Hamlin Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 18, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 774 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unions affiliated with Building and Construction Trades Councils in the geographical area. There is nothing in this record to show that the work jurisdiction of any such union includes offsite work. Nor does it appear that Alexander, a general contractor in the construc- tion industry, ever undertakes or subcontracts work to be done off- site. The only evidence presented in this proceeding concerning work undertaken or subcontracted by Alexander relates to work that was to be performed at a construction site.? Other surrounding circumstances also serve to cast doubt upon the, General Counsel's contention that article IV applies to offsite work.. Thus, there is a conspicuous absence of any showing that article IV has been applied to offsite work in the past, even though article IV has been in existence for over 5 years. Consequently, it does not appear that the State court injunction has been applied or is intended to apply to work to be performed offsite. The Respondent has assured Alexander in writing that it only expects Alexander to com- ply with the terms of its collective-bargaining agreement to the ex- tent that Alexander contracts or subcontracts work to be done at a construction jobsite. And the Respondent has also asserted that only the fact that Alexander has appealed the issuance of the injunction has prevented Respondent from seeking a modification thereof ex- pressly limiting it to jobsite work.8 We conclude, therefore, that the language of article IV is not suf- ficiently clear to allow a finding that it is illegal under Section 8(e) of the Act as modified by the proviso. We further conclude that the evidence of the implementation of article IV and the surrounding circumstances likewise do not establish any such illegality. We shall, accordingly, dismiss the complaint.9 [The Board dismissed the complaint.] 7 That is, the aforementioned work which had been initially subcontracted by Alexander to Fowler but which was taken away from Fowler as a result of the state court injunction 8 Letter of Respondent 's attorney , Reich , to Alexander's attorneys, dated August 11, 1964 'Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union Local No. 546 , IBT (Minnesota Milk Con- pang), supra; Chauffeurs , Teamsters and Helpers "General" Local Union No 200 , Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc. (Milwaukee Cheese Company ), 144 NLRB 826 Hamlin Products , Inc. and International Union , United Auto- mobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO. Case No. 26-CA-1895. March 18, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On December 23, 1964, Trial Examiner Ivar II. Peterson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond- 151 NLRB No. 93. HAMLIN PRODUCTS, INC. 775 ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. 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 brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. 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 Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed on August 12 and September 14, 1964 , respectively , by International Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 26, issued a complaint on September 14, 1964, against Hamlin Products , Inc., herein called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act. The complaint, as amended at the hearing , alleged that the Respondent dis- criminatorily discharged Al Joiner and , by interrogation , threats, issuance of warning slips, and promulgation of a rule forbidding union activity or organizing on company time or company property , interfered with , restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. In its answer , the Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peterson in Little Rock, Arkansas , on November 5, 1964. The Respondent and the General Counsel were represented by counsel and afforded full opportunity to participate in the hearing . Briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent , an Arkansas corporation , is engaged at its plant in Little Rock, Arkansas , in the manufacture, sale, and shipment of aluminum portable kitchens and other products. During the calendar year 1963, the Respondent directly shipped products of a value in excess of $50,000 to points in States of the United States other than the State of Arkansas. The Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union , International Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. TFIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference , restraint , and coercion Organizational activity among the Respondent 's employees began during the mid- ,dle of March 1964.1 Employee Al Joiner, a diecasting machine operator whose discharge on July 3 is considered below, was contacted by a local official of the Union, and he thereafter spoke to some fellow employees in the plant " to see how they felt about a union ." Meetings of small groups of employees were held with the union representative , and Joiner and other employees favoring organization solicited sig- natures to union cards , which Joiner turned over to the union representative. At a meeting on June 2, Earl Elliott, an international representative of the Union, told employees who had been selected as members of an in-plant organizing committee that a letter was being sent to the Respondent naming the members of the committee which would reach the Respondent on June 4, and that they should wear union but- tons and other insignia that day . Elliott's letter of June 2, naming 12 employees as members of the in-plant organizing committee , was received by the Respondent on June 4. Joiner's name headed the list and John Ray, another diecaster, was second on the list . That day Joiner , Ray, and other members of the committee began wear- ing union buttons and other union insignia while at work. Both Joiner and Ray worked on the second or night shift on June 4. During the course of that shift , Chester Bouse , the assembly and diecasting production super- visor, stayed at the plant , although he normally left at the end of the first or day shift, and Gene Spencer, supervisor of the portable kitchens department , spent some time in the diecasting room, an unusual circumstance , closely observing the die- -casters and attempting to overhear their conversations . Before the end of the shift, these two supervisors issued a total of five written warning slips to Joiner , Ray, and Joe McEuen , another diecaster , who also was wearing a union emblem although not then a member of the in-plant organizing committee 2 According to the uncon- troverted testimony of these employees , which I credit, there was no announced company policy regarding the issuance of warning slips. A consideration of the employee conduct for which the warning slips were issued during the second shift beginning June 4, indicates that Bouse and Spencer were engaged in harassing known adherents of the Union rather than in enforcing plant discipline. The warning slip given by Spencer to Ray on June 4 recited that Ray was "off of the job standing around talking to Johnson and Winton ." Ray admitted he was away from his machine during working time , but explained that he had observed Winton , a parts Inspector, rejecting one of his castings and went over to find out what was wrong with the casting . Joiner's fist warning slip was given him by Spencer, and said that he was "talking to fellow employee while fellow employee was working ." Joiner credibly testified that he and three other employees were together , while two of them, McEuen and Brooks , were making adjustments to a die and that the four of them were "just chatting backwards and forwards ," a not unusual occurrence . Later during the June 4 shift, Supervisor Bouse gave Joiner a second warning slip , consisting of an itemization by time intervals of Joiner 's activity between midnight and 1:20 a in. On its face, this document does not indicate that Joiner engaged in any misconduct ; his uncontradicted testimony regarding his move- ments during this period is persuasive that he was engaged in the normal perform- ance of his duties. McEuen also received two warning slips on June 4. The first, by Spencer, stated that he was "talking to fellow employee while fellow employee was working ." In fact, McEuen , while on a break was helping another employee at the latter 's request . McEuen protested to Spencer , saying he did not appreciate being given the slip under such circumstances . Thereafter , McEuen showed the slip to the employee he had been helping as well as to others in the department. He was then given a warning slip by Bouse , reciting that he returned to work 10 minutes late after receiving a warning slip for talking to another employee and that he had "walked around plant showing slip to fellow employees." Neither Bouse nor Spencer testified . Although the incidents as recorded by Bouse and Spencer were acknowledged by the employees involved to have occurred, it i Unless otherwise indicated , all dates refer to 1964. 2 blcEuen was listed , along with 14 other employees, as an additional member of the committee in a June 18 letter the Union sent the Respondent HAMLIN PRODUCTS, INC. 777 seems clear that , with the possible exception of McEuen 's conduct in going around the department exhibiting his first slip and being late for work as a result , the inci- dents were not of an unusual nature or in conflict with any published plant rules. Nor does the record show that these employees were engaging in organizing or soliciting activities on working time, or disrupting plant discipine or in fact inter- fering with other employees . Rather, the inference I draw is that Bouse and Spencer issued the warning slips because these employees were identified as proponents of the Union and in an effort to impede and interfere with organizational activity. On June 5, Supervisor Bouse came to Ray and asked what the Union "was going to do for us ." In reply, Ray said he did not know . Bouse then stated that an employee on another shift had said that the Union was coming in on June 6 and that diecasters were going to get $3.75 an hour , Ray replied he "wasn't stupid enough to believe something like that." Ray also testified to a conversation he had with. Mrs. Hamlin , secretary -treasurer of the Respondent , on June 10 or 11. According to Ray's version , he encountered Hamlin outside the plant as he was coming to work. She remarked , "I see you are wearing your union button ," and then asked what the employees "were going to get from the union ." Ray told her that "the biggest thing I was after was job security ," to which Hamlin replied that she did not think the employees needed it . Ray then, so he testified , referred to "occasions where other employers have fired people because they didn 't like their appearance or their dress at work"; Hamlin indicated that the Respondent was "not that radical ," was satisfied with the employees , and did not "want to get rid of any ." Hamlin testified that Ray came up to her and she asked what he wanted , and that in the conversation Ray "did go into, more or less," what he had testified to about being concerned with job• security and that employees not be fired because "somebody doesn 't like them." However, she denied that she commented about his wearing a union button or asked him about the Union or why he was in it. Ray's account of the conversation and how it began seems to me moie plausible, and I accept it . I doubt that he would have made his comments about job security in answer to a general query from Hamlin as to what he wanted ; to the contrary , I find she referred to his union button and couched her question in terms of what he or the employees expected to gain through, the Union. About June 27, Supervisor Bouse questioned employee McEuen in his office as to what occupation McEuen had listed for himself on his union card. McEuen replied he had not put anything down, whereupon Bouse said McEuen "wouldn ' t be listed as a die caster" on the basis of his operating a diecasting machine about 6 months of the year and in that connection asked if McEuen could afford to be out of a job for 6 months. Bouse further stated that McEuen , who had also worked as an inspector and operated a punch press when not working as a diecaster, would not be allowed to perform these jobs as in the past. On or about June 15, the Respondent posted the following notice , signed by President Hamlin , above the timeclocks where notices to employees are customarily posted. There will be no union activity or organizing on company time or company property. Thereafter , in the latter part of June, a new notice was substituted, reading as follows: There will be no union activity or organizing on company time and on com- pany property. There is no explanation in the record as to why the language in the notice banning union activity or organizing "on company time or company property " was changed to "on company time and on company property ." Nor does the record disclose what, if any, difference there was in the application of the two versions of the notice. As found below , the rule was in fact applied against Joiner for giving union authoriza- tion cards to other employees while he and the other employees were on nonworking time and in a nonworking area of the plant. In context and considering all the circumstances , I am persuaded that by the fore- going actions the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act . Immediately upon being informed by the Union of the identity of employees designated as members of its in-plant organizing committee , the Respondent through Supervisors Bouse and Spencer kept employees in the diecasting room, where at least four employees identi- fied as members of the committee worked 3 under close observation . The employee conduct for which Bouse and Spencer issued warning slips on the second shift begin- ning June 4, seems to me to be innocuous , in the main , and of a character which S In addition to Joiner and Ray , Ike Johnson and John Winton , also in the diecasting room, were named in the Union's June 2 letter 778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would have gone unnoticed in ordinary circumstances . I conclude and find that Bouse and Spencer , by issuing the warning slips to Joiner, Ray, and McEuen, were penalizing these employees because of their union membership and activity and that the Respondent thereby engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act 4 Under all the circumstances , I also find that the questioning of employee Ray by Supervisor Bouse and Hamlin , Respondent 's secretary-treasurer , as to what benefits the employees expected to gain through the Union, reasonably tended to restrain and interfere with the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (l) of the Act . With respect to Bouse's conversation with McEuen on or about June 27, I find that Bouse questioned McEuen regarding the job classification he had placed on his union card, implied that McEuen's work on a diecasting machine for about 6 months out of the year would not entitle him to be classified as a diecaster and pointedly asked whether McEuen could afford to be out of a job for 6 months , and then stated that McEuen would not be allowed by Bouse to work as an inspector or operate a punch press , as in the past. Bouse 's remarks , I am convinced , plainly implied that McEuen would suffer a loss or reduction in employment by reason of his union activity , and were not, as the Respondent argues in its brief, protected by Section 8(c) as being "a supervisor's predictions on the future effects of unionization or of the course of future events beyond his control." Accordingly , I find that the Respondent thereby violated Sec- tion 8 ( a) (1) of the Act. As originally promulgated , the Respondent 's rule prohibiting "union activity or organizing on company time or company property" on its face barred union solicita- tion on company property even on an employee 's nonworking time, and also barred the distribution of union literature in nonworking areas of the Respondent 's property during an employee's nonworking time. In the absence of special circumstances mak- ing the rule necessary in either respect, under well-settled principles it was an invalid no-solicitation rule as well as an invalid no-distribution rule, and I so find. See Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, enfd. 289 F . 2d 117 (C.A. 5); Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615. In effect, the Respondent con- tends that when the rule was modified to bar "union activity or organization on com- pany time and on company property" the reach of the rule was limited to working time, and was therefore valid. While the modified rule is, on its face , susceptible of the construction urged by the Respondent , the record shows that the modified rule was invoked against Joiner for soliciting other employees by giving them union cards while he and they were on nonworking time and in a nonworking area of the plant. I find, therefore , that the Respondent 's rule, both as originally promulgated and as thereafter modified and enforced , was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Harold Miller, et al., d/b/a Miller Charles and Company, 148 NLRB, 579. B. The discriminatory discharge of Al Joiner Joiner, a diecasting machine operator, was employed by the Respondent in June 1961 and worked regularly until his discharge on July 3, 1964 . As found above, Joiner played a leading role in initiating union activity and interest among the Respondent's employees . His name was at the head of the list of members of the in-plant organizing committee named in the Union 's letter received by the Respond- ent on June 4, and beginning that day he wore union insignia while at work. Also as found above , Joiner was penalized for his union membership and activity while on the second shift beginning on June 4, by being issued two warning slips. The immediate circumstances of Joiner 's discharge are not in dispute. On the evening of July 3, during the supper break between 8:30 and 9 p .m., he and other employees were eating their lunch on the ramp outside one of the plant buildings. Thurman Garner,5 supervisor of the gas light department , was one of those present. There was discussion regarding the Union , and Joiner gave Garner and two other employees union authorization cards. Garner left the group and went back into the building. Shortly after Joiner had returned to work Garner and Supervisor Spencer came to his work station and Garner handed Joiner a warning slip reading as follows: 7/3/64 Mrs. Hamlin Al Joyner [sic] was handing out union cards on company property. (S) Thurman L. Garner 4 In so finding, I have not relied upon the incident involving the warning slip given McEuen by Bouse, after McEuen showed the first slip to employees in the department and in consequence was late for work, nor upon the incident on June 5 when Ray got a slip for going out of his department on his lunch break to talk to another employee during the latter's working time 6 Referred to as Gardner in the complaint. HAMLIN PRODUCTS, INC. 779 Garner told Joiner that his timecard had been pulled and that he could go home as this was his third warning slip. Spencer exhibited Joiner's timecard but said nothing. Joiner then changed from his work clothes , gathered up his personal belongings, and left the plant. According to the Respondent , as testified by President Hamlin who took sole responsibility for the decision to terminate Joiner , the conclusion had been reached during the afternoon of July 3 to discharge Joiner, but to do so after the July 4 holiday so that he would be paid for that holiday . 6 The basis for this decision, so Hamlin testified , was that for some weeks Joiner's machine had broken down a number of times and that Joiner was regarded as responsible . He testified that in the latter part of June, after investigating what was causing foreign matter to appear in the oil in the hydraulic system of Joiner 's machine , "we had just about determined that it couldn ' t be anything else but sabotage ." Then, upon reviewing Joiner's per- sonnel file, it was discovered that he had 3 warning slips and it was determined "to act on his third ticket." 7 Hamlin further testified , on cross-examination , that about 9 p.m., on July 3, while he was at home , Supervisor Spencer telephoned him and "reported that Mr. Garner was having some trouble with Mr. Joiner ." According to Hamlin , Spencer did not report the details of the "trouble" or state that Joiner had passed out union cards during the lunch break . He made no inquiry as to the nature of the "trouble" with Joiner "because the decision had already been made to let the man go and I just said , `Let him go now.' " The investigation into the cause of the difficulties with Joiner's machine , so Hamlin stated, extended "over probably a five or six weeks' period ," during which "we checked every angle possible " before "we began to suspicion or wonder if it were being deliberately done by something ." However, he gave no pertinent details of the investigation or who conducted it. He admitted , on cross-examination , that other employees operated the machine inasmuch as two shifts were regularly worked, but he was unable to identify the other regular operator or to explain why only Joiner was associated with the mechanical difficulty . After first testifying that the Respond- ent "had just about determined that it couldn 't be anything else but sabotage," attributable to Joiner , Hamlin on redirect retracted that accusation by stating, "I have never testified , nor do I testify now, that I think Joiner or any other particular person sabotaged that machine." Hamlin did not impress me as a credible witness, and a careful reading of his testimony confirms this impression . Not only did he testify in general terms and fail to supply convincing detail that surely was available if in fact an investigation lasting 5 or 6 weeks had been made, but more importantly he seriously impaired his credibility by first making and then retracting the accusation of sabotage by Joiner. I do not believe that any credible evidence supports Hamlin 's claim that Joiner was responsible for the malfunction of the diecasting machine or that the determination to discharge him after the July 4 holiday , and on that account, was made during the afternoon of July 3. The alternative reason suggested in Hamlin's testimony, namely, that Joiner had received three warning slips, is of no avail to the Respond- ent, since two of them were issued for reasons violative of the Act. Supervisors Garner and Spencer were not called as witnesses . However, after the Respondent had rested its case and during General Counsel 's rebuttal , the prehearing statements given by them to a Board agent were received in evidence pursuant to a stipulation , which was phrased by counsel for the Respondent , that if Garner and Spencer were called as witnesses "they would testify as their affidavits read." In substantial part, these statements corroborate Joiner's testimony regarding the dis- charge and contradict Hamlin's account of the telephone conversation between him- self and Spencer . Thus, Garner's statement recites that: While eating lunch on the night of July 3 with Joiner and others, Joiner gave him and another employee a union card and "said he wished we would all sign cards"; Garner then reported what 9 The Respondent paid employees for certain holidays , provided they worked the day before and the day after the holiday. In October 1961 Joiner , as he admitted , had been verbally warned for tardiness A warning slip to that effect was produced by the Respondent , although Joiner credibly testi- fied that he had not been given a copy Two warning slips had been given him during the second shift beginning June 4, as found above . In his testimony , Hamlin referred to the second warning slip given Joiner on June 4 to 5 as his "third ticket ," and stated he was aware early in June that Joiner had three "tickets "; he said Joiner was not discharged then because lie "was quite conspicuous at that time with his union button . . and we just wanted to make absolutely sure that we were not doing something that we shouldn't do." 780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had happened to Spencer , who telephoned Hamlin; after the call Spencer told Garner "to write up the warning slip"; Spencer "said he would pull Joiner 's timecard him- self"; and Garner gave Joiner the warning slip , in the presence of Spencer , and told Joiner his "time card had been punched and he could go on home." Spencer 's state- ment recites that: Garner came to see him during the lunch break and told him that Joiner "had been passing out union cards on plant property during the lunch break and had even given a union card to Garner during the break"; Spencer then decided to telephone Hamlin , rather than discharge Joiner on his own authority , " to ask him what should be done and to tell him what Garner had told me"; that he (Spencer ) "told Mr. Hamlin that Al Joiner had been passing out union cards to Garner and other employees on the lunch break "; "Mr. Hamlin said for me to fire Al Joiner for violating Company policy "; after the call to Hamlin, "Garner and I decided ourselves what should be put on" the warning slip; Garner in Spencer's presence "told Joiner that he was fired ... because it was Joiner's" third warning slip. Upon all the evidence , I conclude that Joiner was discriminatorily discharged on July 3, 1964 , for having violated the Respondent 's rule which invalidly prohibited union solicitation during nonworking time, and that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.8 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent found to constitute unfair labor practices as set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above , have a close , intimate , and substantial rela- tion to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take appropriate affirmative action in order to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. Since I have found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Al Joiner, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered from the date of the discrimination to the date of the Respond- ent's offer of reinstatement . The backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula approved in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 , with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum , as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve and make available to the Board , upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of backpay due and the right to reinstatement. As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are of a character striking at the root of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, it will be recom- mended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hamlin Products , Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 8 There Is testimony , by Hamlin and Joiner , that Joiner was in difficulty with his creditors and that by arrangement with the Respondent , Joiner had had sums deducted from his wages to pay his creditors . Hamlin testified that at some time, not fixed , Joiner was told that this practice could not continue because the business "was getting too large" and "other employees [ were] asking for the same type of courtesy and we finally did stop it." The Respondent does not seriously claim , and certainly the evidence on this subject does not support a finding to that effect , that these problems with Joiner caused his termination. HAMLIN PRODUCTS, INC. 781 2. International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural imple- ment Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By issuing written warning slips to its employees, coercively interrogating them, threatening loss of or reduction in employment , and promulgating , maintaining, and enforcing an invalid no-solicitation and no-distribution rule, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Al Joiner, thereby discouraging membership in the aforesaid labor organization , the Respond- ent has violated Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case , it is recommended that the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, order that the Respondent, Hamlin Products , Inc., Little Rock, Arkansas , its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: ( a) Penalizing any employee by issuing written warnings or threatening loss of or reduction in employment because of , or interrogating any employee concerning, any employee 's activity , membership , or interest in any labor organization, in a manner constituting interference , restraint , or coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (b) Promulgating , maintaining , or enforcing a rule prohibiting employees during nonworking time from engaging in union solicitation on Respondent 's property or distributing union literature in nonworking areas of Respondent 's plant. ( c) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of , International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , by discharging any of its employees or otherwise discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employ- ment or any term or condition of employment. (d) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-mentioned union or any other labor organization , to bargain collectivey through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging in such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Al Joiner immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub- stantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges , and make him whole in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. (b) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents , upon request, for examination and copying , all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary and pertinent to compute the amount of backpay and ascertain the right to reinstatement. (d) Post at its plant at Little Rock, Arkansas , the attached notice marked "Appendix ." 9 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for 9In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Region 26, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of the Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.io "In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 26 in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " 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 Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Interna- tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work- ers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by dis- charging any of our employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to our employees' hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condi- tion of employment. WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain, or enforce a rule prohibiting employees during nonworking time from engaging in union solicitation on our property or distributing union literature in nonworking areas of our plant. WE WILL NOT interrogate any employee with respect to any employee's activ- ity, membership, or interest in any labor organization, or penalize any employee by issuing to him written warnings, or threaten loss of or reduction in employ- ment, because of such activity, membership, or interest, in a manner constitut- ing interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the said Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ- ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer to Al Joiner immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization. HAMLIN PRODUCTS, INC, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Fed- eral Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee, Telephone 534- 3161, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.