Scolding Locks Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 1688 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
this Trial Examiner 's Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith .9
I further recommend that, unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt of
this Trial Examiner's Decision , Respondent has notified the Regional Director that
it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order , the Board issue an Order
requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
9 In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL offer William F . Pratt and Frank Goan each immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position , without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges , and will make him whole
for any loss of pay that he may suffer by reason of the discrimination practiced
against him.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to
join or assist International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal , Soft Drink
and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
BLOUNT FARMERS COOPERATIVE, INC.,,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 528 Peach-
tree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta , Georgia, Telephone No. 876-
3311 , Extension 5357 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Scolding Locks Corporation and District #32, United Steel-
workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 30-CA-81. Febru-
ary 11, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 24, 1964, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner 's Decision . He further found that the Respondent
150 NLRB No. 165.
SCOLDING LOCKS CORPORATION 1689
had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices
and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to
such allegations. Thereafter, the 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, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Jenkins].
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 and brief, and the entire
record in this case,' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner .2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts, as its Order, the Order
recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respond-
ent, Scolding Locks Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
'1 In its brief the Respondent moved for a rehearing in this case in order to introduce
evidence allegedly showing that a majority of its employees did not , at least in Novem-
ber 1964, wish to be represented by the Union Assuming without deciding that the
proffered evidence were otherwise admissible , it nevertheless would not warrant a
reversal of the finding that Respondent violated Section 8 ( a) (5), for, inter alia, it does not
rebut the record evidence that the Union represented a majority of employees on April 23,
1964 , the date of the Respondent 's unlawful refusal to bargain. Nor would such evidence
warrant a modification of the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order. See N L.R.S. v.
Loren A. Decker d/b/a Decker Truck Lines, 296 F. 2d 338 , 341-342 ( C.A. 8). The motion
for a rehearing is accordingly denied Also , by separate motion , opposed by the General
Counsel and Charging Party, the Respondent requested oral argument for the purpose of
presenting new and additional evidence relative to the findings that it violated Sec-
tion 8 ( a) (1) and ( 3). Evidence cannot properly be submitted in oral argument. More-
over, the Respondent has failed to show what evidence it seeks to present and its
relevance , if any, and has not shown or even alleged that the asserted evidence was
unavailable at the time of the hearing . Further, as the record , including the Respond-
ent's exceptions and brief , adequately presents the issues , we can perceive no need for
oral argument in this proceeding . In view of the foregoing, the motion for oral argu-
ment is denied.
2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt , pro forma, the Trial Examiner's
finding that the Respondent did not violate Section 8 ( a) (4) of the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges filed on June 15, July 17, and August 10, 1964,
by the above-named labor organization , the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board on September 18, 1964, issued his complaint and notice of hearing.
The Respondent thereafter filed an answer. The complaint alleges and the answer
denies that the above-named Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1), (3 ), (4), and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Apple-
ton, Wisconsin, on October 21 and 22, 1964, before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore.
1690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to
present evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs
have been received from General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the record thus made, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Scolding Locks Corporation is a Wisconsin corporation, with principal office and
plant in Appleton, Wisconsin, where it is engaged in the manufacture of hairpins
and bobbypins. I ,
During the year preceding issuance of the complaint the Respondent, sold- and
shipped, in interstate commerce, products valued at more than $50,000 to points
outside the State of Wisconsin.
The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE CHARGING UNION
District # 32, United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and major issues
The Charging Union began efforts to organize the Respondent's about 80 employees
in March 1964, the first time such organization had been attempted by this labor
organization. Organizers visited employees at their homes and obtained signatures
upon membership application cards. By April 23 nearly 50 such signed cards had
been placed in custody of the Board's Regional Office. As will be described more
fully below, on the same date the Respondent received from the Union a formal
request for recognition and negotiations. There is no dispute that since that date the
Respondent has effectively declined to meet the request, from which fact arises
General Counsel's allegation of violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
The complaint also contends that: (1) responsible supervisors of the Respondent,
by unlawful conduct, endeavored to discourage union membership and activity, and
(2) Respondent discriminated against an active union adherent, Rosemary Layering,
by issuing against her an unwarranted warning slip.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Within 2 or 3 weeks after the organizing campaign began Robert Hansen, assist-
ant general manager, took action so extraordinary that, upon review of his own testi-
mony, the conclusion is inescapable, despite his denial, that he engaged in it because'
he had become aware of the organizing movement among his employees.
On Saturday, March 21, he telephoned Rosemary Layering, an employee of 9 years'
service and an active union adherent. He requested that she come to his home the
following day, Sunday-a request never made before during her ,long service. He
said he wanted to talk to her "shoulder to shoulder." She went-accompanied'by
her husband. Hansen opened the conversation, according to Lavering's uncontra-
dicted testimony, by telling her he was "very concerned about the girls," that he knew
"they were unhappy," and that he "wanted to know what was wrong." She asked
what he meant. Hansen said he had heard something about an outside light and a
locked telephone, but wanted to know what else was the matter. Finally Layering
told him there was too much "partiality" being shown by a floorlady. Before she
left Hansen asked her to keep their talk "confidential."
According to his own testimony the next day he telephoned the company presi-
dent, Van Housen, who was then in Miami, Florida, and also to the company "labor
consultant" in Chicago, Walters, who represented the Respondent at the hearing.
Also according to the assistant manager, he only told them about the light, the tele-
phone, and the "partiality." He was advised by Walters, he testified, that they had
"a very serious problem," and it was decided that the next day he would start inter-
viewing every employee in the plant.
I find it most difficult to believe that Hansen's conversations with Van Housen-
and Walters covered only the subjects he listed. It is less than reasonable to think
that a management official, of some score of years' experience, should can the com-
pany president across the country on a Sunday to find out what to do about 'a missing
SCOLDING LOCKS CORPORATION 1691
light, a locked telephone, or a complaint he had just elicited himself about partiality
on the part of a floorlady. And it borders on the ridiculous to believe that upon such
minor matters only, an experienced labor consultant would recommend or approve
separate interviews with each of some 80 employees.
In any event, Hansen the next day began the long series of individual interviews,
which continued into the following week. As the former personnel manager, he was
apparently. aware of the risk of asking employees directly about their union activity,
but admitted as a witness that at least two employees told him about it.,
While General Counsel makes no claim that conducting the interviews was, per se,
violative of the Act, as background for subsequent action such unprecedented meas-
ures are considered relevant and significant.
After conducting his interviews of the first-shift employees and, as he claimed, first
learning of the union activity, he again called Walters on March 25. He couldn't
recall; he said, whether or not he mentioned the Union to this consultant, but they
decided to put up a light, to unlock the telephone, to "temporarily" relieve the offen-
sive floorlady from her duties, and, apparently, to tell employees doing certain work
that a new classification system would be installed. But despite these decisions, during
the following week Hansen proceeded to interview each one of the employees on the
second shift except, he added, he may have missed "a couple of them that are deaf
and dumb."
On March 26, the day after consulting with Walters, Hansen talked to both shifts,
told them he was correcting the "gripes" he had learned about, and would within a
few days set up a new "ABC" classification system. Present with Hansen at both of
these meetings were Superintendent Davis and Personnel Manager Skaer. As a curi-
ous accompaniment to Hansen's promise to rectify what he termed a "cancerous"
condition, Davis held up a sheaf of white slips, told employees they were "warning
slips,'', and warned them, that a new set of "work rules" would be put into effect
shortly.
Hansen admitted-that he could not recall who,-if anyone, had received a warning
slip before the day Davis held them up to the employees. He could and did recall,
.however, at least four employees who had received them since that day.
After Hansen learned, as he admitted, of the union organizational efforts, the fol-
lowing bettered working conditions were put into effect by management.
(1) A new classification system, promised on March 26, was inaugurated, which
resulted in increases to carders of from 5 cents to 10 cents per hour.
.(2) Break periods during each day were expanded, resulting in 20 minutes a day
instead of 10 minutes.
Under the circumstances described heretofore and below, I am convinced and
find that such benefits were both promised and granted for the purpose of discourag-
ing union membership? -
The announcement of the warning slips and new work rules, by Superintendent
Davis on March 26, was, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, the obverse of prom-
ises of benefit and constituted thinly veiled threats of reprisals to employees who
failed to be persuaded by the benefits. No credible explanation was offered by any
management officials as to why such warnings to employees were warranted-par-
ticularly at a time when, if Hansen is to be believed, he was merely trying to find out
what employees had as "gripes" about management or working conditions.
The preponderance of credible evidence supports General Counsel's contention that
the program of using such warning slips was inaugurated at the March 26 meeting,
despite Hansen's vague claim that it had existed for several years in the past. This
conclusion rests not only upon the credible testimony of employees of long service
to the effect that they had never heard of them before March 26, but also upon the
inability of Hansen to recall, when a witness at first, any such written warnings issued
before that date, although he readily named employees who had received them-after
that date. Moreover, I suspect that Hansen was less than truthful when he produced,
toward the close of the hearing, a document he said he found in the files, a warning
slip dated back in 1961. ' Upon his identification of it as a document so found by
him, it was received in evidence. When it became apparent that its receipt in evi-
dence was to be limited to Hansen's qualified identification of it, the Respondent's
representative then called Hughes, the former floorlady whose "partiality" Hansen
I General Counsel properly cites N L RB. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 U.S. 405.
Although a close question; I am not peruaded that changes in certain insurance benefits
announced about the same time were, as General Counsel would have it found, instituted
for the purpose of discouraging employees from "giving support to the Union." Com-
petent evidence establishes that formal steps toward such changes were begun in February,
before the union campaign began.
1692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
said brought about her demotion in March 1964 , but who is still on the Respondent's
payroll . Hughes, far from an impressive witness, declared that she had issued it to
the individual , Hameister, whose name appears upon it. She then rather boastfully
insisted that down through the years she had issued at least 40 such warning slips to
employees . Why, if as she said "all were always turned into the Company," Hansen
was unable to produce only one remains unexplained in the record.2
In summary it is concluded and found that by these general promises and granting
of benefits , and by the implied warning of reprisals in announcing a warning slip pro-
gram , the Respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights.
Specific conduct on the part of supervisors is described below, the findings being
based upon the credible testimony of the employees involved:
(1) On April 22 Floorlady Jansen , a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,
asked employee Chartier, who had been working there only a few weeks , if the girls
had been talking about the Union , and warned that if they thought they then thought
they had it "hard," they should wait "until the Union got in."
(2) On the same day Jansen came to the machine where employees Kutz and
Knapp were working and warned them that "any girl caught talking about the Union"
would be "fired on the spot." '
(3) Late in the day of April 23 , Supervisor Haefs came to employee Greening at
her machine , interrogated her as to what she thought of the Union , and declared that
after the "mess is over" there would be a lot of job openings . She added that although
she could not fire anyone , "we can make it mighty rough."
(4) On April 29 , while employee Layering and Kutz were working at their
machines , Jansen came to them, warned them not to talk about the Union, and
announced that only she, herself, was so permitted.
(5) On May 2 employee Chartier was called into Jansen 's office and told that she
had been put on a machine with Layering and instructed to report to Jansen any talk
she heard about the Union.
(6) On June 9 Jansen warned employee Schroeder that if she thought "things are
tight now ," they would be "worse" when the "Union gets in."
I conclude and find that the above -described interrogations , threats of reprisals,
prohibition only against talking about the Union , and Jansen 's instructions to Chartier
to report union talk by Layering, all constituted interference , restraint , and coercion.
C. The discriminatory warning to Rosemary Layering
There is no doubt that management considered Layering to be the chief union
adhereht among the employees . As noted , Hansen called her , and only her, to his
home in March for interrogation before interviewing all employees . On April 29 she
was warned by the floorlady not to "talk" about the Union . And on May 2 the same
floorlady instructed Chartier to report to her any union talk she heard from Layering.
(As a witness , Jansen admitted having so instructed Chartier .) On May 11 Lavering
attended , at the Union's request , a Board hearing on a representation petition pre-
viously filed . Two days later she was given a "1st Notice " of an "Employee Warning
Notice," signed both by Superintendent Davis and the personnel director . On the face
of the document , in evidence , the "Nature of Violation" cites "Disobedience ," and the
"Remarks" column is noted : "Interfering with normal production and other worker's
production . On production floor 15 minutes prior to start of shift."
Neither the superintendent nor the personnel director was called to explain why this
warning notice was issued to her. According to her own credible and undisputed
testimony , she came in a little early that day and , as had been her practice for at least
a year before with no complaint or criticism, had helped out a girl on her machine
before assuming her own job on the second shift.
2 Hameister , recalled after Hughes had testified , flatly denied that she had ever seen
the purported warning slip of 1961 before it was shown to her at the hearing. Added
grounds for suspicion as to the validity of the 1961 document are revealed by comparing
it with one the same employee received after the superintendent had announced their
use in March 1964. The 1961 document bears no signature of any company supervisor,
official, or anyone else as having issued it, while the 1964 document bears both the
signature of Davis and that of the approving personnel director. The date on the earlier
document has obviously been altered . And both documents have a checkmark indicating
that each is the first notice issued against this employee.
SCOLDING LOCKS CORPORATION 1693
I am convinced and find that this warning slip not only was wholly unwarranted
but was issued as a plain threat to her and others that unless they withdrew their union
adherence their job tenure was in jeopardy. Such discrimination interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.3
D. The refusal to bargain
The complaint alleges, the answer does not deny, and it is here found that a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining consists of:
All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's plant in Appleton,
Wisconsin, excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
As noted heretofore, union organizers obtained signatures to membership applica-
tion cards and turned them over to the Board's Regional Office, apparently for safe-
keeping and the placing upon them of the governmental stamp showing date of receipt
at such office. All such cards were identified at the hearing by union organizers who
had witnessed the signatures of the employees.
Checking these cards against a company-supplied list of all employees in the unit
and on the payroll as of April 23, the day when the Respondent received the Union's
claim of majority representation, reveals that at least 48 of the 83 employees had, by
that date, designated the Union as their bargaining agent. It is therefore concluded
and found that on April 23, 1964, the Charging Union represented a majority of the
employees in the above-described appropriate unit, and since that date has been the
exclusive representative of all employees in that unit for purposes of collective
bargaining.
There is no dispute that the Respondent received on April 23 the demand to bargain
and that it has at all times since then, in effect, refused to bargain. It failed to respond
to the Union's demand. It appears to be the Respondent's position that it is privileged
to continue to refuse to bargain with the Union until a Board certification, and that a
Board election must be held because the Union filed a petition and the Regional
Director, in May 1964, ordered an election. The Respondent itself, however, placed
in evidence the Regional Director's later and formal notice that withdrawal of the peti-
tion had been approved. There clearly is no merit in the Respondent's claim, espe-
cially in view of its own continuing efforts to undermine the union majority by
unlawful acts, as described herein. That its claimed position borders on the frivolous
finds added support in an allegation appearing in its answer: "The Union's representa-
tives repeatedly, coerced, and threatened the employees during working hours and
after working hours if they refused to join the Union." At the hearing the Respondent
offered no evidence pertinent to this allegation. At no time since the Union's first
demand for recognition has the Respondent displayed any reasonable doubt, either
with respect to the appropriateness of the proposed unit or the Union's representative
status. By failing to bargain with the Union it has failed to fulfill its bargaining
requirements under the Act.
It is therefore concluded and found that at all times since April 23, 1964, the
Respondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively with the Charging Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the above-described
appropriate unit, and that thereby the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirma-
tive action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
8 The complaint alleges that the issuance of this warning slip was also a violation of
Section 8(a)(4) of the Act, "because she had testified in a hearing conducted by the
Board." I find no evidence in this record that she actually "testified," but only that she
attended as an "observer." Under these circumstances, it will be recommended that this
allegation be dismissed.
1694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since it is reasonably inferred that the tenure of employment of employee Rosemary
Layering has been placed in jeopardy by the imposition of the discriminatory warning.
notice described herein, it will be recommended that the Respondent expunge from
her personnel record said warning notice, notify her at once of such action in a letter
signed by her superintendent or other responsible official, and notify all employees of
such action in a notice described below.
It will be further recommended that, upon request, the Respondent bargain col-
lectively in good faith with the Charging Union and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed contract.
Finally, in view of the serious and extended nature of the Respondent's unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. District #32, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's plant in Apple-
ton, Wisconsin, exclusive of office clerical employees, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined by the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
3. By virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, at all times since April 23, 1964, and con-
tinuing to date, the above-named labor organization has been the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the above-described appropriate unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment.
4. By refusing to bargain in good faith with the above-named labor organization as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the said unit, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a) (5) of the Act.
5. By discriminating against employee Rosemary Layering, as 'described herein, to
discourage membership in and activity on behalf of the above-named labor organiza-.
tion , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. ,
7. The' aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (4) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondent, Scolding Locks
Corporation , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with District #32, United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance
employees at its Appleton, Wisconsin, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
(b) Discouraging membership in the above-named or any other labor organization
of its employees by discharging, laying off, issuing unwarranted warning slips, or other-
wise discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment.
(c) Promising benefits or threatening reprisals to discourage, membership in the
above-named or any other labor organization.
(d) Interrogating employees concerning their activities on behalf of any labor
organization in a manner violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. ,
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization
as the exclusive representative, of all employees in the appropriate unit in respect,to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of employ-,
ment, and embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement.
SCOLDING LOCKS CORPORATION 1695
(b) Expunge from Rosemary Lavering's personnel record the warning notice
described herein and notify her and all employees of such action in the manner
described herein in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at its plant in Appleton, Wisconsin, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60
consecutive, days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.5
Finally, it is recommended that the 8(a) (4) allegations of the complaint be
dismissed.
4If this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, the words. "a Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order Is enforced by a decree of
a, United States Court of Appeals,' the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
,Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
5In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 ALL EMPLOYEES
'Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby. notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of, District
#32, United Steelworkers of America; AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organi-
zation, by discharging, issuing unwarranted warnings slips, or in any other
manner discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any terms or conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees concerning their union mem-
bership, desires, or activities.
WE WILL NOT promise or grant benefits, or threaten' reprisals; to discourage
union membership or activities. •
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in
the exercise of your rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit described below and
embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement:
All production and maintenance employees at our Appleton, Wisconsin,
plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL expunge from her personnel record the unwarranted warning notice
issued to Rosemary Layering on May 13, 1964.
SCOLDING LOCKS CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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.
Employees may. communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Commerce
Building, 744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Telephone No. 272-8600,
Extension 3860, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.