E.R. Carpenter Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1992

306 N.L.R.B. 878 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

878
306 NLRB No. 178
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Union’s name has been changed to reflect its new official
designation.
2 The Respondent has alleged that the judge’s conduct of the hear-
ing and decision were biased. We have carefully examined the
record and the judge’s decision and find no evidence of bias or prej-
udice towards the Respondent during the hearing or in the decision.
3 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
We agree with the judge’s finding that the Respondent failed to
rebut the General Counsel’s prima facie case of discrimination
against employees Robert Ragland and Thomas Martin, i.e., the Gen-
eral Counsel’s evidence that animus was a motivating factor in the
disciplinary warnings issued to them. In this regard, we emphasize
that the Respondent’s failure to discipline the third employee who
worked on the repairs over which Ragland and Martin were dis-
ciplined—and who happened to be the only one of the three who
was not known to the Respondent to be a vocal union supporter—
undercuts the Respondent’s attempt to rebut the discrimination
charge.
In addition, the judge described an incident in which another em-
ployee’s faulty work caused equipment damage more costly than that
over which Martin and Ragland were disciplined, yet the Respondent
gave that employee a milder warning. The contrast between the Re-
spondent’s less severe treatment of that individual and its written
‘‘final’’ warnings to Martin and Ragland is even more stark in light
of the timing of the two incidents. The Respondent disciplined Mar-
tin and Ragland on May 3, 1990. The Respondent gave the other
employee—whose error had cost the Company twice as much
money—a ‘‘mere verbal warning’’ on May 8, 1990.
E. R. Carpenter Company, Inc. and Chauffeurs,
Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 364,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
AFL–CIO.1 Cases 25–CA–20660 and 25–CA–
20693
March 27, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS OVIATT
AND RAUDABAUGH
On August 30, 1991, Administrative Law Judge
Harold Bernard Jr. issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings,2 findings,3 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, E. R. Carpenter Company,
Inc., Elkhart, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
John Petrison, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Richard B. Slosberg, Esq., of Portland, Maine, for the Re-
spondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HAROLD BERNARD JR., Administrative Law Judge. I heard
this case in Elkhart, Indiana, on February 6, 7, and 8, 1991,
following charges filed in May and June 1990 and a consoli-
dated complaint issued on July 31, 1990, alleging Respond-
ent threatened employees with plant closure and job loss, in-
terrogated employees concerning their support for the Union,
and discriminated against employees Thomas Martin and
Robert Ragland by issuing unwarranted written warnings to
them because of employee activities in support of the Union,
thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Based on the entire record, including briefs filed by the
parties and my observation of the witnesses, I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Virginia corporation engaged in the pro-
duction and sale of polystyrene foam and foam products at
its plant in Elkhart, Indiana, where it annually purchases and
receives materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
sources outside Indiana, and from which it annually sells and
ships products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to cus-
tomers outside Indiana. As admitted, Respondent is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and the Union is a labor organization as therein defined.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Some time in late March 1990 Thomas Martin, a mainte-
nance mechanic who later received a final written warning
which is one of the matters at issue here and is discussed
below, and another Respondent employee were invited to the
Union’s hall for a meeting. Martin signed a union card dated
March 28, 1990, and secured numerous other cards, which
he passed out at the plant the next day and for about 30 en-
suing days throughout the plant during breaks and employee
lunch periods, some 10 to 15 being signed and returned to
him.
A. Threats and Interrogation
Rick Roberts, maintenance group leadman on the second
shift over three employees, Bob Somhill, Jim Hicks, and Bob
Morris, an apprentice, was paid less than Somhill and Hicks,
had no authority to discipline, hire, terminate, authorize em-
ployee time off, or overtime, or to assign work, and Re-
spondent does not contend Roberts is a supervisor. Roberts
spends his time working in machine repair with the other
mechanics. I find that Roberts is not a supervisor defined by
the Act. Roberts testified that the Respondent’s maintenance
supervisor Robert Lievore, an admitted supervisor as defined
by the Act almost daily talked to Roberts about the Union.
In the first conversation Lievore told Roberts in March or
April 1990 in the maintenance shop that, ‘‘if the union got
879E. R. CARPENTER CO.
1 Two questions posed to Respondent witness Ryman are fairly
representative of similar other leading, multiple part questions by
Respondent counsel. By Respondent counsel:
Q. The question is did you ask them during these conversa-
tions are you a Union supporter or are you engaged in Union
activities or do you support the Union or do you sympathize
with the Union. Did you ever ask them that kind of question?
Any employee?
A. No sir, I did not.
Q. (By Respondent counsel): Did you ever ask any employee
how other employee [sic] felt about the Union or whether they
were supporting it, or members of the Union [sic], or sympa-
thizers with the Union, or if they wanted the Union to represent
them, or anything like that? Did you ever ask any employee
about how other employees felt?
A. No sir, I did not. [Tr. 350.]
Additionally, counsel asked questions such as whether the Re-
spondent witness ever ‘‘threatened’’ any employee, which called for
a conclusion on an issue before me to decide and not before the wit-
ness to decide, who was supposed to be questioned about facts with-
in his knowledge but was not in such frequent instances. Moreover,
counsel examined Respondent witnesses, as to conduct not described
by General Counsel witnesses and left untouched damaging testi-
mony. As a result of the foregoing, the credible testimony of wit-
nesses for the General Counsel was left wholly intact. Counsel for
Respondent, however, urged on brief that opposing witnesses should
not be credited nonetheless because they seemed to recall only in-
criminating events and not other surrounding routine circumstances.
Given the time between the events at issue in March through May
1990 and this hearing in February 1991 it is normal that employees
would recall coercive and threatening conduct by Respondent offi-
cials which reasonably made a lasting impression in their minds and
not necessarily recall innocuous routine matters going on around the
plant daily into which counsel for Respondent spent valuable time
inquiring to the point where it appeared he was merely casting about
to uncover a possible basis for questioning the witnesses’ credibility.
I find no merit in counsel’s argument.
in here that we would all be out of jobs.’’ About 2 weeks
later in the office with Roberts and his entire crew present,
Roberts recalled that Lievore repeated the statement that, ‘‘if
the union got in there we’d all be out of jobs.’’ Roberts told
Lievore it was illegal to say that, Roberts testifying he had
gotten tired of hearing it around the shop. Lievore then re-
sponded that Roberts was probably right, that, ‘‘they would
just change the product line and turn us into a warehouse.
We’d still be out of a job.’’ Roberts further testified that on
April 1 Lievore told him that Day-Shift Plant Manager Cliff
Hawhee was very upset about the handbills distributed at the
plant referring to an employee being reviewed by the plant
manager concerning his work performance.
Roberts also testified that at the end of April or first of
May 1990 Second-Shift Superintendent Gary Ryman ap-
proached him at the Elkhart curtain wrapper machine while
Roberts and his partner team member Jim Hicks were repair-
ing it and that the topic of the Union came up, and they dis-
cussed whether it would be good for the Company, Roberts
saying he didn’t think it could influence the Company
enough. By Roberts’ account, Ryman said, ‘‘if the Union got
in that we would probably all lose our jobs and that really
it didn’t make any difference to him, he had a job interview
and might not be there by June, anyway.’’ On cross-exam-
ination counsel for Respondent elicited from Roberts that
during this same conversation, which became heated at
times. Ryman questioned Roberts about his position with (as
to) the Union, was he involved with it, saying, ‘‘He said he
heard some things about me and he wanted to know from
me, had I signed a union card? I told him no.’’
Respondent witnesses were uniformly fed leading ques-
tions by counsel for Respondent, questions which, in addition
to such infirmity, called for purely conclusionary opinions in
many instances, and which further were defective given that
in many instances the single interrogatory being posed con-
tained multiple parts, so it was therefore impossible to dis-
cern to which part of the question the Respondent witness
was offering a reply.1 Even so, witness Lievore admitted he
had conversations about unions with Roberts, admitted he did
say something to Roberts about plant closure if employees
voted in favor of the Union, admitted he told Roberts and
his crew that there was a Carpenters plant in California under
a union contract for a year, then ‘‘they’’ dissolved ‘‘it,’’ ad-
mitted he talked about ‘‘scenarios’’ if the Union did come
in and if the Company proceeded to show a profit or loss,
and ‘‘possibilities.’’ Lievore didn’t recall any other conversa-
tions with Roberts and wasn’t asked about the Hawhee being
upset statement, nor did he deny the statement concerning
Respondent turning the operation into a warehouse. Ryman,
also led continually, merely denied ‘‘threatening’’ employ-
ees’ discharge if they voted in favor of the Union, said he
had no conversation with Roberts where he talked about hav-
ing a job or interview or didn’t care, or a ‘‘conversation’’
regarding plant closure. He did not deny Robert’s specific
account of the conversation, thus leaving it untouched, and
the portions of pieces in Robert’s testimony alluded to all
arose in Respondent counsel’s leading questions rather than
facts brought out by the witness.
Given the foregoing, I find that counsel for General Coun-
sel has established by a preponderance in the credible testi-
mony that Respondent, through its admitted Supervisors
Lievore and Ryman, threatened employees with job loss and
plant closure if employees supported the Union and the
Union came in, and that Respondent coercively interrogated
employee Roberts in the context of a threatened job loss
should the Union ‘‘come in’’ concerning Roberts’ position as
to the Union, and whether Roberts had signed a union card,
thereby committing violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Roberts was not an open and active union supporter and in
the context described, his interrogation by Respondent rea-
sonably tended to restrain, coerce, or interfere with rights
guaranteed by the Act. Columbia Textile Services, 293
NLRB 1034 fn. 3 (1989).
B. The Unlawful Final Warnings of Martin
and Ragland
1. Union activity and company knowledge
Robert Ragland, also a class A mechanic like Martin,
signed a union card given him by Martin on March 28, 1990,
and returned it to him. Ragland also talked to plant employ-
ees on behalf of the Union in the plant breakroom during
both breaks and employee lunchtimes. On April 27, 1990,
Ragland passed out union literature at the plant gate from
around 3:34 to after 4 p.m. with Martin and other employees,
Kevin Miller and Jeff Benz, whose performance review by
Hawhee had been the subject of a pamphlet that Lievore told
Roberts the plant manager was very upset about.
880 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thomas Martin, in addition to his contact with the Union
at the hall and distributing and securing numerous signed
union cards as described above, wore shirts emblazoned with
the Union’s name at the plant during working hours, wore
a jacket with the Teamsters emblem on it, carried a union
identified bag, and engaged in handbilling at the plant gate
and inside the plant between March 28 and April 25, 1990.
Martin corroborates Ragland as to the April 27 handbilling
described above, and recalls that during the course of
handbilling Respondent’s personnel manager Harry Tallman
walked out to the guardhouse at the south gate where the
employees were handbilling and then back. Tallman was not
questioned by Respondent counsel as to his knowledge of
Martin and Ragland’s handbilling on April 27, and Respond-
ent concedes that Martin and Ragland were supporters of the
Union, that the union activity of the two men began in
March 1990 and continued thereafter, that much of their
union activity occurred in the plant and was open and well
known, and that their open activity in support of the Union
was known to the Company for more than a month before
they were disciplined on May 3, 1990. (R. Br. 20.)
2. Animus
It is established above that Respondent threatened employ-
ees with plant closure and job loss if they supported the
Union or the Union got in, and that Respondent coercively
interrogated employee Roberts, conclusions which unques-
tionably demonstrate Respondent animus toward the Union
and employee support for the Union. In addition, Martin tes-
tified without denial by Respondent, that prior to May 5,
1990, Nelson Smith, Respondent’s second-shift supervisor,
an admitted supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(13)
of the Act, approached Martin in the crane area with a hand-
bill in his grasp and said, who has been passing out this
union garbage or do you know who has been passing out this
union garbage in here? Martin described Smith as getting
heated up, saying how bad the Union was and questioning
what the Union had ever done for the poor man, answering
himself by saying nothing, and going on in a similar vein.
Martin lightly touched or brushed Smith away with his hand,
telling him not to bring him that ‘‘stuff’’ and the incident
ended. That day or the next plant engineer John Gulas and
Personnel Manager Harry Tallman told Martin he could be
terminated for ‘‘pushing’’ Smith. Martin denied to them he
had pushed Smith—who was not present at this meeting—
angrily or aggressively, but had just touched him in an habit-
ual manner used by Martin along with a request he be left
alone. Respondent did not put Smith on the stand and neither
Gulas nor Tallman testified as to this matter. I find that
Smith’s conduct heatedly demanding to know from Martin
who had passed out the union handbill constitutes unlawful
coercive interrogation into employee union activities, and
further manifests through the conduct of Smith and the star-
chamber-like trial by Gules and Tallman finding Martin the
guilty party without weighing Martin’s version of the inci-
dent as further evidence of Respondent animus toward a
union activist employee.
3. The alleged cause for the warnings
On April 25, 1990, mechanics Martin, Ragland, and
George Coleman worked to repair the slitter line, Ragland re-
placing a sprocket on the machinery’s south end, while Mar-
tin did so at the north end, and Coleman assisted. At the con-
clusion of their work Ragland believed the sprocket he
worked on was not quite in line with the other sprocket as
determined by viewing the chain connecting the two, and he
asked Martin for his thoughts. Martin said it looked okay and
to button it up. Coleman also checked the work and con-
curred. The three waited for a line supervisor to look things
over before signing off on the repair work as was the prac-
tice, observed the machine working satisfactorily for a length
of time, and then left to do other work. The next shift found
the slitter machinery which the three mechanics had worked
on had jammed up after operation for a short time, the rollers
and shaft askew, and the shaft requiring replacement entail-
ing about an hour or so lost production time for its repair.
There was abundant, sometimes conflicting—but not alto-
gether so—testimony from witnesses offered by both sides.
A careful sifting of this testimony reveals sufficient credible
testimony by witnesses from both sides to form an amalgam
of evidence revealing the following:
The slitter machine was a chronically malfunctioning piece
of machinery which frequently had to be repaired—Martin
testifying he had to repair it some 200 times. It was subject
to operator error caused shutdown as well as—in this case—
incorrect repair by mechanics. It was not necessarily apparent
to any onlooker, including the mechanics that when the three
repaired the machine it was malfunctioning during the testing
period because the noise from its normal operation would
mask any noise from the malfunctioning determined to have
occurred in this case. A close reading of the record makes
it apparent that Respondent conducted a rather intense inves-
tigation into the reason for this particular malfunctioning of
the habitually below par slitter machine, having supervisors
and the plant engineer and manager view the equipment and
gathering many statements concerning what could have hap-
pened yet relying almost entirely on third party opinions
rather than on an immediate inquiry from all three machinists
assigned to do the work (other than Martin who was seen the
day following the repair). The length and intensity of the in-
quiry into the matter might at first blush be understandable
due to the $800 cost of replacing the shaft and the hour or
so downtime, but Respondent’s handling of the entire matter
seems adversarial towards Martin and Ragland because of
their union activities. Thus, although not without some res-
ervations based on why Respondent’s long line of plant wit-
nesses could not more clearly tie in the alleged faulty repair
work with the machine’s shutdown, I am inclined to credit
Supervisor Lievore and Plant Engineer Gulas that Ragland
admitted to them during his performance review on April 30,
1990, ‘‘full’’ responsibility for his sprocket installation work
causing the breakdown in the slitter line, as well as their own
testimony describing how such was probably the case. Had
matters ended at that point with a written warning proposed
against Ragland—who alone worked on the shutdown-caus-
ing sprocket—by Lievore and Gulas, in the form they origi-
nally conceived, the issue would have been closer because
their prepared warning was not a final warning providing for
discharge for a later infraction. Instead, on Ragland’s admis-
sion the two decided to go ahead with warnings against both
Ragland and Martin, but not Coleman—even though it was
Ragland alone who had worked on the suspect sprocket—
and, to take up the warning notices with Respondent’s per-
881E. R. CARPENTER CO.
sonnel manager Harry Tallman, who is not shown to have
ordinarily taken part in preparing such warnings, and his in-
volvement and decision to have the preparation of much
sterner ‘‘final’’ warnings against Ragland and Martin is
therefore at the least suspicious. Kinder-Care Learning Cen-
ters, 299 NLRB 1171 (1990). Following Tallman’s entry into
the matter the warnings became final warnings referring to
‘‘gross negligence’’ given to Martin and Ragland May 3,
1990, unprecedently for work-related warnings at Respond-
ent’s plant some 8 days after the April 25 repair work and
dated when prepared as April 30, only 3 days following
Ragland’s and Martin’s handbilling at the plant in Tallman’s
presence, which evidences suspicious timing. Kinder-Care
Learning Centers, supra.
I find it revealing especially that although Respondent ad-
mittedly maintained a progressive disciplinary procedure or-
dinarily providing for four warning stages before discharge,
that Martin and Ragland, both of whom had not been given
any prior such warnings, were given final warnings based on
the single occurrence described above. Respondent offered
no probative evidence to establish the bona fides in meting
out discipline against Ragland and Martin, prounion activists,
but not against George Coleman, the third mechanic assigned
to repair the slitter machine with them, and who concurred
in their judgement to button up the job, and who was not
shown to be a prounion employee having merely testified
that Martin had given him a union card and no more. There
is no reason given by Respondent why it failed to verify or
even check with Martin during its assiduously conducted oth-
erwise in-depth investigation as to the truth of Ragland’s ac-
count that Martin said it looked okay to him and to button
it up. There seemed to be a determination to lay the blame
on Martin that exceeded any reasonable basis for doing so.
Martin worked on the slitter machine in the past, but both
he and Ragland were class A mechanics alike in skills re-
quired for that category, and Martin was neither a ‘‘super-
visor’’ nor leadman generally while working, or on the slitter
job albeit that Ragland was ‘‘helping’’ on the assignment.
Although Respondent witnesses made much of Martin’s al-
leged, but factually unsupported past problems allegedly re-
ported by a later shift mechanic, these reports, largely dis-
puted, had never led to any warnings or disciplinary action
and the accounts therefore arouse suspicion rendered so late
in the situation at hand. Moreover, Ragland, it is undenied,
and admitted, alone repaired the south end sprocket which
caused the misalignment and breakdown, and told Respond-
ent that he alone caused the problem and was solely respon-
sible. Thus, there was no reason, assuming a fair investiga-
tion was underway that is, to assess blame equally on Martin
as was assessed on Ragland, without determining from Mar-
tin what role he actually played in the concluding part of the
repair work. Except that there was a desire by Respondent
to pin blame on both union activists although the third me-
chanic, who concurred specifically in the decision to button
up the job after checking Ragland’s work and who was not
an open supporter of the Union escaped any discipline what-
ever. Such disparate treatment under the circumstances is in-
dicative of a discriminatory motive behind Respondent’s con-
duct. Aratex Services, 300 NLRB 115 (1990), and P.B. & S.
Chemical Co., 300 NLRB 764 (1990). I further note that
Maintenance Supervisor Robert Lievore testified himself that
when employee Larry Moody’s work caused an accident in-
curring over $1600 in expenses he gave him a mere verbal
warning as compared to the harshness in the final warnings
given to Martin and Ragland involving machinery shaft re-
placement costing considerably less.
Based on the foregoing review of their union activities,
Respondent’s knowledge thereof and demonstrated animus
toward union activities of its employees, the timing of its ac-
tions against them, and its clearly demonstrated discrimina-
tory intent arising from the absence of good cause for the
harsh discipline, I find a prima facie case established that
Respondent issued Martin and Ragland the final warnings
because of their union activities. Respondent presented no
evidence tending to show that it would have disciplined them
in such manner as described here, even aside from their hav-
ing engaged in activities in support of the Union. Having
failed to carry its burden in such regard following the estab-
lished prima facie case, I find Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by issuing final warnings to Martin
and Ragland. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989
(1982), approved in Transportation Management Corp., 462
U.S. 393 (1983).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening employees with plant closure and loss of
their jobs if employees supported the Union and the Union
came in, Respondent coerced employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act and there-
by violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By coercively interrogating employees concerning their
activities on behalf of the Union, Respondent further coerced
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act and thereby further violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By issuing final warnings to employees Thomas Martin
and Robert Ragland, Respondent discriminated against them
because of their activities in support of the Union thereby
violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
6. These acts have a close, intimate, and substantial effect
on the free flow of commerce within the meaning of Section
2(7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to ex-
punge from the personnel files and records of Martin and
Ragland the final warnings issued to them on May 3, 1990,
and any reference to these warnings therein and to notify
each of them in writing when this as been done and that the
warnings will not be held against them for any reason in the
future. It will further be recommended that Respondent be
ordered to make Martin and Ragland whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits they may have incurred as the re-
sult of the unlawful discrimination against them, plus interest
as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987). This is expressly directed to provide Martin and
Ragland with recovery of losses due to, inter alia, loss of
overtime, more harsh a discipline under Respondent’s pro-
882 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
gressive warning system than would have heen imposed
against either of them but for the presence in their records
of the unlawful warnings, and any other promotional, bid-
ding, transfer, or other employment rights generally accorded
by Respondent to its employees which were adversely af-
fected, denied, impaired, reduced, or delayed their detriment
as a consequence of said warnings.
On these findings of fact and onclusions of law on the en-
tire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, E. R. Carpenter Company, Inc., Elkhart,
Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating employees about their union
activities and support for the Union including whether any
employee signed a union card or seeking the identity of any
employe who passed out pamphlets in the plant during the
union organizational campaign.
(b) Threatening employees with plant closure and job loss
if they supported the Union and the Union came in.
(c) Issuing final warnings to employees because of their
activities in support of the Union.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole employee Thomas Martin and Robert
Ragland for any losses they have incurred as a result of the
discrimination against them plus interest as set forth in the
remedy section of the decision.
(b) Expunge from the files of Martin and Ragland any ref-
erence to the unlawful warninys against them and notify
them in writiny that this has been done and that such warn-
ings will not be used against them in any future personnel
matter.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its facility in Elkhart, Indiana, copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with plant closure and
job loss for supporting Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers
Local Union No. 364, a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO or if the Union gets in.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate mployees about their
activities on behalf of the Union, or whether they signed a
union card or seek the identity of any employee who passes
out handbills in the plant during a union organizational cam-
paign.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against Thomas Martin and
Robert Ragland or any other employee by issuing them a
final written warning because of their activities on behalf of
the Union, and we will expunge from the personnel files of
Thamos Martin and Robert Ragland any reference to the
warnings issued against them on May 3, 1990, and inform
them when this has been done and that such warnings will
not be used against them in the future and, we will make
them whole for any loss of employment benefits they in-
curred as a result of such warnings plus interest.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed you by Section 7 of the Act.
E. R. CARPENTER COMPANY, INC.