ITT Gilfillan

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 11, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 364 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ITT Gilfillan and International Union , United Auto- mobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Work- ers of America-UAW. Case 31-CA-3463 October 11, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On June 27, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Her- man Corenman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief, and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, ITT Gilfillan, Van Nuys, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommend- ed Order. 1 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 are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HERMAN CORENMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard April 16 and 24, 1973, at Los Angeles, California, pursuant to a charge filed by the International Union, Unit- ed Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW and served on the Respondent on November 21, 1972, and a complaint issued January 10, 1973. The complaint alleges violations of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act in the layoff of three employees on November 10, 1972, and in the interrogation of an employ- ee. The Respondent, ITT Gilfillan, admits that it laid off the three employees, but denies that it engaged in unfair labor practices. At a trial, the General Counsel of the Board and the Respondent were represented by counsel. All parties were given full opportunity to examine and cross- examine wit- nesses, to make oral argument, and to file briefs. Posthear- ing briefs submitted by the General Counsel and the Respondent have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs of counsel, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT ITT Gilfillan, herein called the Respondent, is a Dela- ware corporation, with its principal place of business in Van Nuys, California, where it is engaged in the manufacture of radar equipment. Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, annually sells and ships manufac- tured products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to cus- tomers located outside the State of California. Respondent is now, and at all times material herein, has been an employ- er engaged in commerce and in a business affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile , Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, herein called the Union or UAW, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background The Respondent's Van Nuys, California, facility is en- gaged in the manufacture of sophisticated radar equipment, 98 percent of which is pursuant to contract with the United States Government. It employs approximately 1,750 people at the Van Nuys facility. Its production and maintenance employees, approximately 500 in number, have been repre- sented by Local 509 of the UAW since 1967 and have been covered by successive contracts between Local 509 and the Respondent. The remaining employees, consisting of office clerical, administrative, professional, and technical employ- ees, are unrepresented by any labor organization. B. Union Activity Three employees, namely, Joseph Tieger, Lloyd Wall, and Asa Gallup, classified as test technicians in the Unit Test Area of the Quality Assurance Test Department,' sought to organize the quality assurance employees in be- half of the Union. Tieger, Wall, and Gallup, all employed in the unit test 1 In November 1972, there were approximately 65 employees in the quality assurance test department , 25 to 30 of whom were in the unit test area. 206 NLRB No. 99 - ITT GILFILLAN 365 area, solicited other employees in the quality assurance test department to sign union authorization cards. Tieger, em- ployed on the night shift, having obtained,a quantity of union authorization cards, met with Gallup and Wall, day- shift employees, at the unit test area near Holub's office about 4 p.m., October 25, during shift changes. At this meet- ing, Tieger handed a quantity of union authorization cards to Gallup and Wall, employed on the day shift, who were to obtain signatures. On the following day, October 26, 1972, Tieger again met with Gallup and Wall near Holub's office. At this meeting Gallup and Wall turned in signed cards to Tieger. Tieger, Wall and Gallup testified that this meeting between themselves on October 26 near Holub's office was observed by Supervisor Holub. Holub denied that he saw any passing of cards between Tieger, Gallup, and Wall, although he concedes he may have observed somebody standing around near his office and looked at them disapprovingly as that was not a work area. C. The Layoffs On November 10, 1972, Tieger, Wall, and Gallup were laid off in a reduction in force, although they had greater length of service than most other test technicians and junior test technicians who were retained. The Respondent asserts, and I find on the basis of the undisputed evidence, that under the current policy of the Respondent with respect to its nonunionized employees, the identity of employees to be laid off in a reduction in force is based on four factors; namely, (a) educational background; (2) performance in all factors; (3) individual capacity to perform the remaining work; and (4) individual capacity for potential growth with the Company. Length of service is considered in the selec- tion for layoff only when the above-noted four factors are equal among the employees to be considered for layoff.3 The record shows without contradiction and I find that in the past the Respondent in many cases has effected layoffs of more senior employees without consideration of the employee's length of service. The Respondent's policies and procedures also provide that "when openings occur in classifications in which there are employees on layoff, such employees on layoff will be given preferential consideration to recall for openings"; also "on all layoff actions, Industrial Relations will attempt to transfer layoff candidates to suitable openings within ITT Gilfillan and in other ITT Divisions or Subsidiaries." The policy also provides that "the layoff procedure shall not be used for disciplinary purposes." The fact remains undisput- ed that the Respondent made no attempt to transfer Tieger, Gallup, or Wall to other openings with the Respondent or other divisions or subsidiaries. Burnell Hayes, Respondent's manager of labor relations, testified credibly and without dispute that he received a memorandum dated November 2, 1972, from Supervisor 2 The testimony of Tieger, Wall, and Gallup that they had eye-to-eye contact at the time they were being observed by Holub leads me to discredit Holub's denial that he observed the three employees passing cards. - 3 Tieger's service dates from September 1970; Gallup's from September 5, 1968, and Wall's from January, 15, 1968. Among junior technicians and technicians retained were one hired 10-21-72, another 7-25-72, another 10-13-72, and still another on W0-30-72. Welt, department head of quality assurance test department requesting the layoffs of Wall, Gallup, and Tieger. The memorandum read as follows: Due to a change in product mix, caused by an increase in sub-system/system level tests and a reduction in unit tests, particularly cards, a layoff is required. A review of all personnel in the affected classifications has been completed and three 4390 Test Technicians have been identified for layoff using the criteria de- scribed in ITTG P&P F.201, Para. III.B . The primary consideration being the ability to perform the remain- ing work and capacity for potential growth. Those identified for layoff are: L. Wall Employee #06119 A. Gallup Employee # 06868 J. Tieger Employee #08105 Attached to the November 2 memorandum was a chart (also called a "grid") naming 19 junior test and test techni- cians, including Wall, Tieger, and Gallup, who were candi- dates for layoff, and outlining the operations they were qualified to perform. This chart, Holub testified, was pre- pared by himself and Acting Director Welt. The chart showed that of the 19 test technicians who were candidates for layoff, Tieger, Wall, and Gallup were the only three test technicians whose qualifications were limited to testing cards and who possessed no other skills which the Respon- dent needed and could use. After Hayes had received the November 2 layoff request with the attached grid, he then took up the layoff request in a conference attended by Acting Director Welt, Day Super- visor Holub, and Night Supervisor Henry Gin. Hayes testi- fied that he was concerned that the requested layoff met the Respondent's layoff policy, where length of service was being disregarded in selecting individuals for layoff. Hayes testified that he asked questions concerning the individuals' performance and their job assignments, the individuals' ca- pability to perform other assignments, and their future growth within the department. Hayes testified that Holub indicated that Wall and Gallup performed satisfactorily in the card testing area. Supervisor Gin reported Tieger had no problem with card testing, but he had a problem of remain- ing in his work area. Hayes was also shown documents showing that the workload was down in the card testing area. Hayes testified that the group discussed the possibility of assigning the three individuals to other work areas, and it was concluded that they did not have the education, the experience, or the qualifications to perform in the other areas. Robert W. Holub, quality assurance test supervisor, testi- fied credibly without contradiction that at the time of the November 10 layoff of Tieger, Gallup, and Wall, the card testing was about completed and this became apparent to- ward the end of October when he placed, the layoff request with his superior, Jerry Welt.4 Holub testified that he and 4 Holub retained two technicians on card testing, one on the day shift, the other on the night shift. 366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Supervisor Welt composed the grid which accompanied their November 3 memo requesting the layoff of Tieger, Gallup, and Wall. In constructing the grid, Holub testified that although Gallup had had experience in the TI-553, it was not so indicated on the grid because Supervisor Riggs deemed Gallup unsatisfactory in that area and asked that Gallup be returned to the card area. Holub further testified that there was no "X" mark on the grid indicating Gallup had IF experience because his experience had been limited to only 5 or 6 weeks on simple operations which Holub called "cherry picking." Gallup testified he had worked in the IF area for 5 weeks about 2 years before he was laid off. Gallup credibly testified that he went into the IF area from the unit test as things were slow in the unit test area, and when things picked up in the unit test card area, he volun- tarily moved back there because he preferred working in the card area. Gallup testified credibly and without contradic- tion that he was not ordered or directed to leave the IF area for unsatisfactory work, and that his move back to the card area was strictly voluntary. Gallup testified on cross-examination that in the first 3 years he was in the unit test (card) area, doing card testing, the next 6 months in the high voltage area, then 5 weeks in the IF area, and for the last 1-1/2 years operated the TI-553 computer, except for the last 2 weeks which he spent in the unit test area doing card testing under Mr. Holub's supervi- sion. Gallup conceded that he was having difficulties with the TI-553 computer and for that reason was transferred back to testing cards in the unit test area. Gallup testified, howev- er, that his difficulties arose not with the normal testing on the TI-553, but, rather, his inability to properly maintain a "quarter of a million computer," and Gallup voiced his opinion that there were only three people in the plant who could maintain the TI-553 computer. With respect to Wall's IF experience, Holub testified that Wall "probably could have been used in some respects, but his speed was not comparable to other IF people-he didn't have the knowledge, and after trying him for five or six weeks, he just couldn't keep up with the rest. He didn't show any potential." Contrary to Holub's testimony, Wall testified he had 9 months' experience on IF work in alignment and trouble shooting. Wall estimated that he had worked about 6 months in IF work under Supervisor Gin and about 3 months of IF work under Supervisor Holub. Wall credibly and without contradiction testified that he was never crit- icized about his IF work by either Gin or Holub. Asked why Tieger could not be used in the IF area, Holub replied that he did not know as Tieger had not worked for him, but worked for Supervisor Gin. Nevertheless, Holub testified further with respect to Tieger that "he was tried and had a lot of failures come back from the system." Contrary to Holub's testimony, which is obviously objectionable on its face as hearsay, Tieger testified that in the month of August 1972, he worked for 3 weeks to a month and was transferred back to the card testing unit at his own request after Gin would not let another employee assist him on an IF strip. Holub's hearsay testimony concerning the quality of Tieger's IF work is further refuted by Tieger 's latest performance evaluation revue made by Supervisor Gin un- der date of August 15, 1972, in which Mr. Gin rated Tieger's IF work as "acceptable." Tieger testified credibly and with- out contradiction that he was never criticized for his work in the IF area. D. Further Evidence of Union Activity Bearing on the question whether the Respondent was aware of union activity, Lloyd Wall testified credibly and without dispute that on October 26, 1972, he asked Holub if he wanted to join the Union. Holub replied, "No", but the union would be good for him in many ways. Wall also testified credibly and without substantial dispute that Su- pervisor James Williams approached him at his work station on November 1, 1972, and asked Wall if he had a union card for him. Wall testified he replied, "No, but I will get you one." 5 There is further evidence that both Wall and Tieger were warned about being away from their work station, and these warnings followed their distribution of authorization cards. Tieger testified credibly and without contradiction that on about October 1, 1972, while he was at his console talking to employee Roy Boggess at the next console about organiz- ing the Union, Supervisor Gin came over and asked what Tieger and Boggess were talking about. Tieger testified he replied, "We're talking about joining the Union," and Gin replied, "You are not supposed to be talking." Tieger also credibly testified without contradiction that on about Octo- ber 31, 1972, Gin warned Tieger that he was absent from his work station too much, and his work was dropping off. Tieger also credibly and without contradiction testified that in early November 1972, Gin gave him a written warning. Gin told Tieger that his work was getting sloppy and that he was absent from his work station too much. Tieger testi- fied further that when he told Gin that the workload was very low, Gin replied that it didn't matter. Gin refused to give Tieger a copy of the written warning. E. Further Evidence on the Layoffs Tieger was notified of his layoff on November 10, 1972, by Supervisor Gin who handed him his termination notice and 2 weeks ' severance pay. Gin told Tieger that he was being laid off for "lack of work." Gallup testified without contradiction that on November 10, 1972, Supervisor Holub approached him in the unit test area and told him he was being laid off for lack of work, and Holub escorted Gallup to the industrial relations depart- ment . On the way, Gallup asked Holub if there was any problem, if he was doing anything wrong, and Holub re- plied, "No." Gallup asked Holub about the possibility of recall and Holub replied , according to Gallup 's credited and undemed testimony , "I wouldn't wait around for long. It is 5 Supervisor Williams' version of this incident was that he asked Wall if he was starting his own union, and Wall and Jim Davis who was also present laughed and asked Williams if he wanted to sign a card too, and Williams testified he replied, "No, I don't think I want to join the Union." T ITT GILFILLAN 367 going to be slow for a long time in the Unit Test and the Module Test Area." F. Further Evidence of Respondent's Knowledge of Union Activity Circumstances which show the Respondent' s awareness of Lloyd Wall's union activity were credibly testified to by Wall as follows: Wall testified that on November 8, 1972, Supervisor Holub told him that he had been turned in for talking and Holub said to him, "I don't care what you are doing but keep it out of sight." When Wall asked Holub who had turned him in, Holub replied, "Hutch, Levy and Riggs [supervisors]. Wall said, "OK, I'll keep it out of sight." A further circumstance which shows Respondent's knowledge of Gallup's union activity is supplied by the following incident testified to by Gallup; namely, that on October 31, 1972, at the 2 p.m. break, he approached em- ployee Reggie Burns to whom he had previously given an authorization card. When. Gallup asked Bums, "Did you sign the union authorization card," Reggie Burns replied in a real loud voice, "Yes, Asa, I did sign the union authoriza- tion card." Gallup testified credibly that he cringed and looked around and there was Jim Hutchinson [a supervisor] standing about 15 feet away. Gerald Sunkees and James Davis 6 corroborated Gallup concerning the loud remark made by Reggie Burns, but Sunkees testified that he did not see any supervisor. Supervisor Hutchinson denied hearing the comment made by Burns to Gallup. In view of the fact that Bums screamed out the remark, I do not credit Hutchinson's denial that he heard the remark by Burns. On the basis of all of the testimony relating to the union activity of Tieger, WaL, and Gallup, I am persuaded and, I find that the Respondent was aware of their union activity. This conclusion is based inter alia on the fact that Wall solicited Supervisor Holub to join the Union on October 26, 1972, by the further fact that Supervisor James Williams approached Wall on November 1, 1972, and asked Wall if he had a union card for him, and by the fact that card solicitation was carried on in the plant during worktime and on coffee or luncheon breaks by Gallup, Tieger, and Wall. The union activity of Tieger and Gallup was carried on with some secrecy, and there is less direct evidence that supervision was aware that Tieger and Gallup were passing out union authorization cards.? However, the fact that Tieg- er was warned about being away from his machines too much by Supervisor Gin; the loud remark to Gallup by Reggie Burns that he had signed a card while, according to Gallup's testimony, while Supervisor Hutchinson stood about 15 feet away, the fact that on the day that the authori- zation cards were handed out, Supervisor Holub in a joking manner in a loud voice exclaimed, "I want a card; who has got a card," serve to prove that the Respondent was aware of the union activity in progress and the identity of the card solicitors Whereas Gallup testified that he attempted to perform his union solicitation out of sight of supervisors,8 it appears that Wall made no effort to conceal his union solicitation. Wall passed out about 15 authorization cards and even solicited Supervisor Holub to join the Union on October 26, 1972. Moreover, Wall's activity seemed to be so notorious that Supervisor Williams asked him for a card on October 31 or November 1, and Wall replied he would get him one. G. Analysis and Conclusionary Findings I am persuaded and I find that the Respondent was on notice that Tieger, Wall, and Gallup were soliciting union authorization cards. This knowledge is imputed to the Re- spondent on the basis of the knowledge of Supervisors Ho- lub, Hutchinson, Gin and Williams, which I have heretofore detailed in this Decision. MacDonald Engineering Co., 202 NLRB No. 113. It is significant that Tieger, Wall, and Gal- lup, who were the only persons soliciting, were the only test technicians laid off in the quality assurance test department. Although it appears, and I find, that the unit test work was coming to an end, there was no necessity to lay off these three employees who had experience in other operations in the quality assurance test department. It appears without dispute, and I find, that Tieger had had three weeks' experience on IF testing with the Respon- dent,' which Supervisor Gin found acceptable; Gallup, 5 weeks 10 and Wall 9 months, which he described more fully as IF alignment and trouble shooting, 6 months under Gin's supervision and 3 months under Holub's supervision." Ad- ditionally, Gallup had had 18 months' experience with the Respondent in working on the TI-553 computer and had trained other men to operate it. It is also significant that the layoff occurred 3 weeks after the start of union organiza- tion. While the Respondent was in the process of laying off these three employees, two of whom each had approximate- ly 5 years' service, and the third 2 years' service with the Respondent in a number of operations in the quality assur- ance test department, it appears undisputed and I find that the Respondent was seeking to recruit technicians with IF experience which these three employees already had to a lesser or greater degree. Upon scrutinizing the reasons assigned by the Respon- dent for laying off these three employees, I must note that the Respondent failed to adhere to its own written policy to "transfer layoff candidates to suitable openings." Instead, it chose to advertise for and recruit new employees for IF work. This reinforces the conclusion that the layoffs were based on the leadership of these three test technicians in the union organizational campaign. I find that in comparing the value of these three employees to less senior employees in 8 Gallup testified he "cringed"-he was "amazed, flabbergasted , shocked" when Reggie Burns screamed out, "Yes , Asa, I did sign the union authoriza- tion card" while Supervisor Hutchinson stood 15 feet away, because he didn't want the supervisors to know he was organizing for the Union. 9 Tieger testified he asked permission to leave the IF area after his supervi- sor, Gin, would not let Mr Green assist him on the IF strip. 6 Davis testified that Burns "yelled out as loud as he could yell-he really 10 Gallup testified he went into the IF area from unit test as things were screamed It out." slow in the unit test area, and when the work in unit testing picked up, he 7 Tieger conceded by his testimony that he tried to conceal his union voluntarily moved back there organizational activities from the supervisors and he was careful when pass - 11 Wall testified credibly and without contradiction that neither Holub nor mg out cards during working time, not to do it in the presence of a supervisor Gin ever criticized him about his IF work. 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD effectuating the layoff, the Respondent did not consider their full experience with the Respondent, and failed to assign them to other suitable work which was available and in which it was concededly shorthanded and was seeking to recruit employees, by, among other means, notices in the classified advertising section of the Los Angeles Times, a daily newspaper. Another bit of evidence supporting an inference of discri- mination was the statement by Supervisor Holub to newly employed test technician Macchia 12 in December 1972, that the Respondent had been trying to get rid of these three, and "this was the proper excuse." It appears also that Holub had had a change of heart about unions shortly before the November 10 layoff because Holub agreed with newly employed Macchia that unions were "no good." 13 On the basis of all the evidence, I find that the Respondent's layoff of Tieger, Wall, and Gallup on Novem- ber 10, 1972, violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. I find that the Respondent's claim that these three employees were laid off for lack of work was pretextual and that the real reason was their union activity. Intertype Company, 157 NLRB 1419, enfd. 371 F.2d 787 (C.A. 4, 1967), Sweeney & Co., 176 NLRB 208. IV THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take appro- priate affirmative action. Such action shall include a proper offer of immediate reinstatement to Joseph S. Tieger, Asa Gallup, and Lloyd Wall and their reimbursement, as well as for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of discrimination against them. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula stated in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; interest shall be added to backpay at the rate of 6 percent per annum. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In view of the nature and extent of the unfair labor prac- tices found herein which indicate Respondent's determina- tion to interfere with its employees' rights of self-organization, it will be recommended that a broad cease-and-desist order issue. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I reach the following: Act, in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 14 Respondent ITT Gilfillan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Unlawfully discriminating against employees with re- spect to their hire and tenure of employment because of their union membership or activity. (b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc- ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Offer immediate reinstatement to Joseph S. Tieger, Asa Gallup and Lloyd Wall without prejudice to their sen- iority or other rights and privileges and make them whole in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision enti- tled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel records and the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its premises at Van Nuys, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 31, after being duly signed by the Respondent's repre- sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. CONCLUSIONS OF LAw 1. The Respondent, ITT Gilfillan, is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By laying off its employees, Joseph S. Tieger, Asa Gal- lup, and Lloyd Wall on November 10, 1972, the Respondent discriminated with respect to their hire and tenure of em- ployment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the 12 Holub conceded that the Respondent hired Macchia as a probationary employee and gave him a try because "the response to our ads had not been as great as we had hoped, and so we were grasping at anything." i This finding is based on the credible, uncontradicted evidence of Mac- chia 14 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, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 15 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." ITT GILFILLAN 369 APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity to present their evidence , the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board. The Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization; To form, join, or help unions; To bargain collectively through a representative of their own choosing; To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; and To refrain from any and all these things. Since it was decided that we violated the Act by terminating the employment of Joseph Tieger, Asa Gallup and Lloyd Wall because they engaged in union activities, WE WILL OFFER them full reinstatement to their former jobs, and we will pay them for any loss they suffered because we fired them. WE WILL respect your rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively in respect to terms or conditions of employment, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any , or all such activities , and WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of these rights. WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. More specifically, WE WILL NOT discourage union activity or member- ship in International Union, United Automobile, Aero- space & Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW, or any other labor organization by discriminating against you if you choose to engage in union activities or join that union or any other union. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against you for engaging in any of the activities listed above that are protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. You and all our employees are free to become members of any labor organization, or to refrain from doing so. Dated By ITT GILFILLAN (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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 compliance with its provisions may be direct- ed to the Board 's Office, Federal Building, Room 12100, 11000 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90024, Telephone 213-824-7357.