Magic Chef, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 969 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

MAGIC CHEF, INC. 969
Magic Chef, Inc. and International Molders and
Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Case
10-CA-7778
April 7, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND J ENKINS
On December 3, 1969, Trial Examiner Robert E.
Mullin issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner'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.
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, brief, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
complaint issued on June 13, 1969. The complaint
presents questions as to whether the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent
conceded certain facts with respect to its business
operations, but it denied all allegations that it had
committed any unfair labor practices.
All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full
opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to
introduce relevant evidence, to argue orally at the close of
the hearing and to file, briefs Counsel waived oral
argument at the close of the hearing On September 30,
1969, comprehensive briefs were submitted by the General
Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses when they
appeared and testified, the Trial Examiner makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, has its principal
office and place of business in Cleveland, Tennessee,
where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of electric
stoves and gas ranges During the year prior to the
issuance of the complaint, a representative period, the
Respondent sold and shipped finished products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the
State of Tennessee Upon the foregoing facts, the
Respondent concedes, and the Trial Examiner finds, that
Magic Chef, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that Respondent, Magic Chef, Inc.,
Cleveland, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
The Union' s motion to consolidate this case with Magic Chef, Inc ,
Case 10-CA-7672, 181 NLRB No 146, issued this day, is denied
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E MULLIN, Trial Examiner This case was
heard in Cleveland, Tennessee, on August 26, 1969,
pursuant to a charge duly filed and served,' and a
'The charge was filed on May 12, 1969
The Respondent concedes, and the Trial Examiner
finds, that International Molders and Allied Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Introduction
On April 28, 1969, the Respondent discharged
employee Allen W Voyles, allegedly because of its
good-faith belief that Voyles had violated the Company's
"No-Solicitation" rule. The Respondent's belief that
Voyles violated the aforesaid rule was based on the report
of another employee, one Thomas E. Goodwin, who
claimed that during working time Voyles solicited him to
sign a union authorization card
The "No-Solicitation " rule in question appears in the
Respondent's employee handbook and reads as follows:
No employee shall solicit or promote subscriptions,
pledges, memberships, or other types of support for any
drives, campaigns, causes or organizations on Company
property during working time. The distribution or
circulation of leaflets, pamphlets, circulars, or other
literature is not permitted during working time or in
work areas.
181 NLRB No. 147
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAR D
The foregoing rule is I of 28 enumerated in the
handbook. A paragraph in the latter which precedes this
listing of plant rules states that "disciplinary action is
taken against anyone that disregards them " However,
there is no explanation as to whether all violations are to
be treated similarly ahd nothing is said that would
indicate that a breach of any particular rule will lead to
instant dismissal.
In a stipulation offered by the General Counsel and the
Respondent at the outset of the hearing, the General
Counsel conceded that there was no issue in the case
concerning the validity or enforcement of the
no-solicitation rule and, further, that Voyles was aware of
this rule at all times material herein. The General Counsel
likewise conceded that, apart from the discharge of
Voyles, the Respondent was not charged with the
commission of any other unfair labor practices.
The General Counsel contends that Voyles did not, in
fact, violate the rule in question and that his discharge by
the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1),
notwithstanding the Respondent's belief that a cause for
discharge existed In the alternative, the General Counsel
further contends that even if Voyles did violate the rule
against solicitation, his discharge resulted from his interest
in, and support of, the Union
The Respondent denies that it had any discriminatory
motive in discharging Voyles and asserts that the burden
is on the General Counsel to establish such a motive The
case presents no issue as to Voyles' competence and the
Respondent made no effort to prove that the employee
was inefficient. In fact, at the hearing his superior, Second
Shift Supervisor Joe Johnson, described Voyles as "a real
good hand."
B. The Facts
Voyles was hired by the Respondent in 1967 and
worked continuously thereafter until his suspension on
April 26 and his discharge on April 28, 1969.2 He was
originally hired as a welder-helper and later became an
oven and base assembler on the second shift, the position
he held at the time of his termination
For some while the Union had been engaged in a
campaign to organize the employees at the Respondent's
plant Voyles joined the Union shortly after going to work
for the Company. Thereafter, he was among a small
group of employees who, from time to time, distributed
union handbills outside the plant On several occasions he
also wore a union button while at work. In this regard he
was one of the few employees who wore such insignia on
duty. He credibly testified that he was wearing two of
these on the last shift he worked prior to his suspension
Voyles' union activities did not pass unnoticed by the
management. Johnson, his shift supervisor, testified that
at various times he had seen handbilling in progress
outside the plant and that he had seen Voyles wearing a
union button "once or twice." Johnson testified that as a
result of these observations he came to the conclusion
about 18 months before Voyles' termination that the
employee was an active supporter of the Union.'
At midnight on April 23, Voyles and Richard Bradam,
a co-worker, distributed union handbills at the plant gates
as the second shift left and the third shift reported for
work The next morning, between 6 and 7 a.m , Voyles
and two or three other employees went back to the plant
entrances to repeat this process
The most thoroughly controverted testimony in the
record is that involving an alleged meeting of Voyles and
employee Thomas E Goodwin on the night of April 23,
when, according to Goodwin, Voyles asked that he sign a
union card. Goodwin, an employee on the third shift,
testified that shortly after reporting for work on the night
of April 23,' and about 11 45 p in. he was approached by
Voyles and asked by the latter "Have you signed a union
card yet9" According to Goodwin, after he gave a
negative response to this question, Voyles asked "Would
you?" Goodwin testified that he also answered this
question in the negative and that after a further exchange
of conversation about the make of automobile which
Goodwin was driving, Voyles departed. At the hearing,
Voyles categorically denied that he had such a
conversation with Goodwin and he denied having asked
that Goodwin sign a union card. This conflict in the
testimony is resolved later herein
Clyde Dunn, foreman on the third shift, testified that,
about 11:45 or 11:50 on the night in question, Goodwin
reported to him that someone on the second shift had
tried to induce him to sign a union card, but that he did
not know the employee's name Dunn testified that he
immediately brought the matter to Supervisor Johnson's
attention and that the latter had Charles Thurmond, a
foreman on the second shift, accompany Goodwin in a
walk around the shop to identify the individual in
question According to Dunn, after Thurmond and
Goodwin returned to the office the employee stated that it
was Allen Voyles who had sought to have him sign a
union card.
Dunn testified that prior to reporting for work the next
evening, and while he and Johnson were having a cup of
coffee in the plant cafeteria, Goodwin came up to their
table According to Dunn, Johnson asked Goodwin
whether he would sign a statement as to what he had told
them earlier and the latter agreed to do so. Dunn testified
that at the end of the third shift the next morning,' at
Johnson's orders, he and Goodwin reported to the office
of Plant Superintendent Chavis. According to Dunn, at
that time Goodwin repeated his story to Chavis, who took
it down in longhand and later had it transcribed for
Goodwin's signature.'
William H Hicks, a welder on the third shift, testified
that just before reporting for work on the evening of April
24, he was in the plant lunchroom and observed Goodwin
engaged in conversation with Johnson and Dunn.
According to Hicks, after Goodwin left the table where he
had been conversing with the two supervisors, Goodwin
told him and the other employees at Hicks' table that he
had "just turned a man in for asking him to sign a union
card." Hicks testified that Goodwin further stated that
"they [the management] was going to get rid of him [the
solicitor] the following morning." According to Hicks,
Goodwin declared that he did not know the name of the
employee on whom he had reported. However, Hicks
testified that, from the description which Goodwin gave
them, he concluded that it was Voyles who was involved
'All dates referred to herein occurred in 1969, unless otherwise noted
'Plant Superintendent Charles Chaves testified that about 12 to 18
months prior to Voyles' discharge he had seen some of the employees
wearing union buttons at the plant, but he did not identify any of them by
name
'Voyles left work at midnight , since at that time he was on the second
shift
'The third shift reported for work at 11 30 p m and the second shift left
the plant at 12 o'clock
'This would have been April 25
'Goodwin signed this statement on the morning of April 28
MAGIC CHEF, INC. 971
At the hearing, Goodwin denied that he had made any
such statement to Hicks as the latter testified Hicks was
a credible witness, albeit a rather garrulous one, and, as to
this incident, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner
that the account of Hicks was a substantially accurate
narrative of a conversation had with Goodwin on the night
of April 24
On the afternoon of April 24, when Voyles reported for
work on the second shift, Shift Supervisor Johnson and
Steel Room Superintendent David Chapman, met him at
the time clock and asked that Voyles come into Johnson's
office After the employee did so, Johnson told Voyles
that he had been reported for soliciting in violation of the
rule and that he would have to be suspended pending an
investigation. At this point, Johnson asked Voyles if he
remembered talking about the Union with anyone and
whether he would like to meet with Plant Superintendent
Chavis Voyles replied that he wanted two witnesses to
hear what he had to say and asked that Johnson summon
Richard Bradam and Edgar Franks, both of whom were
his co-workers. When the latter two employees arrived at
Johnson's office, Voyles told them "Boys, the reason
you're here is they're going to suspend me on account of
my union activities." At this point, Johnson spoke up and
said "No ... somebody turned him in for soliciting and
we're going to suspend him until Monday."
On Monday, April 28, Voyles returned to the plant.
There he was met by Supervisor Johnson who escorted
him to the office of Plant Superintendent Chavis where
the latter told him that he was being terminated, the
termination to be effective at once. Johnson, Chavis,
Voyles and Bradam testified as to this meeting. Other
than as noted below, there was no substantial conflict in
their testimony as to what was said during the course of
the conference.
At the outset of the meeting and before Chavis began
talking to Voyles, employees Bradam and Franks, who
earlier had acted as witnesses at the confrontation with
Johnson, were permitted to enter the superintendent's
office. Chavis thereupon explained to Voyles that he had
been charged with solicitation, and that the Company had
secured a written statement from his accuser. Chavis then
asked Voyles for his side of the story. The latter denied
that he had broken any rules and denied that he had
asked anybody to sign a union card on company time.
Voyles also told Chavis that he and his brother, who was
likewise an employee, had discussed the question as to
who his accuser might be and that they had concluded
that it was Goodwin. Chavis then commented that he
considered it a remarkable coincidence that of the 150
employees on the second and third shifts Voyles could
have learned that it was Goodwin who had informed on
him Voyles replied that he and his brother had reached
this conclusion after his brother had talked with Johnson.
At this point in the meeting Bradam suggested that before
taking any action Chavis should talk with some of Voyles'
coworkers about the matter. Johnson thereupon
volunteered the information that he already had talked
with Thomas Blair, one of Voyles' associates, and had a
statement from him 9 The plant superintendent then
announced that he chose to believe Goodwin Voyles
protested that Chavis had no ground for believing that he
'Chavis testified that at this time Johnson said that Blair told him he
had seen Voyles near the bathhouse where Goodwin alleged that Voyles
had asked him to sign a card According to Chavis, after Johnson made
this statement , he himself commented "Well, at least this statement places
Voyles in the vicinity at the time that Goodwin stated that the solicitation
took place " Chavis' testimony in this regard was contradicted by Johnson
would lie, but the latter terminated the discussion and the
conference by telling Voyles that he was being separated
as of that moment and that he could report to the
personnel office for his check.
At the hearing, Voyles testified that while in the plant
lunch room on an occasion in January 1969, he had asked
Goodwin to sign a card, but that the latter declined to do
so. According to Voyles, at another time about two or
three weeks before his discharge, he spoke to Goodwin
and had a brief discussion with him on the subject of a
new automobile which Goodwin had bought that day.
Voyles conceded that at the change of shifts and before he
left the plant to distribute handbills on the night of April
23, he might have greeted Goodwin ' He denied, however,
having asked Goodwin to sign a union card at any time
that night while he was still on duty.
Voyles further testified that he had known Goodwin for
several years and that at one time some five years earlier
they had been fellow employees at a textile mill in
Tennga, Georgia According to Voyles, when Goodwin
was first hired at that plant he had no car, and for several
weeks he gave Goodwin a ride to and from work. Voyles
testified, however, that their friendly relationship came to
an abrupt end when one day Goodwin borrowed his car
and failed to return it as he had promised.
When on the stand, Goodwin professed no knowledge
of any such incident at the textile mill as Voyles had
related, although he conceded that while there he had
known Voyles as a co-worker. He also denied that Voyles
had solicited his signature on an authorization card on
any occasion prior to April 23. On direct examination, as
a witness for the Respondent, Goodwin gave the
impression that his relations with Voyles had been so
casual and distant that on the night of April 23 he could
not even remember the name of the latter '° This,
however, was not the purport of his testimony on
cross-examination when he was interrogated on the same
issue. When Goodwin was asked the following question,
he gave the answer which appears below
Q. You hadn't spoken to this guy [Voyles] in how
long?
A. You get it wrong now, occasionally Hi, or nod
our heads We know each other, you know. Obviously
we - You know "
According to the latter, other then telling Chavis that Blair had given him
a statement , he said nothing about its contents Johnson testified "Nobody
asked me what Blair said , so I didn't say nothing " Later, during the
course of Chavis' examination , the plant superintendent testified that on
the day after Voyles was separated he saw, for the first time, a written
statement which Johnson had secured from Blair and from this he learned
that Blair claimed not only that he had seen Voyles near the bathhouse on
the night in question but that he also had seen him talking with Goodwin
Chavis was then asked the following question and gave the answer which
appears below "Q But you did not know that [the substance of Blair's
statement ] at the time you made the decision to discharge Voyles . A
I didn ' t know that on Monday afternoon " in the light of the above
testimony, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that Johnson's
account of his reference to Blair during the meeting was the more accurate
and that, as Johnson testified , during the conference in Chavis' office he
did not disclose what Blair had told him , nor did Chavis ask that he do so
'Thomas Blair credibly testified that he had seen Goodwin and Voyles
together at the same place in the gangway on the night in question, but
that he had not heard the conversation , if any, which they had had
"When asked the following question on direct , Goodwin answered as
appears below "Q You didn't know who he was, didn't know his name
anyway that night" A That's right , that' s right "
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Goodwin also testified that after he made his report to
the management on Voyles he had no further interest in
the matter. According to Goodwin, it was not until many
weeks later and after the Labor Board began its
investigation of the case that he learned for the first time
that, as a result of his report, Voyles had been discharged.
Goodwin's casual testimony that it was only after many
weeks had elapsed that he had any realization as to the
aftermath of his charges against Voyles was unconvincing
This conclusion of the Trial Examiner, based upon
Goodwin's bearing, manner and appearance as a witness,
is further supported by the circumstances present in this
case. There were less than 200 men on the second and
third shifts on which these two employees worked" and
the abrupt termination of an active union advocate,
allegedly for having violated the plant solicitation rule is
not the kind of news that goes unnoticed, certainly not by
the employee whose report set in motion the discharge
machinery. Employee Bradam testified that the news that
Goodwin had reported that Voyles had violated the
no-solicitation rule "was all over the plant Thursday night
[April 24]." Moreover, employee Hicks testified, credibly
as found earlier herein, that that same night, and after he
observed Goodwin in conversation with supervisors
Johnson and Dunn, Goodwin acknowledged that he had
reported that a fellow employee had asked him to sign a
card and that the Company "was going to get rid of him
[the individual on whom he had reported] the following
morning." It is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that
Goodwin was aware at the time he made his report to the
Company that it might very well result in Voyles'
termination and that he likewise was aware of that
employee's suspension immediately thereafter and his
subsequent prompt discharge.
Goodwin was neither frank nor convincing when on the
stand and while testifying sought to give an air of
unconcerned detachment which seriously impaired his
credibility as a witness Voyles, on the other hand, was far
more persuasive on both direct and cross-examination
Consequently, as between these two, it is the conclusion of
the Trial Examiner that Voyles was the more credible and
that his denial that he had ever breached the
no-solicitation rule was credible, whereas Goodwin's
account of what allegedly occurred on the night of April
23 was not.
Concluding Findings
When at work on April 23, Voyles wore his union
insignia and immediately after the shift ended he and
Bradam went to the plant gates to distribute union
handbills. The following morning he was back at the plant
entrances to resume the distribution of handbills as the
third shift left the plant and the first shift reported for
work. Voyles' organizational efforts throughout this
period unquestionably constituted protected concerted
activity within the meaning of the Act
Employee Goodwin reported to the management that,
just before Voyles left the plant and near the end of the
second shift, Voyles violated the no-solicitation rule by
asking him to sign a union card when still on work-time.
The Respondent asserts that Voyles was discharged as a
result of this report. On the findings set forth above, it is
the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that Goodwin's
report was false and that Voyles did not engage in the
alleged misconduct.
The General Counsel contends that this case is
governed by N L R B v. Burnup and Sims, inc , 379 U S.
21, 23, where the Supreme Court held that Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act is violated "if it is shown that the discharged
employee was at the time engaged in a protected activity,
that the employer knew it was such, that the basis of the
discharge was an alleged act of misconduct in the course
of that activity, and that the employee was not, in fact,
guilty of that misconduct " The Court did not find it
necessary to reach the question as to whether Section
8(a)(3) was also violated by such conduct The Board,
however, has so held in several decisions issued subsequent
to Burnup and Sims Blue Ridge Manufacturers, inc , 158
NLRB 563, 569, Southwire Company, 164 NLRB No
135 (McColley), enfd., 393 F 2d 106 (C A. 5), Rowe
Industries, Inc , 152 NLRB 70, 79-80
Voyles was engaged in protected organizational activity
at the time he was charged with violating the
no-solicitation rule Since, on the findings set forth above,
it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that he did not
violate that rule, as alleged by the Company, his
subsequent termination was an unfair labor practice
notwithstanding any good-faith belief on the part of the
Respondent that he had, in fact, broken a plant rule
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that
in discharging Voyles, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
The General Counsel also contends that the Respondent
did not have a good faith belief that Voyles had violated
the no-solicitation rule, and that its real motive in
terminating this employee was to discourage membership
and activities on behalf of the Union There is merit to
this argument
Voyles was one of the few employees in the plant who
displayed a union button and participated in the Union's
organizational handbilling, all of which activities were
known to the management The employee handbook
which carried the plant rule against solicitation also listed
27 other rules which proscribed conduct ranging from
failure to observe safety procedures to theft from fellow
employees Other than to state that disciplinary action
would be taken against an employee for breaking any of
the 28 rules, the handbook carried no announcement as to
what such action would be, whether it would be the same
for all offenses, or whether it would vary, depending on
the violation involved and the number of offenses
committed. Nowhere in the handbook or in any of the
present record does there appear evidence that the
employees were apprised that breach of the no-solicitation
rule would result in instant discharge Nor was any
evidence offered which would establish that solicitation
during working time had become such a problem that
plant efficiency and employee morale dictated a policy
whereby summary dismissal awaited even the first
offender. The alleged violation of the plant rule with
which Voyles was charged, even if true, involved no more
than a minor infraction The celerity with which Plant
Superintendent Chavis moved to terminate the employee,
an admittedly "real good hand," after only a cursory
investigation of this alleged violation, was not normal or
natural I I It is the Trial Examiner's conclusion, on the
facts present here, that discrimination was the motivating
reason for the Respondent's action.
"Chaves referred to the total as approximately 150 "Cf, E Anthony & Sons v N L R B . 163 F 2d 22, 26 (C A D C ), cert
MAGIC CHEF, INC. 973
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the
Union is a labor organization, all within the meaning of
the Act
2 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
Allen W. Voyles, thereby discouraging membership in the
Union, the Respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged, and is
engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(I) 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.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices , the Trial Examiner will
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Allen W. Voyles, the Trial Examiner will
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to offer
Voyles immediate and full reinstatement without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges , and make
him whole for any loss of earnings that he may have
suffered from the time of his discharge to the date of the
Respondent 's offer of reinstatement The backpay for the
foregoing employee shall be computed in accordance with
the formula approved in F W Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, with interest computed in the manner and
amount proscribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138
NLRB 716, 717-721. It will also be recommended that the
said Respondent be required to preserve and make
available to the Board , or its agents, on request , payroll
and other records to facilitate the computation of backpay
due.
As the unfair labor practices committed by the
Respondent are of a chaiacter striking at the root of
employee rights safeguarded by the Act, it will be
recommended that the said Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. N L R B v.
Entwistle Mfg Co, 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C A. 4).
denied 332 U S 773, where the Court there said , in sustaining the Board's
finding of a discriminatory termination " these employees had been
long-time, responsible and faithful employees All were discharged
summarily, without preliminary warning, admonition or opportunity to
change the act or practice complained of Such action on the part of an
employer is not natural "
A brother and a sister of Voyles also worked at the plant, and not long
before the hearing in the instant case , the brother received a promotion
The Respondent argues that such treatment tends to prove that it could
not have discriminated against Voyles These facts have been considered,
but it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that they do not outweigh
the other factors which establish a discriminatory motive for the
Respondent 's summary dismissal of Voyles In any event , the treatment
accorded other members of the Voyles' family is largely irrelevant, for
there was no evidence that either Voyles ' brother or his sister was
identified with the Union The only issue here is whether the Respondent's
motivation was anti-union , not whether it was anti-the entire Voyles'
family
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
the Trial Examiner hereby issues the following:
ORDER
Magic Chef, Inc , its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging , or otherwise discriminating against,
any employee in, or activity on behalf of, International
Molders and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor
organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid, or to refrain from any or
all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Allen W. Voyles immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him whole in the manner set
forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(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, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
(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, and all other
records necessary or appropriate to analyze the amount of
backpay due.
(d) Post at its plant in Cleveland, Tennessee, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of the
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 10, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted
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 Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
"In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , recommendations, and recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 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 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 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 "
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of this Recommended Order, as to
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.'°
"1n the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this
provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board an Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
International Molders and Allied Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other union, by discharging or
otherwise discriminating against our employees because
of their union or concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with,
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the
above-named union, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer Allen W Voyles immediate and full
reinstatement 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 pay suffered as a result of discrimination against
him
Dated By
MAGIC CHEF, INC.
(Employer)
(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, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces
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 directed to the Board's Office,
730 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308,
Telephone 404-426-5760