Pyromatics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 27, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 1017 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

PYROMATICS, INC 1()17 Pyromatics, Inc. and Milton A. Willis. Case 8-CA- 12794 August 27, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENE.I.O, AND TRUESDALE On April 9, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Charles M. Williamson issued the attached Deci- sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent' filed exceptions 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, 2 and conclusions3 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. 4 i Respondent has requested oral argument. This request is hereby denied as the record, the exceptions, and the brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties 2 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 credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant eidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Slandard Dry Wall Products. Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 i 2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We hae carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings 3 In adopting the Administrative l.aw Judge's conclusion that Re- spondent violated the Act by maintaining and enforcing a overly broad no-solicitation, no-distribution rule, we note that the rule is invalid under any of the views expressed in Esvex International. Inc. 211 NLRB 749 (1974) We adopt the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging employee Mllton Willis In so doing, we agree with his finding that the "quartz flu' incidenl played no role in Respondent's decision to discharge Willis. Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo. that the incident did play a role, we find that Respondent has failed to demonstrate that it would have discharged Willis absent his circulation of the petition requesting time off between Christmas and New Year's, swhichi in itself clearly constituted protected activity In this regard, we particularly note the testimony of Respond- ent's president, Ted Loxley, that it was the circulating of the petition that made the quartz flu "threat" credible, and Willis' credited testimony that Loxley, in discharging him, mentioned only the circulating of the petition as a reason for his termination ' In par (c) of his recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge used the broad cease-and-desist language, "in any other manner" However, we have considered this case in light of the standards set forth in Hickmor Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), and have concluded that a broad remedial order is inappropriate inasmuch as it has not been shown that Respondent has a proclisity to violate the Act or has en- gaged in such egregious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general disregard for the employees' fundamental statutory rights. Ac- cordingly, we shall modify the recommended Order by substituting the narrow injunctive language, "in any like or related marinner." The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently omitted the language. "without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or prisileges preci- ously enjoyed," from the reinstatement remedy in par 2(a) of his recom- mended Order. We shall modify the recommended Order accordingly Member Jenkins would provide interest on the backpay aard in ac- cordance with his partial dissent in lympic Mdiul Co(rporatuin, 250 NLRBi No II 11 9()) 251 NLRB No. 141 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent. Pyromatics, Inc., East Cleveland, Ohio, its officers. agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(c): "(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a): "(a) Offer Milton Willis immediate and full rein- statement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against him in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision en- titled 'Remedy."' 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BYR ORDER OF THE NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WI1.1 NOr promulgate, maintain, or en- force any rule prohibiting union or concerted activities during working hours. WE Wl. NOrt discharge or otherwise dis- criminate against any employee for engaging in protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILl offer Milton Willis immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equiva- lent job, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en- joyed, and WE WILt. make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against him, plus interest. PYROMATICS, INC. Pyromatics, Inc. and Milton A. Willis. Case 8-CA- YROMAICS, IC 0 1()1 D)ECISIONS OF NAI()ONAL LAB()R RELATIONS BOARI) DECISION S A I MlN 1 rHF CASE Cl.ARI .S M. WIi I.AMSON, Administrative Law Judge: Pursuant to a charge filed by Milton Willis, an Individu- al, herein called the Charging Party, a complaint was issued by Region 8 of the National Labor Relations Board, on June 7, 1979, alleging that Pyromatics, Inc., herein called Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging the Charging Party on or about De- cember 7, 1978. The case was heard before me in Cleve- land, Ohio, on November 27, 1979. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and after consideration of the briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent I make the following: FINDINiS OF FACT I. It lL BUSINE.SS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of silica products at its plant in East Cleveland, Ohio. Annually, in the course and con- duct of its business operations, Respondent manufactures, sells, and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 to points and places outside the State of Ohio. Based on these admitted facts, I find that Respondent is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. llt- f AI. (il) UNF:AIR I.ABOR PRACTICIS Respondent hired Milton Willis as an inspector in the core room of its plant on June 9, 1977. He was dis- charged from Respondent's employ on December 7, 1978.' Willis' discharge and a no-solicitation rule, admit- tedly maintained and enforced at all times since Novem- ber 4, 1978, constitute the entirety of the allegations of violation of Section 8(a)(1) in the complaint. Respondent admitted at the hearing that the rule "could be interpret- ed as being overly broad .... "The rule states as fol- lows Solicitations for ay cause are a nuisance to most people and adversely affect the efficiency and pro- duction of the individual departments. Therefore, solicitations, lotteries, sales of raffle tickets and sale of merchandise are forbidden unless specific permis- sion has been granted by the office. The solicitation for membership in organizations of any kind during working hours is absolutely prohibited unless specif- Resplondent mrioed at the hearing (hut did not argue the motion in its brief) to dismiss he complaint on the ground that Milton Willis' dis- .hlargc was not specifically alleged as violative of the Act in the underly- ing charge the charge contained general 8(a)(t) allegations. The charge ,isa filed on May 4. 1979 Respondent's witnesses. Supervisor Bitiner and Presidentl Lotley. testified that they had knowledge. no later than May 18. 1979, that Willis' discharge vas involved in the charge. The Board ha, ruled tht a charge alleging iolalion of Section 8(a)(1) in general 1erVr is sufficient to support a complaint alleging he discharge of em- plosecs in :lolation of Section (a)(l . P'leadirg of all the evidence i the charge is not requircd I)uavd ( Leac.h and Doyle I Wallace. d/h a Hr,krsillc (;t, (rrporpwy. 16 Nl.RB 1282. 1291 92 19 5). Accordingl, Respondenll ',s iollon i dismis, the complaint on this ground is denied ic permission is granted by the office. Printed matter not pertaining to PYROMATICS business may not be distributed in work areas at any time. Printed matter may not be circulated anywhere on Company property by an employee during working hours. Respondent presented no evidence concerning the business necessity for this rule. It stated at the hearing that in view of the admitted possibility that the rule was overly broad, it had since replaced the above by another rule. This latter rule was not placed in evidence at the hearing nor was the method or date of its dissemination to employees set forth. In regard to Willis, the evidence showed that in De- cember 1977 he was granted a leave of absence. During that time, the core department was shut down for the holidays. Other employees took vacation time. 2 Around Thanksgiving 1978, the employees in the core depart- ment started talking among themselves about the possi- bility of taking off for the year end holidays in Decem- ber 1978. 3 Some months prior to these conversations, Willis spoke with his then supervisor, Mike Petruziello concerning the possibility of time off for the 1978 holi- days. 4 Petruziello apparently agreed, in an offhand way that "probably it would be all right." O() or about De- cember 4, 1978,5 Ken Bittner was appointed supervisor of the core department in Petruziello's place. Immediate- ly upon Bittner's appointment, Willis approached him about taking time off for the 1978 holiday season. Willis' first conversation with Bittner concerned time off for himself as an individual rather than for the entire depart- ment. Bittner told Willis that he "couldn't make that de- cision" as he was new on the job.6 On or about Decem- ber 5, 1978, there was a meeting of Bittner and the em- ployees in the core department. 7 Bittner informed the employees that there was no possibility of time off during the holiday season as Respondent had a large order from one of its customers the filling of which would require keeping the core department open over the holidays. One employee (Todd) Blackwell said he would like his vacation over the holidays if he could not obtain a leave of absence. Another employee (Gary Caltos) said "His cat died and he had to go to Hong Kong to bury him."8 All the employees at this meeting desired time off during the holidays. Bittner stated he would take the matter up with Respondent's president, Loxley.9 Loxley told him Respondent could not grant Willis had not. in December 1977. been working for a lhng enough period to be eligible for any vacation time under Respondentl's rules :' The 1978 complement of the core department as seern as opposed to four in 1977. 4 Petruziello did not testify " Willis said November 27. 1978. I credit Bitnner who stated it was about December 4. Hintner testified he was approached bh a group of employees oIn the subject of holiday time off about December 5. I credit Willis' testimony that he also approached Bitner on an individual basis. 7 All employees except I.eib were present Willis testified Caltos was kidding I credit Willis in this. Bittner testified there were two departmental meetings including rine after he took up the questiontl if holiday lime oiff with Lxley I credit Binner as Willis appeared somewhat cntused ahbut the sequence if events ivoling the meeting, PYRO()MATICS. INC. 011 time off "due to the production we had to make for a couple of customers." On December 6, 1978, Bittner reported on his contact with Loxley, informing the employees of the core de- partment that there would definitely be no time off for the holiday season. Bittner testified that some of the em- ployees did not like the decision. For instance, Redraw Operator Todd Blackwell again asked if he could have his vacation during the holiday season. Bittner told him he could not for the same reason (production) that pre- vented the granting of leaves of absence. As the meeting started to break up, Willis said that if the employees did not get the time off they would all come down with the "quartz flu." When Bittner inquired as to what Willis meant, Willis said that police officers come down with the "blue flu," the employees work with quartz and therefore they would come down with the "quartz flu"; i.e., fake a sickness so as not to report to work during the holiday period.1 0 Following this meeting, Willis cir- culated a petition (G.C. Exh. 2) among the core depart- ment employees. The petition was circulated with Bittner's knowledge" and stated: "We, the following un- dersigned members of the Core Dept., would like a leave of absence, from Tues. Dec. 26th thru Fri. Dec. 29th." The petition was ultimately signed by all employees in the core department. 2 The petition was presented to Bittner on the day of its preparation with the request that he forward it to Re- spondent's president. Bittner took the petition to Loxley and related to him the events of the morning,' 3 specifi- cally including the "quartz flu" incident. At 8 a.m. the following day (December 7) Bittner called Willis to a meeting in President Loxley's office. Walt Barber, Respondent's personnel manager, was in the outer portion of Loxley's office. Bittner, Willis, Loxley, and Petruzillo were in the inner portion. Willis and Loxley differed sharply in their testimony as to what transpired at this meeting. Willis testified as follows: A. The president had a brief preamble or some- thing- Q. This was Mr. Loxley? A. Mr. Loxley, like I know that you don't seem to be satisfied around here by passing the petition and that's going a bit too far and for that reason, you are terminated effective immediately. Loxley testified: Q. Did Mr. Willis come into the meeting later? i0 Willis denied, at imes, making the statement about "quartz flu." At other times, he stated he "could not remember" making the statement Willis admitted on cross-examination that at an unemployment hearing on January 5, 1979, he testified "it might have happened" Based on Willis' wavering testimony, his admission of his testimony at the January 5 un- employment hearing. Bitner's clear concise account of the incident, and ma ohbservation of the relative demeanors of Bitnner and Willis while they testified concerning the "quartz nu" conversation, I credit Binttner I I Indeed, Willis requested Bittner to sign it Bittner declined on the ground that someone ought to remain "neutral." 1 L.elh. who as absent at the meeting that morning because of a court appearance. signed A hen he returned to work la Bitiner admitted on cross-examinatlion that it might have been as much as 4 or 5 hours after the "quart flu" conversation that he wen to see Loxle He surmised that I oxle might not have been in the building A. Yes, as soon as we had reviewed our situatil and what should be done, one of the supervisors went out and asked Mr. Willis to come in and at that time, I told him what my conclusion and told him that in light of our inability to really satisfy his needs, that I thought it would be best if he just left immediately. Q. Did you ever state to Mr. Willis that he was fired for circulating a petition? A. No, I did not.i 4 Bittner, who testified and was present at the meeting, was not questioned concerning it. Neither Barber, who was present in the courtroom, or Petruziello testified. Loxley further testified that he was concerned with the "quartz flu" statement insofar as it represented a possibil- ity that the core department employees would fail to report for work during the holidays and that the petition played a role in his thinking about Willis' discharge only insofar as it represented employee support in the core de- partment for a "sick out." An examination of Respond- ent's contemporary documentation regarding Willis' dis- charge shows clearly that Willis' circulation of a petition played a leading role in determining Respondent to dis- charge him. Thus, General Counsel's Exhibit 4 is Willis' termination notice signed by his supervisor, Bittner. That document states under "Discharged (check reason below)" that Willis was discharged for "Soliciting w/pe- tition to interfere w/production (work stop)." This docu- ment does not mention the "quartz flu" statement. Super- visor Bittner admitted that this document reflected a ground for discharge different from that concerning which he had testified and when asked why he had signed it said "I just felt it was just a mere technicality to put in the file. The vice president filled it out and so I says okay, I guess that's good." General Counsel's Exhibit 5 is a memorandum pre- pared by Respondent's president, Loxley, on the same day as Willis' discharge. Loxley's account states: "It was decided that Milt's [Willis'] actions of threatening to stop production and circulating an unauthorized petition during working hours required his termination." (Enm- phasis supplied.) General Counsel's Exhibit 14 is an in- formational document, signed by W G. Barber, Re- spondent's personnel director, sent to the Ohio Unem- ployment Compensation Board. That document dated December 4, 1979, states "employee terminated for threatening the Company with a work stoppage. Copies of unauthorized petition and supervisory statements at- tached." Finally, Willis' supervisor, Bittner, stated on the witness stand "I agree that the petition was more or less the thing that he was terminated for from what Ted [Loxley] said in the meeting, was for threatening a work stoppage." While the above-quoted statements and documents are not wholly consistent with one another I am of the opin- ion, and finds, that they show that Willis' discharge took place because of his role in circulating the petition. Fur- '" Counsel for General Counllel, motilol to antmnd official report of proceeding before the National LaI.hor Relation, Btoard ith regard t he second anser quoted above is denied PYROMATICS, INC. 1(119 1020 I)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ther, the quoted documents and statements are largely consistent with Willis' account of the December 7 dis- charge interview and I therefore credit his account. I do not, based both on his demeanor while testifying and the documentation set out above, credit Loxley's testimony that the petition was of importance to him only insofar as it represented employee support for a "sick out." In this regard, I note that while General Counsel's Exhibit 5 (prepared by Loxley) does mention the "quartz flu" inci- dent (although it is not so designated) the reasons for dis- charge are given both as "threatening to stop production and circulating an unauthorized" petition "during work- ing hours." (Emphasis supplied.) Neither General Coun- sel's Exhibit 4 nor Exhibit 14 mentions the "sick out" threat, as such, as a reason for discharge. I further note that Loxley did not interview Willis or any of the em- ployees in the core department although he testified that in a desire to check on the seriousness of the "sick out" threat he interviewed an employee in a near by depart- ment. ' 5Loxley's statement that allegiance to the "sick out" threat was "indicated by all the employees signing the petition" appears unreasonable. The petition, by its terms, requests time off; it contains no "sick out" threat. Neither Bittner nor Loxley testified that any other core department employee other than Willis joined in the al- leged threat. Indeed, it is not clear that all of them even heard Willis make the statement for Bittner testified that "the meeting kind of started to break up and there were a couple of employees still gathered around me and one of them was Milt Willis" before Willis made the alleged threat. Under the circumstances I do not credit Loxley's testimony that he believed that employee signatures on the petition showed support for a "sick out" tactic. While I do find that Respondent's concerns for produc- tion schedules led it to deny the core department em- ployees' request for time off during the holidays, I also find that Respondent, through its President, Loxley, was motivated by Willis' activities in circulating the petition and acting concertedly with other employees in seeking time off from work. 111. ANAI.YSIS (a) I find that Respondent's admitted no-solicitation, no distribution rule with its "working hours" restriction, is presumptively invalid under relevant Board decisional precedent and that Respondent has presented no evi- dence to rebut the presumption of invalidity. Stoddard- Quirk Manufacturing Company, 138 NLRB 615 (1962); Essex International, Inc., 211 NLRB 749, 750 (1974) ("working hours" vs. "working time"). (b) Respondent, in its brief, contends that Willis' activ- ities in circulating a petition and acting concertedly with fellow employees in seeking time off were not of a type to which the Act extends protection because they did not relate to the mutual aid or protection of the employ- ees. Respondent cites no direct authority for this proposi- tion. Indeed, its argument reduces to the judgmental statement that "Willis' request for a leave of absence was not economically beneficial to the employees. In fact, it would have been detrimental to them .... Finally, the I' This indis idual,. John Welf died prior lo the hearing. leave of absence was not reasonably related to the job performance of the employees." Section 7 of the Act does not thus leave it to the employer's exclusive judg- ment as to whether concerted activities are for the Sec- tion 7 purpose "of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection .... " The concept includes such ac- tivity as is "clearly for the employees' mutual aid or pro- tection over a matter of concern to all the employees and over which Respondent had control." Spinoza. Inc., 199 NLRB 525 (1972). Section 8(d) of the Act defines "collective bargaining," a term used in Section 7, as meeting and conferring "with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment" (empha- sis supplied). In view of the inclusion of the term "hours" in the statutory definition, it is difficult to arrive at the Respondent's conclusion that collective activity in- volving a request for time off from work during the holi- day season is not protected activity under Section 7 of the Act. Board precedent supports this conclusion. Thus, in Manuel San Juan Company Inc., 224 NLRB 653 (1976), the suspension of an employee who circulated a document opposing the loss of a previously enjoyed holi- day was found violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Leaves of absence have been found to be bargainable and thus a term or condition of employment within the meaning of the Act. The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, 115 NLRB 478, 521 (1956).1 6 I find Willis' concerted activity 7 in seeking holiday time off to be protected under Section 7 of the Act. Respondent also argues that Willis' activities constitut- ed "disloyalty" sufficient to justify his discharge. It cites N.L.R.B. v. Local Union No. 1229, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers [Jefferson Standard Broadcast- ing Co.], 346 U.S. 464 (1953). In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the employer's discharge of strikers for dis- seminating written material which denigrated the quality of the employer's radio and television programing. A concurrent labor dispute was not mentioned in the writ- ten material. The Jefferson Standard case is not in point for the reason that there is no evidence that Willis ever told anyone that the Respondent's product was inferior. Respondent's position in regard to Willis' alleged disloy- alty seems to rest on two grounds: (I) Willis continued (collective) activity designed to obtain holiday time off after Respondent, through its supervisor, Bittner, had ex- plained that production requirements would not permit it; and (2) The "quartz flu" incident. I have already de- termined, supra, that the "quartz flu" incident was not the reason for Willis' discharge. The fact that Willis (and other employees) continued to desire time off after Re- spondent's explanations may have constituted bad judg- '6 Respondent seeks to distinguish the instant case on the ground that here, employees would not have received pay for time off. I find this to be a distinction without a difference. Whether employees are paid for the time off may be a matter for negotiation, but if they agree that there is to be no pay for a holiday. it cannot render their collective activity in seek- ing the holiday unprotected. Respondent's position would imply that in certain circumstances an employer might be obligated to bargain over paid holidays but not unpaid ones-certainly an anomalous result. " Respondent argues in its brief that Willis' desire for time off was personal and, therefore, not protected under Sec. 7. The desire may have been thus in its inception but it took on a collective aspect with the De- cember 6, 1978, petition. PYROMAICS. INC ( 21 ment s from Respondent's view point hut that evaluation gave Respondent only the right to refuse the time off, not to discharge W'iliis for his concerted activities in connection with time off. Finally, even were I to find, arguendo, that the "quartz flu" incident was unprotected and constituted one of the motives for the discharge, I would still, under applicable Board precedent, be compelled to find that Willis' dis- charge violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act for the reason that the second motive for the discharge was the protect- ed activity of the December 6 petition. In Youngstown Osteopathic Hospital Association, 224 NLRB 574 (1976), the Board stated: Under Board precedent if part of the reason for ter- minating an employee is unlawful, the discharge violates the Act ... . That the employer has ample reason for discharging an employee is of no moment ... . Even if the discharge is based on other rea- sons as well, if the discharge is partly in reprisal for protected concerted activity, it is unlawful. See also McGraw Laboratories. A Division of American Hospital Supplv Corporation, 206 NLRB 602 (1973) (em- ployee Sturm guilty of "considerable misconduct" but also discharged for a protected activity), Betrrts Baking Co. v. IV.L.R.B., 380 F.2d 199, 203 (10th Cir. 1967), and N.L.R.B. v. Great Eastern Color Lithographic Corp., 309 F.2d 352, 355 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied 373 U.S. 950 (1963). CONCLUSIONS Oi LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 3. By unlawfully discharging employee Milton Willis on or about December 7, 1978, Respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom- mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I find that Respondent discharged Milton Willis for reasons which violated the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that the Respondent make Willis whole for any loss of pay which he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. The backpay provided herein with interest thereon is to be computed in the manner prescribed in F "' Respondent's brief slates, at p 24 "A re ie of the record indlcates that Willis was acting ,i the hasis. of personal whim., and that he placed those w hims o\er anrd ahore the good If th e lpl)cs nd the Cornpa- ny H' oolworti Company, 91) NL.R 2) t (950)). and tlor- ida Steel Corporation, 231 N R 13 b51 (1977)." Respondenit conltended in its brief that no renied, .as necessary in the case of its ilo-solicitatiol and not -distri- bution rules as it had replacC the offending rules x ilh (presumabl ) valid one s prior to the hearing. I cantino agree with this contentionl. he net, rules ,erc not placed into evidence nor w;as there an' showing that af- firmative steps had been taken b Respondent oi the oc- casion of promulgating new rules to inform employees of the reasons for the change arid the effect ,aith regard to their Section 7 rights. Under these circumstances. I shall issue a cease-and-desist order concernitng the no-solicita- tion and no distribution rules and require affirniatlie action in the form of a "Notice to Employ es." ORDER 2 The Respondent. Pyromatics, Inc., East Clc eland. Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigls. shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Promulgating. maintaining, or enforcing ay rule prohibiting union or other concerted acti ities during working hours. (b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for engaging i protected concerted actili- ties. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate the purposes tn(d policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Milton Willis immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists. to a substantially equivalent job, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against him in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll and other records necessary to analyze and comn- pute the amounts of backpay herein. (c) Post at its facilities at East Cleveland, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2l Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after duly being signed by Respondent's authorized representatives, shall be posted by it immedi- ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are cus- '" See, generals . li Plurnloing & HIeatirrg ('oepri .I IS N R 71 (1962) The General Counsel requeted .o increase ille IiIllrteret raitc Z" Ii the ce en no exceptllo, arc filed a prrlled hb S Ilr2 46 of the Rule, and Regulations of the Nalionlal abhr Relalonr Boird, Ihe finding,. conclusions, and recommended Order hretir h.ll. pri.ded In Section 102 48 (of the Rule' arid Regulatlion. he adipted h Ihc 1oard anid become its indings, concluilons. and ()rdr. and all OhiehlItllS hre- to shall be deemed .alxecd for 11al purpo,es t In the eenli that this ()rdlr i, enforced hi s a Judllerltr f a Lnlled States Court of Appeal. Ihe xori Ir the l hic rtc.dillg t."rLcd hb Order f the National I abhr Relallionr, iorard xhlall rd tRPo',ed P uru- ali to ai Judgilr tril of the tnilted Stl is It ourt f .- ca.l5 :rlffortilg an Order of the Natonlal I aho Rlanoltlr toard PYROMATICS. INC 1112 I 1()22 I)DtCISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8X, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.