Satra Belarus, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 2, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 744 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Satra Belarus, Inc. and Robert Brady. Case 30-CA- 3339 November 2, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Satra Belarus, Inc., Mil- waukee, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND WALTHER On May 25, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Mar- ion C. Ladwig issued the attached Decision 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,' and conclusions 2 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 Re- ' Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule 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 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. Respondent has requested oral argument Inasmuch as the record and brief of Respondent adequately present the issues at hand this request, is hereby denied. 2 In affirming the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, we do not rely on Berger's fear of reprisal as a basis for finding this interrogation violated Sec 8(a)(1) Respondent contends that the complaint concerning alleged discrimina- tee Robert Brady should be dismissed because Brady,failed to appear at the hearing and Respondent was therefore denied the right to cross-examine him Respondent argues that this resulted in a denial of due process which requires dismissal of the complaint as to Brady We disagree. In finding that the Brady discharge violated Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Administrative Law Judge properly relied on the testimony of other witnesses having direct knowledge of the relevant events These witnesses were fully cross-examined by Respondent's counsel In these circumstances, where sufficient indepen- dent evidence (which can, of course, be circumstantial as well as direct), exists to establish that Brady's discharge violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, no denial of due process-resulted from Brady's failure personally to appear at the hearing. New Madrid Manufacturing Company, 104 NLRB 117, 119-120 (1953), enfd as modified 215 F 2d 908 (C A 8, 1954), cf Lenscraft Optical Corporation, et al, 128 NLRB 807, 808 (1960) Member Walther, while in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging Barton Crabbe, relies solely for this finding on the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that, but for Crabbe's participation in union activity, Respon- dent would have offered Crabbe a position as a permanent employee on September 26, 1975 In such circumstances, Member Walther finds it unnec- essary to pass on the Administration Law Judge's alternate grounds for finding Crabbe's discharge to be a violation of the Act DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative -Law Judge: This case was heard at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on February 19- 20, 1976. The charge was filed by an individual, Robert Brady, on September 29, 1975,1 and the complaint was is- sued on November 3. Brady and another employee, Barton Crabbe, were terminated for "lack of work" the day after the Company learned through employee interrogation that they had passed out union authorization cards at the plant. The primary issuesare whether the Company, the Respon- dent,- (a) unlawfully interrogated employees about who were passing out the union cards, and (b) discharged the two union organizers because of their union activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after- consideration of the Company's brief, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The Company, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the wholesale distribution- and repair of imported tractors at its plant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where it annually ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to custom- ers located outside the State. The Company admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and-(7) of the Act, and that Team- sters "General" Local Union,No. 200, International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of .the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Increased Work in the Warehouse In January the Company opened its plant for the service and wholesale distribution of farm tractors imported from Russia. By September, it was employing seven or eight em- ployees in the service department. In the warehouse (where it stored tractors; stocked tools, parts, front-end loader at- tachments, other equipment, and miscellaneous supplies; and did the shipping and receiving), it had three ware- housemen beginning the third week in May and at least four warehousemen beginning the first week in August. i All dates are in 1975 unless otherwise stated 226 NLRB No. 124 SATRA BELARUS Not knowing how fast its business would expand, the Company initially hired only one permanent warehouse- man (Ron Sheldon), and utilized temporary service agency employees in the warehouse. On June 12, the Company replaced one of its two agency employees by hiring a sec- ond-year university student, Brady, to work as a ware- houseman for the summer. Eleven days later, the Company received its first sizable shipment (277 cases, 40,000 pounds) of tractor parts and Sheldon, Brady, and the third warehouseman (an agency employee who worked through July 25) spent most of their time unpacking and stocking these parts. During the last week in July, the Company received a second, somewhat larger, shipment of parts (weighing 44,982 pounds). After utilizing a total of five temporary warehousemen from two agencies to assist Shel- don and Brady over a 3-week period, the Company hired an older employee (William Hayes) on August 13, and ob- tained warehouseman Crabbe from one of the agencies on August 21. These four warehousemen (Sheldon, Hayes, Brady, and Crabbe) unpacked and stocked parts from the second shipment, while performing shipping, receiving, and other duties. (A shipment of front-end loaders-the first received since May-arrived in August.) During the last week of August, a third, much larger, shipment of 927 cases (116,000 pounds) of tractor parts arrived in Milwaukee. It was stored in a bonded warehouse where the Company paid the storage charges (without pay- ment of the import tariff) until delivered to the Company's plant . About 2 weeks later, the four warehousemen fin- ished unpacking and stocking most of the second (44,982 pound, July) shipment of parts, and the Company assigned warehousemen Sheldon and Crabbe to work on the third shipment at the bonded warehouse. Under the direction of Charles Cocking (an employee in the Company's inventory control department), Sheldon and Crabbe spent 1-1/2 to 2 weeks at the public warehouse, checking and straightening out the crated parts. Meanwhile, a shipment of about 40 front-end loaders "and quite a few extra buckets" arrived at the plant, and it was necessary for the Company to as- sign service department personnel to assist in unloading them. (Warehouseman Brady and three service department employees performed this work on an overtime basis on Saturday morning, September 20.) The following Wednesday, September 24, warehouse- man Sheldon (who had been acting as leadman) notified Warehouse Manager Donald (whose title was director of material control and procurement) that the following Fri- day (September 26) would be his last day of work for the Company. About 8 o'clock the next, morning, Thursday, September 25, Braun met with the three remaining ware- housemen, Hayes, Brady, and Crabbe. It is undisputed (as Crabbe credibly testified) that Braun, in the presence of employee Cocking (who had been directing the work on the third parts shipment), told the warehousemen that: Ron Sheldon would be leaving on Friday . . . and that Bill Hayes would be-taking over the responsibility that Ron Sheldon did have and he would be a lead man.... Don Braun then said that there was much work to be done, that he was ' happy -with the work that we had 'done and hoped that we could work together 745 as a team . . . He said that our first responsibility .. - would be that shipments were made, that if any orders were received by us from the office that we were to fill those orders first above anything else; and that our second responsibility would be to check in parts and put them in locations and the inventory. [Emphasis supplied.] At that point, there were only about 3 days of work re- maining to be done in unpacking and stocking the parts from the second shipment. However, there was much un- packing and stocking work to be done upon receipt of parts from the third shipment, all of which was being stored at the bonded warehouse. The Company's ware- house had to be inventoried and straightened out, and the entire stock was to be relocated, by type of item rather than by number (a task still being performed months later, at the time of hearing). Thus, on Thursday, September 25, only 1 day before Warehouse Manager Braun (as discussed below) suddenly terminated Brady and Crabbe for a purported "lack of work"-leaving only Hayes in the warehouse-Braun was telling Hayes, Brady, and Crabbe that there was "much work to be done,"_that he was pleased with their' work, that he hoped they could work as a team after Friday of that week, that their first responsibility was to handle the ship- ment of orders, and that their second responsibility was to stock parts (clearly referring to the large shipment of trac- tor parts in storage at the bonded warehouse) and to take the inventory. As discussed below, Braun did not learn un- til a few minutes after this 8 o'clock meeting that Brady and Crabbe were organizing for the Union. B. Interrogation At noon on Wednesday, September 24 (the-day before Warehouse Manager Braun informed warehousemen Hayes, Brady, and Crabbe in a meeting that leadman Shel- don was leaving and expressed the hope that the three re- maining warehousemen could "work together as a team" after that Friday), Brady and Crabbe passed out union au- thorization cards to the warehouse and service department employees. That afternoon, inventory control employee Cocking went to Braun's office, gave him one of the union cards, and told him that the cards had been passed out and that this one came from Hayes. Cocking'did not say who had passed out the cards. Braun thereafter showed the card to Service Department, Foreman Robert Klusmeyer and "asked if I knew who might be circulating the cards." Klus- meyer said no. That same Wednesday afternoon, when service employ- ee Arnold was in Foreman Klusmeyer's office, Klusmeyer (as defense witness Berger credibly testified) "asked me whether I was aware of any union cards being passed out." Berger answered yes. Klusmeyer asked "whether I knew who distributed the cards." Berger said he did. The fore- man then "asked me what I could tell him, who was doing it?" Berger refused to tell him. Thus, by the time Ware- house Manager Braun went home that Wednesday eve- ning, he knew that union cards had been distributed, and the interrogation had revealed that a service department 746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employee knew who was responsible. However, Braun was not aware that the union organizers worked in the ware- house. About 8:30 the next morning, Thursday, September 25 (a few minutes after Warehouse Manager Braun's meeting with warehousemen Hayes, Brady, and Crabbe), Braun in- terrogated Hayes in the warehouse, asking him "who passed out the cards?" Hayes informed him that it was Crabbe and Brady. Braun "asked him if he had any knowl- edge as to where" they had obtained the cards, and Hayes said he thought they had met with a union representative the night before and had gotten them from him. It is clear that, when the service department foreman interrogated employee Berger in the foreman's office on Wednesday' afternoon about who had distributed the union cards, Berger feared that reprisals would be taken and re- fused to inform him. Neither Berger nor warehouseman Hayes, the following morning when the warehouse manag- er interrogated him about the same subject, was informed -of any lawful purpose for the interrogation, nor given any assurance against retaliation. The union cards had been distributed only a short time before and, only I day after the interrogation revealed the identity of the union organ- izers, both of the organizers were terminated. I find that, under these circumstances, the interrogation of Berger and Hayes was coercive and interfered with the employees' Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. C. Alleged , Discriminatory Discharges 1. Sudden terminations About 8 o'clock on Friday morning, September 26 (less than 24 hours after learning from the interrogation that warehousemen Brady and Crabbe were the ones who passed out the union cards at the plant), Warehouse Man- ager Braun met with Vice President John Chambers and two other company officials. Braun testified that he showed them the union card he had received-from employ- ee Cocking, and reported to them that the cards had been passed out to employees on Wednesday. Braun then admit- ted (following a reminder of his preheanng affidavit) that he "basically" told the three company officials that "there was no action required since the two individuals would no longer be with us," or told them that "there need not be any concern about . . . the fact that cards were being passed out in that these were not permanent employees of Satra Belarus and in fact, would be leaving." (Chambers had previously revealed the Company's antiunion policy by notifying mechanic Vern Otterstrom in February "that the shop was not Union and that he wished it not to be Union.") At quitting time that same Friday, Braun told Brady and Crabbe separately, without any prior notice, that they were being laid off for lack of work. As credibly testified by Crabbe (who impressed me as an honest, forthright wit- ness), Braun said "he was happy with the work that I had done for him in the past, that he had no complaints. He also said that if I would ever need a work reference from any other company that would contact him, that he would personally give him a good reference." - The termination obviously came as a surprise to Brady and Crabbe. Not only had Warehouse Manager Braun met with them and Hayes the day before and said he hoped they could "work together as a team" in the absence of leadman Sheldon who was quitting, but Braun had recently spoken to Crabbe about permanent employment. Judith Osmanski, the manager of the temporary service agency, had written Crabbe on September 16, telling him that Braun had mentioned being "really impressed with you and the work you have been doing and also expressed, an interest in putting you on their permanent payroll." (Os- manski reluctantly confirmed this information at the hear- ing.) After receiving the letter, Crabbe went to Braun's of- fice (on either September 19 or 22, within a week of Crabbe's termination). It is undisputed that Braun made no mention of any layoff, but instead said he "was happy with me as an employee and the work I had done" and "had discussed with Judy the possibility of me being hired on as a permanent employee of Satra Belarus." (Under its arrangement with the agency, the Company was permitted to place an agency employee on its own payroll upon pay- ing a $300 fee, or without a fee after 90 days. During the 90-day period, the agency charged the Company $3.70 an hour for the employee's work, and paid the employee $2.50 an hour.) Brady was already on the company payroll. Al- though he had been hired in June for summer employment (at $3.25 an hour), he had notified Braun on August 15 that he definitely was not returning to the university in the fall. As a temporary employee before August 15, he had not been entitled to any paid holidays. However, "because he had been in our employ as long as he had," he was given a paid holiday on Labor Day. Thus, before learning that Brady and Crabbe had passed out the union cards, Warehouse Manager Braun had indi- cated continued employment for both of them. He advised them on Thursday morning, September 26, that there was "much work to be done," that Hayes would be their lead- man after Sheldon left on Friday, and that they were to work first on filling orders for shipment and, second, checking in and stocking parts (from the large parts ship- ment then stored in the bonded warehouse), and taking inventory. Then, a day after learning that they were union organizers, he laid them off for "lack of work." 2. The Company's defenses In its brief, the Company "contends that, notwithstanding the circumstantial effect of the sequence of events, the evi- dence clearly establishes that [Brady and Crabbe] were ter- minated because there was no more work for them to do." (Emphasis supplied.) The Company's principal contentions are that Brady was hired "to unpack two major parts shipments" (al- though he replaced another employee 11 days before the first major shipment was received); that Crabbe was ob- tained from a temporary help service "to unpack the sec- ond of the two major parts shipment"; and that their ser- vices were terminated when this work was finished. The evidence does support the Company's contention that the first major shipment of parts and virtually all of the second SATRA BELARUS shipment had been unpacked and placed in stock. How- ever, the third (and largest) shipment received in Milwau- kee remained to be unpacked and placed in stock upon receipt from the bonded warehouse and, as found above, the Company had much work for Brady and Crabbe to do after finishing the work on the second shipment. The Company also contends that the decision to termi- nate Brady and Crabbe on September 26 was made "Ap- proximately the 19th of September" (that is, before their union organizing began). However, as found above, Ware- house Manager Braun spoke to Crabbe on September 19 or 22 about permanent employment, and spoke to both Brady and Crabbe in a meeting with warehouseman Hayes on Thursday morning, September 25 (before learning about their union organizing), and talked about them working with Hayes as a team after Friday, when leadman Sheldon was leaving . When asked by company counsel why he told Brady and Crabbe on Thursday morning that Hayes would become the leadman "when you knew from the previous week that you would be releasing them on Friday, Septem- ber 26," Braun answered: "Just .common good manage- ment practice. You deal with people and positions on a given day as they were to be dealt with that day, not de- pending on what's going to be happening in the future" To the contrary I find that Braun , at that time, contemplated continued employment for Brady and Crabbe. ( Braun's private secretary, Jean Maciejewski, claimed that Braun told her that "the work had been completed for which Mr. Crabbe and Mr. Brady had been hired and that they would have to be let go." I find that if this conversation actually took place, it occurred after 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, Sep- tember 25, when Braun learned about their union activity. Despite her denial on redirect examination that she would "lie under oath," she did not impress me as being a trust- worthy witness. Judith Osmanski, the manager of the tem- porary service agency, claimed that Braun told her that Crabbe "started out fantasically and his work had lessened and lessened because he got mixed up with one of the other kids and both of their work were showing there was fooling around or whatever." She impressed me, by her demeanor, as being more concerned with pleasing her customer than testifying forthrightly. I find that , if Braun did make this uncorroborated statement to her, he did so as a pretext for laying Crabbe off, after learning of Crabbe's union activity with Brady.) I discredit the testimony by Vice President Chambers and Warehouse Manager Braun that Brady's and Crabbe's work was finished, and Braun's testimony that he had previously decided to terminate them on Sep- tember 26. (From their demeanor on the stand, both Chambers and Braun appeared to be less than candid.) The Company contends in its brief that so little work remained after the termination of Brady and Crabbe that it did not require more than one warehouseman (Hayes) on the payroll. To the contrary, the evidence shows that the Company was merely postponing the warehouse work. It did not assign the taking of the inventory, and the straight- ening out and relocating of the stock in the warehouse, until late November. Although Warehouse Manager Braun told Hayes, Brady, and Crabbe on September 25 that they would be checking in and stocking parts'(from the large third shipment) and taking inventory, the Company did 747 not order any of the parts from the bonded warehouse until almost a month later , on October 20, and then or- dered only 167 cases (23,507 pounds) of the 927 cases (116,000 pounds) in storage . (Most of the third shipment still remained in the bonded warehouse at the time of hear- mg.) By November 3, when it was faced with unloading a shipment of tractors , the Company had obtained three ad- ditional warehousemen . One was Crabbe (again referred. by the temporary service agency); he was laid off after 3, weeks. Another was Steve Marquart, who was told he was being hired as a maintenance man, to do mainly janitorial work (although the Company's "maintenance" contracts with two janitorial firms would not expire until February 28, 1976). By the time of hearing , the Company had decid- ed to keep him in the warehouse , but purportedly planned to assign more "maintenance" work to the third additional warehouseman , Chris Cornell , after the expiration of the maintenance contracts . (After Cornell worked as a ware- houseman for 4 weeks, the Company paid the $300 agency fee and placed him on the payroll as a permanent employ- ee.) Marquart and Cornell-like Brady and Crabbe before their September termination-spent part of their time cleaning up and doing odd jobs. The Company did not recall Brady , nor offer Crabbe continued employment. It has assigned employees from both the service department and the material control group to assist the warehousemen when needed. There is in evidence a memorandum, signed by Ware- house Manager Braun , stating that "In the past few days I have had to be critical of Bob [Brady] for standing around loafing & not following instructions closely. This could be a factor in whether he would be considered for full time permanent employment ." Although it is dated "9/24/ 1976" (September 24 being the day before Braun learned of Brady's organizing efforts-and 1976 being ob- viously incorrect), and although Braun positively testified that "Absolutely ," he prepared it on September 24, I find from all the evidence and circumstances that he predated it. He first testified that he criticized Brady "twice" during the past few days before September 24, "On Saturday morning and the following Monday." After being-remind- ed of his prehearing affidavit, he retracted his testimony that he had criticized Brady on Monday. Concerning the Saturday criticism , service department employee Otter- strom credibly testified that, after they had finished un- loading the truckload of front-end loaders, he and Brady were standing there talking, when Braun dame into the parts department and "told Brady to get to work or punch out." (Braun was not the supervisor over , the service de- partment.) Thus there was only one occasion during "the past few days" when Braun was "critical" of Brady "for standing around loafing," and Braun did not, prepare any memorandum to Brady's file at the time. Moreover , several days later on Thursday at 8 a.m . (before learning that Bra- dy had distributed union cards), Braun praised Brady's work (along with the work of Crabbe and Hayes ). After considering all the circumstances, including , the fact that the memorandum-written several days later-falsified what had happened, and the fact that Braun 's clearly fabri- cated testimony to support the memorandum , I find that the memorandum was actually written after Braun 's inter- 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rogation- of Hayes revealed Brady's union activity (con- trary to the testimony of Braun, who again appeared to be less than candid). The Company also contends in its brief that Brady and Crabbe were merely temporary employees, and "this Court cannot award reinstatement and backpay to Brady and Crabbe as temporary-employees." As for Brady, I find that he was no longer a temporary, summer student employee after the Company learned that he was not returning to school, thereafter started giving him holiday pay, and told him and Crabbe on the day before their termination that they were expected to work as a team with the new lead- man, Hayes. Although he was not yet formally made a permanent employee, I find that he was employed for at least an indefinite time, if not permanently. As for Crabbe, he was still on the agency payroll at the time of his termi- nation. (The agency paid his wages and made the deduc- tions for income tax, social security, etc., but he was super- vised solely by the Company, and he worked alongside the company employees, with the same hours and working conditions.) Nevertheless, Warehouse Manager Braun had raised the point a few days earlier of making Crabbe a permanent employee, after previously telling the agency manager that he was "really impressed" with Crabbe and had an interest in putting Crabbe on the permanent pay- roll. Thereafter, the Company paid the $300 fee and placed another agency employee (Cornell) on the permanent pay- roll after 4 weeks of work as a warehouseman. Upon con- sidering the fact that Crabbe had worked as a satisfactory employee for over a month, and the Company was in need of another permanent employee when warehouse leadman Sheldon quit, I find that, in the absence of Crabbe's orga- nizing effort, the Company would have informed him on September 26 that it was making him a permanent employ- ee, instead of terminating him. 3. Concluding findings Despite the denials by Vice President Chambers and Warehouse Manager Braun that Brady's and Crabbe's union organizing , played any part in the decision to termi- nate them, I,find from all the credible evidence and cir- cumstances that the Company suddenly discharged them on September 26 because of the information, obtained through employee interrogation the day before, that they had passed out union cards at the plant. As for Brady, I find that his discriminatory discharge clearly violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. As for Crabbe, I find that although he was then still on the tempo- rary service agency payroll at the time of his termination, the Company discriminatorily discharged him instead of making him a permanent employee, as it would have done in the absence of his union activity. I therefore find that his discharge likewise violated-Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Moreover, even if the Company would not have im- mediately made i Crabbe a permanent employee in the ab- sence of his organizing efforts, I find that his termination still violated the Act. I find that, under the circumstances of this case, the Company and the agency were Crabbe's joint employers, and the Company's discriminatory dis- charge of him violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Manpower, Inc., of Shelby County and Armour Grocery Prod- ucts Co.; Division of Armour and Company, 164 NLRB 287, 288 (1967). Moreover, even if the Company-and the agency were not Crabbe's joint employers and even if there was no direct employer-employee relationship between the Com- pany and Crabbe, there was a community of interest be-, tween the Company and the agency as employers, Crabbe was under the Company's control, and his discriminatory discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Austin Company, 101 NLRB 1257, 1259 (1952). Likewise, even if he were not a direct employee of the Company and even if his discharge for passing out the union cards to company employees did not violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, his discharge for that reason, to undercut the organizational drive among the company employees, clearly interfered with their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discharging Robert Brady and Barton Crabbe on September 26, 1975, because of their union activity, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By coercively interrogating employees, the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent'has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take cer- tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged two employees, I find it necessary to order it to offer them full reinstatement, with backpay computed on a quarterly ba- sis, plus interest at 6 percent per annum in accordance with F. W.- Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), from date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement. Inas- much as Respondent's unlawful conduct goes to the heart of the Act, I find that a broad order against infringing upon the employees' Section 7 rights in any other manner is necessary. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER' Respondent, Satra Belarus, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 2 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. SATRA BELARUS 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting Teamsters "General" Local Union No. 200, International Brotherhood° of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other union. - (b) Coercively interrogating any- employee about union support or union activity. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section Tof the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Robert Brady and Barton Crabbe immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi- leges, and make them whole for any loss of pay or other benefits in the manner set forth in the Remedy section. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, 'all pay- roll records, social security payment records, -timecards, personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its plant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies- of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being' duly signed by Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are custom- 749 arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re- spondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respon- dent has taken to comply herewith. 3 In the event 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board" APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL offer full- reinstatement to Robert Brady and Barton Crabbe, with backpay plus 6-percent in- terest. WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for supporting Teamsters "General" Local Union No. 200, or any other union. WE WILL NOT coercively question any of you about union support or union activity. WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with your union activities in any other manner. SATRA BELARUS, INC.