problem because it was his responsibility and that he had
to get somebody in there that was there all the time.'
'On direct examination Warner stated Wilder told him that he had to
Warner denied that Wilder had ever told him anything
about Alvarez' activities on behalf of other employees or
that he had any knowledge of any concerted or protected
activities on her part until sometime after her discharge
when he was contacted by an agent of the Wisconsin
Department of Industry Human Relations advising him
that Alvarez had filed a charge claiming discrimination
against the Spanish-American employees
Wilder admitted that he had spoken to Warner on at
least one occasion about the problem created in the
stockroom by' Alvarez' absences. He could not recall when
this had occurred. He denied however, that he ever stated
to Warner that he intended to start Iboking for someone
else or that he had told Warner that Emma Alvarez could
not control the stockroom His testimony was simply that
he had told Warner that if she was not there the
stockroom could not be controlled The only day he
recommended that Alvarez be terminated or discharged
was the day that he was told to do so by Warner and the
only reason he did so was because he was told to do so by
Warner
As noted earlier, I credit Wilder It is inconceivable to
me that Wilder would not have reported such a significant
incident as Alvarez' protest of discriminatory wage rates
to Warner My conclusion that the discharge was
motivated by Alvarez' protected concerted activity is not
based on Wilder's testimony alone I have also considered
and I credit the testimony of Alvarez that she had
received no warning There is no testimony to the
contrary At most, Wilder stated that he had mentioned to
Alvarez on one occasion that her absences affected the
efficiency of the stockroom He did not state she had been
warned. Significantly, she had been absent for 3 days the
week preceding her discharge and had not been warned
that continued absences could result in her discharge '
Yet, on August 23, Alvarez was summarily discharged
without even being given an opportunity to explain why
she had been absent. Such summary treatment' can only
be explained by Wilder's testimony that he was told to
discharge Alvarez because of her activity on August 21
Although the complaint alleges that Alvarez' discharge
was-violative of Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act, I find
that it was only violative of Section 8(a)(l) In protesting
the payment of wage rates believed to be discriminatory,
Alvarez was engaged in protected concerted activity,
however, she had not engaged in any union activity as of
the date•of her discharge, nor is there any evidence that
her discharge was motivated. by union animus Eastern
Illinois Gas and Securities Company, 175 NLRB No. 108,
fn 6, Northern Metal- Company, 175 NLRB No 145,
TXD
2 The discharge of Carmen Rivera
Carmen Rivera was employed by Respondent as an
assembler in September 1967 On August 20, 1968, she
was promoted to lead girl in the clean room and her rate
of pay was raised from $1 80 to $2 per hour. As lead girl,
it was Rivera's responsibility to tell other employees how
to assemble circuit boards, to get parts for them, and to
relay orders of the foreman She was also expected to
get somebody in there that was there all the time and he was going to look
for someone On cross-examination , Warner modified his testimony to
state "I'm not sure whether he said it to me or I said it to him "
'I attach no- weight to. Respondent's Exhibit 16 in view of Welder's
testimony impugning the reliability of the personnel records I note that for
some unexplained reason two memorandums were prepared because of
Alvarez' August 9 absence Resp Exhs 15 and 16
WILLIAM WALTERS, INC
maintain order and to report to the 'foreman any
employees who were not working out
On September 12, 1969, at or about 3 'p m -Foreman
Wilder gave Rivera a written test about her knowledge of
soldering. Rivera failed' it At 4 p m , Rivera was called to
the conference room and was told by Warner that she had
not worked out as lead' girl and he would have to let her
go Rivera testified that' Warner made no reference to the
test I credit her 8 , - '
Warner testified that Rivera was discharged because
she had failed the test 'given hei• by Wilder According to
Warner, employees doing -soldering of components on
government contracts were ` required' to • pass a test
contained in a technical-inspection manual issued by the
Navy Department. Wilder had mentioned to him that the
Naval inspector had serious objections to the fact that the
company had no qualified solderers. Wilder specifically
mentioned Rivera as one who had not taken the Navy
test Warner asked him if she had been given the technical
manual to study, and when told she had he instructed
Wilder to give Rivera the test Wilder thereafter reported
to him that Rivera had failed the test and that he was
completely dissatisfied with her - work Wilder
recommended she be'terminated
Wilder testified that on September 12, Warner told him
that he had put Rivera into the position of lead girl
because he believed she would-be company oriented and'
could swing the girls away from, the' Union, but instead
she had bitten the hand that fed her so' he was going to
terminate her that day He asked Wilder about Rivera's
past performance, about the results of a soldering test she
had been given by one David Paro, and whether she had
taken the Navy test Wilder told him she had passed the
test given by Paro, but that she had not taken the Navy
test and that she would not pass it if she took it It was
decided to give it to her Before she took the test, Warner
had her termination check made up. -
It is evident that the discharge of Rivera was violative
of Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act in view -of the
testimony of Foreman Wilder which I have credited,
because he explicitly ascribes an antiunion motive to
Warner in effecting her discharge However, his testimony
that Warner told him he had placed Rivera in the position
of lead girl because he -believed she would be company
oriented and could swing the girls away from the Union
could have been more fully developed On August 20,
when Rivera was promoted, the Union had not yet been
contacted and the first'concerted activity evidenced on the
record did not occur until August 21 when Alvarez spoke
to Wilder on behalf of the Spanish girls as noted earlier
However, this does not mean that Wilder's testimony is
not credible It is evident that there was employee unrest
and union talk'before August 20 as indicated by Warner's
testimony of a meeting with employees in July to clarify
Respondent's policy on vacations and the remark of one
of the girls "You wouldn't be able to push us around if we
had a union " In light of this, and Wilder's further
testimony that when Warner promoted' Rivera to lead girl
on August 20 he told him Rivera was more or less the
leader of the Spanish girls and she could get them over to
the compahy's•side because of"all this union talk that
was going on," it is clear that"whatever was the extent of
'When first examined about his termination conversation with Rivera,
Warner stated he told her the company was having a layoff, but he.was
not certain whether he mentioned her failure to pass the test On
examination later during the trial, he testified he told her she had not
worked out as lead girl , and she did not qualify as a solderer
715
the employees' union activities, Warner certainly believed
that such activities were in progress As of'September, 12,
there was no question of the extent of their activities
Rivera had not only been among those present when
Alvarez spoke to Wilder on August 21, but also she had
attended both union meetings and Warner had been told
about this by Wilder who learned it from Shields As
shown below, Respondent's general secretary, Merle
Kuuskne, had also told Warner or' Saltzman of Rivera's
union activities In these circumstances, it is believable
that Warner articulated his reasons for discharging Rivera
in the manner described by Wilder In any event, the
circumstances surrounding Rivera's discharge lend
corroboration to Wilder's testimony
First, the discharge occurred on the same day that the
Respondent received the Union's demand for recognition
Second, of all the employees engaged in soldering, none
had-previously been given the Navy test. Rivera was the
first person selected for the test and it was given to her
with no prior notice'-Employees given the test after Rivera
was discharged were first given the opportunity to study
the technical manual' ' Moreover, Wilder testified that at
the time he was told to give Rivera the test Warner told
him that they would have to give it to other girls later on
so it would not look like Rivera had been singled out
Next, I note that nowhere-in Warner's testimony can one
find a single indication about when the Naval inspector
insisted that employees be given the test,'" and there is no
showing why the test was decided upon on September 12."
There is no question that the Naval Inspector had brought
the matter up This was admitted by Wilder who had had
a conversation with Naval Inspector Atwell about the
matter However, this conversation had occurred long
before Rivera was fired, and-as a result the company had
given the employees a class on soldering and 'on tools
under' the tutelage -of one. David Paro Rivera had
attended this class which had lasted about half'day or a
full day and 'she had passed the test given by Paro These
facts are undisputed.
In short, all of the foregoing circumstances attest to the
truth of Wilder's testimony about Warner's directions and
the reasons for .discharging Rivera, and I . find that
Respondent discharged Carmen Rivera because of her
union activities and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act
3. The discharges of September 5
On Thursday, September 5, Respondent discharged five
employees The complaint alleges that they were' laid off,
and throughout the trial their separation from
employment was referred to as a layoff It is undisputed,
however, that they, were never recalled and new employees
were hired and it is clear to me, and 'I find, that their
separation from employment was a discharge and not a
layoff
According. to Warner, these employees were laid off
because "some contracts had not come through as
'Rivera had been given the technical manual to study several months
earlier, but had returned it to Wilder
''The inspector was not called as a witness' 1
'' I attach ' no weight to the notation - by Wilder in Resp Exh 3 that on
September 9, Rivera had to be taken off of wiring (soldering) cans,
because Wilder would not state that it was an accurate entry, Wilder
testified, " when one of these girls was fired I had to make a record,
backdating and building up a bad record " I note that Respondent did
not show through Rivera , or anyone else, that Rivera was,, fact taken oft
soldering on September 9 i
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
expected The company had problems with some of the
components it had produced which had caused a delay in
the authorization of production by the Government, and
the Company was in the research and development phase
of prospective contracts not anticipated to go into
production until a later date Warner testified that as a
result of those factors, " we were approaching, you
might say, a very strange time, and subsequently either at
the time or subsequent to this, we lost money for a few
months." (This is an example of the testimony. by Warner
which I consider to be totally lacking in content and
utterly meaningless ) In these circumstances, it was
decided to cut expenses by cutting back in personnel
Warner stated that on September 2 or 3, he had a
discussion with Wilder about the Company's financial
problems and the need to take drastic steps to pare out
the dead wood among the employees On the same date,
or the next, but in any event. before September 5, a
conference was held among Wilder, Warner, and
President Saltzman to discuss the employees to be selected
for layoff Wilder provided the names of the employees
and they were written on a blackboard, and they discussed
the quality of their work Wilder's opinion was that the
five employees named in the complaint were not
sufficiently skilled to do the job they were required to do
and that they were contributing to the Company's
problem in the rejection of its production. Warner stated
there was no discussion of the union activities or
sympathies of any of the employees He denied that he
had ever received a list from Wilder of the employees
active on behalf of the Union and stated he had no
knowledge of the union activites of the employees selected
for termination
Saltzman corroborated Warner
According to Wilder, on Thursday, September 5, he
was called to the conference room and was told by
Warner, " they were going to stamp out this union
once and for all and he didn't give a damn who they went
to, they could go to the union or the NLRB, he'd put a
padlock on the door before he'd let them run the
Company, or words to that effect."
Q (By General Counsel) What else If anything, did
he say about what he was going to do7
A He was going to lay off the girls, or get rid of
them is what he told me, the ones that were instigating
this union, and I recommended while he was at it to get
rid of some of the dead weight, so we'd get both at the
same time.
Wilder, Warner and Saltzman proceeded to discuss the
employees and placed the names of the five alleged
discriminatees on a blackboard With the exception of
Joyce Greer, all were deemed to have two characteristics
in common they were" prounion and they were dead
weight. Joyce Greer was only dead weight.
Maria Rivera and Lydia Suarez were union adherents
and had been identified as such to Warner by Wilder, but
there is no evidence that Joyce Wachendorf and Dorothy
Wisniewski were union adherents. However, Warner or
Saltzman told Wilder that they had received information
from their office manager and, secretary, Merle Kuuskne,
that both Wachendorf and Wisniewski were strong
supporters of the Union, that they were pumping the other
girls full of union talk, and getting rid of them would
check the situation
Once again, the credited testimony of Wilder supplies
direct evidence of discriminatory motivation In this
instance, his testimony is contradicted not only by
Warner, but also by Saltzman In addition, Merle
Kuuskne denied telling either Warner or Saltzman of the
union sympathies of other employees because she had no
knowledge of them. However, Carole Johnson, a former
employee of Respondent, testified that she heard union
talk among the employees and that she told Kuuskne
about it Kuuskne replied, "We know all about it "
Kuuskne specifically mentioned the lead girl in the clean
room where Johnson, Wachendorf and Wisniewski
worked, and Johnson remarked, "Yes, I guess so, I guess
she is because everyone else is " Johnson stated this
conversation occurred before September 5 According to
Kuuskne, her conversation with Johnson occurred after
September 12 and she acknowledged to Johnson that
Respondent already knew because it had received the
Union's demand letter of September 12. I credit Johnson
who appeared wholly indifferent about the case and
exhibited no interest in telling other than the truth.
Kuuskne was extremely nervous and did not impress me
favorably.
As to Saltzman, the leading nature of his examination
detracted from any weight that might have been given to
his testimony
Apart from the foregoing, the credibility of Wilder is
substantiated by other evidence regarding the September 5
discharges. If I understand Respondent's position (not an
easy matter when you study Warner's testimony), the
September 5 "layoffs" were attributable to lack of work,
and since it was necessary to reduce the work force, the
least efficient employees were selected for layoff
The record does not support the assertion of lack of
work If Warner is to be believed, the problem which led
to the September 5 discharges became known about the
end of July when its first fuse samples failed at the
Indiana testing laboratory As a result, Respondent was
allegedly unable to proceed with, production Yet,
Respondent was doing some hiring during this very period
as evidenced by the fact that Wisniewski was hired on
August 20, Pat Shields on August 22, and Carole Johnson
on August 28 There is no showing of any economic event
or occurrence between the time of these hires and
September 5 which precipitated the discharges September
5 was neither the end of a work week, nor of a pay
period
In addition, within 2 weeks of the termination,
Respondent hired seven employees, six of whom did the
same kind of work performed by the discharged
employees The assertion that they were superior to the
discharged employees has no relevance insofar as the
defense of lack of work is concerned and is belied by the
rate of pay they were given Similarly, the assertion that
two of the new employees were hired as a result of
commitments to hire hard core unemployed has no
relevance to a defense of lack of work Such commitments
may explain the source of new employees, they do not
require the employment of superfluous employees
There is a singular aspect to Respondent's entire
defense in this case the testimonial assertions of Warner
and Saltzman were not corroborated by any books and
records to show the Respondent's financial position, no
production records were proffered, nor correspondence
between Respondent and the Navy Department relative to
faulty production and the withholding of authorization of
approval of production In short, Respondent relied on the
ipse dixit of its officers In the circumstances, it risked a
finding that the officers would not be credited
In summary, I find that the record does not support the
assertion of a lack of work and I further find that the
September 5 discharges were effected for the reason given
WILLIAM WALTERS, INC.
to Foreman Wilder: "to stamp out this union once and for
all." In this circumstance, it makes no difference that
some of the employees may not have been union
adherents. Cf N L R B v Piezo Mfg Corp, 290 F.2d
455 (C A 2) 1 also reject any contention that any of these
employees were discharged because of their poor work
performance None was given this reason and work
performance was adverted to only in implementing a
decision based on unlawful considerations. Accordingly, I
find that by discharging Lydia Suarez, Maria Rivera,
Joyce Greer, Joyce Wachendorf and Dorothy Wisniewski,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II and
III, above, occurring in connection with its operations
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
thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. As I have found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Emma Alvarez, Carmen Rivera, Lydia Suarez,
Maria Rivera, Joyce Greer, Joyce Wachendorf and
Dorothy Wisniewski, I shall recommend that it be ordered
to offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or a substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges
and to make them whole for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them by payment to them of a sum of money equal to
that which they normally would have earned as wages
from the date of their discharge to the date of the offer of
reinstatement, less net earnings, to which shall be added
interest'at the rate of 6 percent per annum in accordance
with the formula set forth in F W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 and Isis Plumbing and Healing Co., 138
NLRB 716
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices
committed, and in order to prevent the commission of
other unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that
Respondent be placed under a broad order to cease and
desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of
employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
Conclusions of Law
1. William Walters, Inc. a/k/a Computronics, Inc , is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2 United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America (UE) is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3 By interrogating its employees about union meetings
and activities and by soliciting an employee to engage in
surveillance of union meetings and activities, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
717
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(I) and 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. By discharging Emma Alvarez because of her
protected concerted activity, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act
5. By discharging Carmen Rivera, Lydia Suarez, Maria
Rivera, Joyce Greer, Joyce Wachendorf, and Dorothy
Wisniewski because of their union activities or because it
believed they had engaged in union activites, and for the
purpose of discouraging union activity by its employees,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law and the entire record in this case, I
hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent, William Walters, Inc. a/k/a
Computronics, Inc , its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall-
l Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf
of, United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of
America, (UE), or in any other labor organization of its
employees, by discharging or otherwise discriminating in
regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any terms
or conditions of employment of its employees.
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act by discharging employees because they have engaged
in protected concerted activities for their mutual aid and
benefit.
(c) Interrogating its employees concerning union
meetings and activities.
(d) Soliciting employees to engage in surveillance of
union meetings or activities
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise- of their right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid- or protection as
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Emma Alvarez, Carmen Rivera, Lydia
Suarez, Maria Rivera, Joyce Greer, Joyce Wachendorf,
and Dorothy Wisniewski, immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or a substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
or privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them by payment to them of a sum of money
equal to the amount they normally would have earned as
wages from the date of their discharge to the date of their
reinstatement in the manner set forth in the section
entitled "The Remedy.""
"Since all the discriminatees are women not subject to the draft, the
"standard" Armed Services notice does not appear to be required or
appropriate Cf White Superior Division . White Motor Corporation. 174
NLRB No 171
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Preserve and, `upon request,- make available to the
Board and its agents for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social' security records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
relevant and necessary to a determination of the amounts
of backpay due under the terms of'.this Recommended
Order'
(c) Post at its Milwaukee, Wisconsin,, place of business
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix ""
Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 30, after being duly, signed by
Respondent, shall be posted- by it immediately - upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for _60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places,' including all places
where notices to employees " are customarily posted
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of this Decision what steps
Respondent has taken to comply: herewith '
"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 If the Board's
Order is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, the
notice will be , further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree
of the United States, Court of-Appeals Enforcing, an Order" 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 in
writing, within 10 days from, the date of this Order what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith" 7, ,
APPENDIX
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'.
After a trial in which,both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence; the National,. ,Labor Relations
Board has, found that'w,e violated the law and has ordered
rv
a,.
us to.post• this notice and•to keep our word about what we
say in this.notice - ` -
The Act gives all employees these rights-
To engage in self-organization,
To form, loin; or help unions,
To bargain, collectively through a representative of
their own choosing,
To act together for collective'-bargaining' or- other
,mutual aid or protection, and ' . ' .
To refrain from any or,all of these things' + " '
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with those
rights More specifically,
WE WILL NOT question you about union meetings or
union activities • '
WE WILL NOT discharge employees because they try
to act together to improve their working conditions, or
because they, loin, assist or give' support to United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America
(UE), or any other labor organization ,
Since the•Board found.that we violated the law.when
we fired Emma Alvarez, Carmen Rivera, Lydia Suarez,
Maria Rivera, Joyce Greer, Joyce Wachendorf, and
Dorothy Wisniewski WE WILL offer them their jobs back
and WE WILL pay them for any loss of pay they may have
suffered because we fired them.
You are free to become and remain members of United
Electrical; Radio and, Machine Workers of America (UE),
or any, other labor organization, and WE WILL NOT punish
you in any way if you do : .
WILLIAM WALTERS, INC
A/K/A COMPUTRONICS,,
INC
(Employer) -
ByDated',
(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
pr compliance with•its provisions,"they may communicate
oard's Regional' Office, '2nd' Floor,directly with the" Boar 's.'
Commerce ' Building, 744" ' North Fourth 'Street,
Milwaukee,'Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 414-272-3872.'