Intercontinental Mfg. Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1973

201 N.L.R.B. 694 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intercontinental Mfg. Co., Inc.,Bergman Manufactur-
ing Company and International Association of
Machinist and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.
Case 16-CA-4754
February 7, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On October 24, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas S. Wilson issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed an exception, and Respondent filed exceptions
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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge2 and to
adopt his recommended Order with the additions
noted herein.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as
modified below and hereby orders that Respondent,
Intercontinental Mfg. Co., Inc., Bergman Manufac-
turing Company, Garland, Texas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order as modified below:
1. Add the following as paragraph 1(a) and
renumber the succeeding paragraphs accordingly:
"(a) Interrogating employees about their union
sympathies."
2. Delete paragraph 2(b) and renumber the
succeeding paragraphs accordingly.
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge' s resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C.A 3) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
Respondent 's exceptions also claim that the Administrative Law Judge
made certain errors in reporting the dates and other information contained
in Respondent's personnel records The claim goes to minor factual matters
which do not affect the ultimate findings and conclusions of the
Administrative Law Judge
2 The Respondent 's allegations of bias and prejudice on the part of the
Administrative Law Judge are not supported by the record and are hereby
rejected
3 The Administrative Law Judge found , and we agree . that Supervisor
O'Pry engaged in coercive interrogation of Troy Hill on November 30, 1971,
in violation of Sec 8 (a)(I) of the Act . However , the Administrative Law
Judge inadvertently omitted setting out this violation in his conclusions of
law and providing a specific remedy therefor In accord with the request of
the General Counsel, we hereby correct this omission and shall include a
specific remedy for this violation
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their
union sympathies.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment of
any of our employees because of their union
activities.
WE WILL offer to Troy Hill immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, and we will pay him for any
loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of our
discrimination against him, together with interest
thereon at 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights to self organization, to form, join or
assist a union of their own choosing, to bargain
collectively through a collective bargaining agent
chosen by our employees, to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any such activities.
INTERCONTINENTAL MFG.
CO., INC., BERGMAN
MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above-named indi-
vidual, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States, of the right to full reinstatement,
upon application after discharge from the Armed
Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
201 NLRB No. Ill
INTERCONTINENTAL MFG. CO., INC. 695
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room
8-A-24, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102,
Telephone 817-334-2921.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
exceeded $500,000. During the same period of time,
Respondent shipped and transported products valued in
excess of $50,000 from its plant in interstate commerce
directly to the States of the United States other than the
State of Texas. During the same period of time, Respon-
dent received goods valued in excess of $50,000 transport-
ed to its plant in interstate commerce directly from States
of the United States other than the State of Texas.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent is now and have
been at all times material herein an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THOMAS S. WILSON, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a
charge duly filed on April 19, 1972, by International
Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Union or the Charging
Party, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein referred to as the General
Counsel I and the Board, respectively, by the Regional
Director for Region 16 (Fort Worth, Texas), issued its
complaint dated June 30, 1972, against Intercontinental
Mfg. Co., Inc., Bergman Manufacturing Company, herein
referred to as the Respondent.
The complaint alleged that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act,
1947, as amended, herein referred to as the Act.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain
allegations of the complaint but denying the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing thereon was held before me
in Dallas, Texas, on August 3, 1972. All parties appeared at
the hearing, were represented by counsel, and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence materi-
al and pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion of the
hearing oral argument was waived. Briefs have been
received from General Counsel and Respondent on
September 1, 1972.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I
hereby find that:
Intercontinental Mfg. Co., Inc., Bergman Manufacturing
Company, is now and has been at all times material herein,
a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue
of, the laws of the District of Columbia, and is engaged in
the manufacturing of bomb casings, missile motor cases,
and aircraft parts and subassemblies at its plant in
Garland, Texas. During the past 12 months, Respondent,
in the course and conduct of its business operations, sold
and distributed products, the gross value of which
11. THE UNION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinist and Aerospace
Workers , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The Union had been trying-unsuccessfully until Febru-
ary 9, 1972-to organize the employees of Respondent
since about the year 1962.
Troy Hill began his employment with Respondent on
June 6, 1961, and, according to Respondent's records,
became an employee in department 60, the plant machine
shop, on April 9, 1963. Since then Hill has spent about 8
years of his employment with Respondent in department
60. The remainder of that time Troy was on layoff status
from Respondent due to lack of work except for a period
of some months about 1969 when he was transferred by
Respondent to the bomb line in lieu of again being laid off.
Although, as a classified "machinist master," Hill could
and did operate any machine in department 60 according
to his particular assignment , he spent about 90 percent of
his time in the department operating turret lathes.
Hill had always been interested in the Union and active
in its numerous unsuccessful campaigns since 1962. By
September 1971, when the Union began its last, and
successful, campaign, Troy had become the acknowledged
leader of the union movement in the plant. His member-
ship in and activities on behalf of the Union were open and
well known to Respondent's officials.
On one occasion during the last union campaign which
began around September 1971, Hill and employees Max
Nash and Charles O'Brien were in a department other than
department 60 when the supervisor of that department, Bill
Hunt, stopped them and inquired what they were doing.
Hill answered, "I'm back here signing up some of your
hands." According to O'Brien, Hunt then answered, "Well,
I ought to be President of that, of your local because I've
had more to do with people joining than you have."
On another occasion during this campaign, Hill and
Nash were back near the vending machines by the
projectal area when they met executive Harry Ingram and
William O'Pry, supervisor of department 60. Ingram asked
what they were doing to which Hill answered that they
I This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General
Counsel at the hearing
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were signing up some men . Ingram replied, "I thought you
already had them signed up." "Most of them" answered
Hill which concluded the conversation.2
On November 30, 1971, leadman Junior South of
department 60, sent Hill to Supervisor Moore 's office
where William O'Pry, supervisor of department 60 among
others, opened the conversation with Hill by stating, "I
think we might be able to talk without causing a suit or
something . . . I dust want to know why you're for the
Union." After Hill gave an answer , O'Pry replied that
"There's a lot of crooks in unions , and most unions are no
damn good or no good." 3
In 1971 an "Employees Committee" was in existence at
the plant. Originally this Employees Committee consisted
of eight employees appointed by Respondent which
discussed matters of interest to the employees including
layoffs and transfers among other things . Finally four
employees were elected by the employees and replaced
four of those previously appointed to the position. Early in
1972 meetings of this committee and Respondent ceased.
Under date of February 1, 1972, the four elected
employee representatives, including Hill, sent , with assist-
ance from the Union, the following signed letter to the
plant employees:
TO: Our Fellow employees at IMCO, Bergman, and
Trailer
We are giving you this report, since you elected us to
represent you on the Employee's Committee [sic) at
work. Many of you have asked us what has happened
to the Employee's Committee, and why the meetings
have been discontinued. We have asked the Union, (the
IAM & AW) to mail this letter for us so that we might
give you our views on the Employee' s Committee.
When we first began attending the meetings, we
believed that by representing the employees, as com-
mitteemen , we would be able to get things done for
you.
As time went by, we found that we were helpless. We
were put in the position of asking for something, being
told flatly, "NO," and that was that!
We believe that we would be able to act on your
grievances. When we tried to do this, we were told "No,
you have nothing to do with this."
We asked for the minutes of our meetings to be put
on the bulletin board. We were told, "No, that will just
give the employees something more to gripe about."
2 In his complaint General Counsel alleged these two conversations to
constitute illegal "interrogations " in violation of the Act I cannot agree
because on both occasions the employees were obviously out of their own
departments which gave Respondent 's officials the necessary opening to
make the inquiry they made even though , as I suspect , the officials may well
have had the idea that the employees were soliciting memberships in the
Union and interested in stopping that activity Respondent had no "no
solicitation rule " I will dismiss this allegation of the complaint . However
these incidents do corroborate Respondent 's admission that Hill's union
activities were well known to them
s This conversation in a private office by a high supervisory official of
Respondent was intentionally coercive and consequently is a violation of
Sec. 8(a X 1)
O'Pry's testimony that he did not recall any such conversation but that, if
it occurred, Hill had opened the, onversation and O 'Pry had merely stated
his "opinion." testimony which O'Pry repeated twice almost word for word
This testimony , if considered a denial, was singularly unconvincing,
especially as it did not account for the fact that O'Pry had had Hill called to
We were told by Mr. Motley that we could only
discuss things that affected the whole plant, such as the
hams (which we, as employees, pay for). We could not
discuss your individual work-related problems.
Then at our meeting on January 5, 1972, Mr. Motley
told us that the meetings would be discontinued. We
were not allowed to vote on it, or discuss it. This has
been the history of our meetings . Mr. Motley makes the
decisions, and that's it!
We do want you to know that we have honestly tried
to represent you but under the present system, it is
impossible for any one to do this.
Charles O'Brien Dept 71
Troy Hill Dept 60
James Crawford Dept 76
Robert H. Repp Dept 80
Eight days thereafter, on February 9, 1972, the represen-
tation election in the plant was held. The Union won.
In the afternoon of the next day, February 10, leadman
Junior South once again came to Hill's machine with the
information that O'Pry wanted to see him in his office. On
this occasion O'Pry stated that "Well, you know the
situation out here. We're out of work." O'Pry added that
employees Buster Eason and Marion Hill were going to be
the only two lathe operators in department 60 and that
Monday, February 14, would be Hill's last day of
employment. Troy Hill answered that he "thought as long
as we were under the same foreman we could be moved
around." O'Pry replied, "No, we're going strictly by
departmental seniority." Thereupon Hill asked permission
to see Joe Motley, program director with specific responsi-
bility for the personnel department and Respondent's
representative on the defunct Employees Committee.
O'Pry made the appointment for Hill.
On reaching Motley's office, Troy stated, "I thought in a
previous Employees Committee meeting that you said that
employees could be moved around in order to save laying
them off." Motely answered, "Well, since the election, it's a
new ballgame.4 Motley then denied having made any such
statement at the Employees Committee meeting and
requested that Troy Hill show him the minutes of the
meeting in which he was supposed to have made this
statement .5 Motley also remarked that the committeemen's
letter of February 1, "wasn't exactly right, that he had
stated that the union meetings were adjourned, not
the office Junior South did not testify
Hill impressed me as a very honest witness O'Pry did not
4 Motley denied having made this statement but denied nothing else of
Hill's testimony regarding their meeting.
S Motley further testified that Hill never produced the requested
minutes However at the hearing General Counsel produced a letter to the
employees over the signature of Ray Shape , the president of Respondent
who has since been promoted to a higher position in the conglomerate of
which Respondent is a part . dated February 21, 1969, which stated in
pertinent part as follows-
To all employees,
What happens to your company's business is important to you it
affects you and your job security In order that you may be fully
informed about your company's present business and plans, read
carefully the following
(I) Your company received orders for an additional quantity of 500
lb bombs These have to be sold at lower prices than before
(2) Your company was expecting to receive a major contract for 750
INTERCONTINENTAL MFG. CO., INC.
discontinued" and that was a big difference. Hill retorted
that Motley had stated that the meetings were discontinued
but "might be picked up after the election." Hill ended this
conversation by stating, "Well, I guess I'll just have to get
help somewhere else."
So as a result of the above, Troy's work for Respondent
ceased as of February 14, 1972.
He has not since been reinstated although counsel for
Respondent during the hearing offered him a job as a
tracer lathe operator in a new department 77 at $3.63 per
hour. Hill was being paid $3.95 per hour in department 60
which was then working 4 10-hour days per week which
with the 2 hours overtime pay per day averaged out at a
rate of $4.27 per hour.
B. Conclusions
After the hearing, but before having the opportunity to
study the exhibits herein, I was of the opinion that this case
should be dismissed. However a study of the exhibits
introduced here has convinced me to the contrary.
In the first place, on Thursday, February 10, 1972, so far
as anyone knew, Respondent apparently adhered to the
company layoff policy which President Ray Shape had
publicly announced it to be in his letter to the employees
dated February 21, 1969, to wit, "If your work is
eliminated, your Company will make every effort to place
you on another job according to your seniority and your
effective capability."
At least Respondent had publicly announced no other or
new layoff policy until February 10, 1972, the day after the
election, when Motley told Hill that, "since the election,
it's a new ball game" in confirming O'Pry's new strict
seniority by department and by classification therein
without any transfer policy.
Of course, as noted, Motley denied having made the
above statement. However, even if we should credit that
denial, which I cannot do, the fact remains that the day
after the election, Respondent's policy on layoffs was
changed unilaterally and radically at least in department
60 and was, in fact, "a new ball game." So even if Motley
did not make this statement , Respondent's layoff policy
was, in fact, "a whole new ball game."
O'Pry testified that he was instructed to make the layoff
"strictly according to seniority." Company records prove
that it was not. Then the instructions were to layoff strictly
according to "departmental seniority." Records again
prove that it was not. Finally the layoff was to be in
lb bombs which would have resulted in the addition of some 600
employees to the payroll The bomb requirement was cancelled by the
Government
(3) The 2,000 lb bomb will continue in production at a reduced
delivery rate
(4) Your company has been , and is bidding on additional work, but
in order to be successful against keen competition our efficiency must
be increased . Efficiency can be increased by eliminating waste in man
hours, materials , and supplies Clock jumping, loafing , abuse of
equipment and tools, rejected parts, careless workmanship all add up to
waste and increased cost Let us stop waste.
(5) Last year your company granted major increases to you in rates
and benefits , and it was pointed out then that the increased cost would
have to be overcome by increased efficiency Waste cuts profits Waste
cuts into your ability to earn more
697
accordance with "departmental seniority by classification."
It still was not.
As for the use of departmental seniority , accepting for
the nonce Respondent's definition of seniority as being the
"hiring in" date of an employee , Respondent's records
show that Troy Hill ranked eighth on the departmental
seniority list. However on February 14, 1972, he was laid
off while 10 men with lesser seniority were retained in
department 60 and an 1 I th , E.J. Sharp who was laid off at
the same time as Hill , was back working for Respondent
by May 30, 1972, according to the available records.
This, of course , would indicate discrimination against
Hill which , perhaps, accounts for the addition of the
"classification" seniority to that of the department. Sharp
had a lesser classification in department 60.
Seniority usually means, in the absence of some contract
definition of which there was none in the instant case, the
length of time an employee has served in the particular
function or department.
However , the list of employees made up and used by
O'Pry in making the layoffs in department 60 proves that,
in addition to grouping the employees in department 60
into three classifications of "milling machine operators,"
"lathe operators ," and "drill operators ," O'Pry listed the
"hiring in" date as the seniority date for each listed
employee . O'Pry had also listed the work classification for
each of the employees in the department as well as
numbering each employee in the numerical order of layoff.
Using the seniority based on the "hiring in" date, O'Pry,
who informed Hill that he was retaining only two lathe
operators in department 60, retained George Eason and
Marion Hill , classified respectively as "machinist master"
and "turret lathe-general" but laid off the next man to
Marion Hill on his tabulation , Troy Hill who was classified
as "machinist master."
Thus this layoff was strictly in accordance with the
"hiring in" date seniority as Marion Hill hired in on
January 6, 1961, whereas Troy Hill hired in on June 29,
1961. It also happens to be strictly in accordance with the
date each of these men was first employed in department
60 as that date for Marion Hill happened to be July 13,
1962, as compared to April 9, 1963, for Troy Hill. So far so
good. The trouble , however, develops because Respon-
dent's records further show that in the intervening years
Marion Hill had worked in department 60 only about 3
years as against 8 years in that department for Troy Hill.
That item , as well as the fact that Troy Hill admittedly had
greater capability throughout the department and had a
higher work classification than Marion Hill , obviously was
(6) In view of reduced delivery requirements, the phasing out of
such contracts as the Walleye and Gismo and the need for increased
efficiency, it is necessary to effect a reduction in personnel in some
areas.
(7) In any reduction in force , your company considers seniority and
your effective capability If your work is eliminated, your company will
make every effect to place you on another job according to your seniority
and Your effective capability . I Emphasis supplied.!
(8) Production on all major programs is expected to continue with
some modification in quantities but without any major effect on
employment
As a result of this announced company policy Hill and several other
employees presently in department 60 were . in fact, transferred to the bomb
line in a 1969-70 layoff.
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not considered in the February layoff. Nor did Respondent
consider another fact shown by Respondent's records
which was that, in all layoffs or transfers prior to February
14, 1972, Marion had been laid off or transferred out of
department 60 before Troy Hill and had been recalled
subsequent to Troy Hill. Thus it appears that seniority,
even by classification, was a matter of semantics and
convenience for Respondent in selecting the men for layoff
in February 1972.
In fact, using O'Pry's hiring in date seniority, Troy Hill
became the only "machinist-master" as well as the only
employee with seniority dating in 1961 who suffered a
termination in the 1972 layoff. Through the use of the "by
classification" arrangement, employee Bobby Lee Riley
was retained in department 60 although his hiring in date
was September 11, 1961, as compared to Hill's June 29,
1961, date. But Riley had been classed under "milling
machines operators" while Troy was under "lathe opera-
tors" and hence under this system these two apparently
were not in competition even though it is admitted that
Troy Hill had the capability to operate milling machines
and had done so. Respondent's explanation for this was
that Riley could and did operate a "tape machine." There
is no showing here that Troy could not.
A look at O'Pry's own seniority list or layoff chart which
contained the numbers indicating the order in which the
employees would be laid off proved that, in the case of the
milling machine operators, at least, the employees were not
to be laid off even in accordance with their hiring in date.
In fact on O'Pry's chart the first man listed for layoff was
Robert E. Ites, Jr., with a hiring date of April 16, 1968, and
classified as "M.M.-B" whereas Alvie E. Hill Jr., was the
fourth scheduled man for layoff having an earlier hiring in
date of June 30, 1964, and also classified as "M.M.-A."
Alvie Hill was laid off on February 17, 1972. Although
O'Pry's chart indicates that Ites had been laid off,
Respondent's records available here do not show but do
show that Ites was back working in department 60 at least
by July 25, 1972, while Alvie Hill was not .6 Thus it
becomes apparent that the 1972 layoff effected by O'Pry in
department 60 was definitely not in strict accord with
seniority as claimed by O'Pry and Motley.
According to O'Pry's layoff chart with its "classifica-
tions," Troy Hill was the fourth man among the "lathe
operators" scheduled to be laid off in department 60. The
third employee to be laid off in that classification was
employee William E. Sorrels, listed on O'Pry's chart as
"T.L.-GEN" but listed on other Respondent's documents
as "tool grinder" with a hinng in date of June 21, 1967.
Naturally Sorrels had to be laid off before Troy Hill could
be. In fact Sorrels was laid off on the same day as Troy
Hill. Although Sorrels was laid off on February 14,
Respondent retained through that layoff employee R.
Hernandez, classified "tool grinder," with a hiring in date
of September 23, 1968, whose name does not appear on
O'Pry's chart. In addition classified "tool grinder" E. J.
Sharp, with a hiring in date of May 16, 1969, was also
apparently, according to Respondent's records, laid off on
6 In its original charge the Union listed Alvie Hill's discharge as
discriminatory. The complaint alleged that this part of the Union's charge
had been withdrawn by the Union by telegram on June 30. 1972, the day the
February 14, 1972, although other Respondent records
show that Sharp was back working for Respondent by May
30, 1972, while Sorrels remained in layoff status. Strangely
the names of Hernandez and Sharp do not appear on
O'Pry's layoff chart.
Finally there is uncontradicted evidence in this record
that, shortly after Troy Hill's layoff, employee Ronny
Hebert, listed on O'Pry's chart as a "drill operator" with a
hinng date of January 16, 1968, worked both Troy Hills
lathe and on the milling machines. The evidence is also
uncontradicted that Troy Hill's capabilities on both were
far greater than those of Hebert. It also corroborates the
testimony of others in the department that work in
department 60 was not as slack as Respondent would have
us believe. O'Pry attempted to explain Hebert's work on
the Hill turret on the grounds that it was only for "short
periods of time" and when work was available. O'Pry,
however, gave no indication as to what he considered a
"short periods of time."
Thus I am convinced from Respondent's own records
that the layoff on February 14 of Troy Hill was "a new ball
game , after the election" and manipulated through the use
of seniority by hiring in date and by classification in the
department in order that Respondent could with some
semblance of legitimacy eliminate Troy Hill from its
employ because of his leadership in the Union's successful
effort to secure bargaining rights for Respondent's employ-
ees the day before he was laid off. The use of such a layoff
for such a purpose is in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act. I so find.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III,
above, and occurring in connection with Respondent's
operations described in section 1, above, having a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Troy Hill on
February 14, 1972, because of his leadership in, member-
ship in, and activities on behalf of the Union, I will
recommend that Respondent offer him full and immediate
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists , to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of said discrimination against him by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have
complaint issued No further explanation for this action was made at the
hearing
INTERCONTINENTAL MFG. CO., INC.
earned from the date of the discrimination against him to
the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during such period in accordance with a formula
set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
Because of the type of unfair labor practices engaged in
by Respondent, I sense an opposition by Respondent to
the policies of the Act in general and I deem it necessary to
order Respondent to cease and desist from in any manner
interfering with the rights guaranteed its employees in
Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record herein, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Troy Hill by discharging him on February
14, 1972, because of his membership and activities on
behalf of the Union, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, I
hereby issue the following recommended: 7
ORDER
Respondent Intercontinental Mfg. Co., Inc., Bergman
Manufacturing Company, Garland, Texas, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment or of any term or
condition of employment of any of its employees because
of their union activities.
(b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or
7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
8 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
699
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Troy Hill immediate and full reinstatement
to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of said discrimination against him in the manner set forth
in the section of the Decision entitled "The Remedy" with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
(b) Notify immediately the above-named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of his right to full reinstatement, upon application after his
discharge from the Armed Services in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, as well as all other records
necessary to analyze and compute the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Decision.
(d) Post at its Garland, Texas, facility copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing 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.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith .9
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that , unless Respondent
notifies said Regional Director within 20 days from the
date of the receipt of this Decision, in writing, that it
comply with the foregoing Order, the National Labor
Relations Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
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."
9 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."