Stemun Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 2, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1278 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Although the Employer refused to stipulate that the unit
requested by the Petitioner was appropriate, it has not raised any issue
as to specific inclusions or exclusions from the unit as described by the
Petitioner. As of the time of the hearing, Mendenhall Trucking
employed three regular and one relief driver on its mail routes, while
R. C. Mendenhall had no one in his employ who drove his newspaper
route. In view of the common control and ownership of the two Men-
denhall operations, we find that a single unit of drivers employed by
the corporation and by R. C. Mendenhall is appropriate.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of Mendenhall
Trucking, Inc., and of R. C. Mendenhall constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time drivers, excluding office clerical
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Stemun Manufacturing Company, Inc. and District No. 82 of the
International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No.
9-CA-3189. July 2,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 23, 1965, 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 therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion . Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, 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
1 At the hearing the Trial Examiner ruled that a tape recording of a meeting held in
July 1964 between Respondent 's president and certain employees was not admissible in
evidence . We find no merit in Respondent 's exceptions to that ruling and deny Respond-
ent's motion to have the tape admitted. The complaint did not allege, and no finding
has been made , that any unfair labor practice took place at that meeting. See Walton
Manufacturing Company, 124 NLRB 1331, 1333; California Lingerie Inc., 129 NLRB 912,
913; and Duro Fittings Company, 130 NLRB 653.
153 NLRB No. 102.
STEMUN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1279
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,2 conclu-
sions, and recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that
the Respondent, Stemun Manufacturing Company, Inc., Springfield,
Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.3
2 Without holding that the document found by the Trial Examiner to be false was
prepared either by Rector or with his knowledge and consent , we find, on the basis of
the record as a whole , that Respondent discharged Its employees because it believed they
were engaged in union activities . As for Respondent ' s exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision which are directed to the credibility resolutions of the Trial Examiner , includ-
ing those pertaining to his finding that the document is false , we will not overrule the
Trial Examiner ' s resolutions as to credibility unless a clear preponderance of all relevant
evidence convinces us that they were incorrect . Upon the entire record , such conclusion
is not warranted here Standard Dry Wall Products , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362
(C.A.3).
3 The telephone number for Region 9, appearing at the bottom of the Appendix attached
to the Trial Examiner 's Decision , is amended to read. Telephone No. 684-3627.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon original and amended charges filed respectively on May 7 and 21, 1964, by
the above-named labor organization , the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board on June 30 , 1964, issued his complaint and notice of hearing.
Thereafter the Respondent filed an undated answer . On August 17, 1964, the Gen-
eral Counsel issued an amended complaint and notice of hearing . Thereafter the
Respondent filed another undated answer . On November 5, 1964, the General
Counsel issued an order withdrawing approval of a settlement agreement entered
into by the Respondent on September 22, 1964, such withdrawal being upon the
ground that the Respondent had failed and refused to comply with said agreement.
On December 2, 1964, the General Counsel issued an amended complaint and notice
of hearing . The Respondent filed another undated answer . Pursuant to notice, a
hearing was held before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore in Springfield , Ohio, on
February 10 and 11, 1965.
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. The
Respondent's representative argued orally upon the record , and thereafter filed a
brief.
Disposition of the Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint , upon which
ruling was reserved at the hearing , is made by the following findings, conclusions,
and recommendations.
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
Stemun Manufacturing Company, Inc., is an Ohio corporation engaged in the
manufacture of pressed metal products at its plant in Springfield , Ohio. During the
year preceding issuance of the amended complaint it had a direct outflow in inter-
state commerce of its products valued at more than $ 50,000.
1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District No. 82 of the International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and major issues
The chief issues of this case arise from the discharge of four employees in early
May 1964: Stevens, Christian, Giles, and Capper. The complaint alleges and the
answer denies that all four were discharged to discourage activities on behalf of the
Charging Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. The answer alleges no affirmative reason for such
discharges.
Collateral allegations of the complaint involve, on the part of the Respondent's
supervisors, interference, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discharges
1. Relevant circumstances before the dismissals
Credible testimony establishes the following facts, here found:
(a) In November 1963, the Union made an abortive attempt to organize employ-
ees of the Respondent. In that month it requested the Respondent to recognize and
bargain with it and, apparently, at the same time filed a petition for certification with
the Board. This petition, however, according to a union representative, was shortly
withdrawn„and organization came to a temporary halt.
(b) Early in March 1964, one Joseph Kindell was employed as superintendent by
the Respondent. According to his testimony he was instructed by the company
president, Randall Muncy, to "put the company back on a profitable basis and to
bring the production current."
(c) From his testimony it seems plain that Kindell's appointment and activities
were welcomed neither by subordinate supervisors nor employees. And according
to his affidavit, subscribed before Robert A. Vaughn (counsel for the Respondent
up to and including the time of the settlement agreement of September 1964),
shortly after assuming his new job, on or about April 1, he fired at least three
employees and Foreman Junior Skaggs, the latter having been there for many years
and having on the payroll a number of friends and relatives. Upon Skaggs' discharge,
employee Gregory remarked to his fellow workers that they should all walk out.
Employee Ray Norton 1 and Giles joined the group and countered with the sugges-
tion that they had a better idea-get the Union in.
(d) During the latter part of April at least three employees, Gregory, Giles, and
Ray Norton, distributed union cards among their fellow workers. Signed cards were
returned to a union representative. On May 1, the union representative mailed a
registered letter to the Respondent which as a witness he said contained a request for
recognition. The unopened letter is in evidence, together with the registry receipt.
According to the undisputed testimony of a post office special delivery messenger,
when he attempted to deliver this letter that same morning, May 1, Mrs. Muncy,
wife of the company president, upon ascertaining that the Charging Union's name
appeared on the envelope, refused to accept it. (Mrs. Muncy was at the hearing and
was identified by the messenger, but was not called as a witness.)
1 The record is somewhat confused as to the brothers Roy and Raymond (Ray) Norton.
In the superintendent's affidavit, above referred to, he states that be fired Ray Norton on
April 1 Yet this individual's testimony at the hearing, as the one brother to testify,
shows without challenge that he was working at least into May 1964 And the Respond-
ent's representative himself questioned Ray as to his possible resentment at the firing of
his brother Roy. Ray's testimony is also uncontradicted to the effect that in May Muncy
asked him if he thought they needed a union The affidavit is obviously in error.
STEMUN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1281
(e) The next day, Saturday, May 2, Superintendent Kindell asked employee Sheri-
dan about the Union. Sheridan said he knew nothing about it. Kindell then
remarked that "that was what all the fuss had been that happened earlier in the day,"
and that on Monday they would have trucks there to haul dies away and have the
"stamping done on the outside." 2
(f) It is uncontradicted that also on the same day Kindell called employee
Gregory into the office and asked him what he knew about the Union. Gregory
denied any knowledge on the point. Kindell said he knew several who were involved
and declared that when "Monday morning" came "a big shock" was in store for
them. Kindell named, among others, Giles and Christian, whose discharges are here
involved, and three others (Carr, Knief, and Robison) also listed as alleged dis-
criminatees in the original complaint but who "withdrew" charges involving them,
under circumstances described below. Kindell then asked him to keep his eyes and
ears open and to "let him know" if he learned anything. The employee agreed to
do so.3
(g) The following Monday, May 4, four of the six employees named by Kindell
the preceding Saturday were summarily fired.
(h) During that day President Muncy asked Gregory if he thought he had "got
rid of all the bad apples." Gregory replied, according to his undisputed testimony,
that if he had not "he had a darn good start on it." Whereupon Muncy added, "If
there is any more people around here who don't like the way things are run they
can get out."
2. The dismissals
Early Monday morning, May 4, employees Giles, Christian, and Carr were dis-
charged and upon reporting for work on the afternoon shift employee Stevens was
also dismissed. The next morning, May 5, employee Capper was summarily fired.
The complaint alleges as unlawful only the discharges of Giles, Christian, Stevens,
and Capper. Under coercive circumstances described below, employee Carr addressed
to the Board's Regional Office a letter dated June 27 in which he requested with-
drawal of his name and stated that he would not "appear at any trial against" the
Respondent. At some unrevealed date, but obviously after sending this letter, he
was permitted to return to work, and at the hearing was a witness for the Respondent.
As noted above, both Giles and Christian were included among those named by
Kindell on the preceding Saturday as due for "a shock" on Monday. Both employ-
ees had signed union cards and Giles had actively distributed them. Especially when
viewed in the light of the undisputed fact that Kindell had previously named them
in connection with his querying Gregory about the Union, the conclusion is reason-
able, and is here made, that management well knew of their union adherence before
firing them.
As Christian reported for work Monday morning Foreman Murphy told him not
to punch in, and said he was fired. Christian asked why. Murphy said he would
let him know later , and told him to come back later that morning to pick up his
check. When he returned, Muncy told him he had been discharged for "hot rod-
ding" in the parking lot, for "loud mufflers," and for breaking windows.
When reporting for work the same morning Giles was told by Kindell that he was
fired, and to return later for his check. Giles asked why. Kindell only said that he
had his own reasons. Upon returning for his check, he was told by Muncy that he
was fired for "sitting down," when he should have been working.4
Foreman Murphy was not a witness at the hearing. Neither Kindell nor Muncy
were questioned directly by the Respondent's representative as to why any one of
the four employees here involved was discharged. No credible direct evidence was
2 Kindell denied this conversation The denial is not credited. For reasons set out be-
low, and at length, I am unable to believe any part of the superintendent's testimony.
8 I do not consider Kindell's reply "Definitely not" to the leading question • "Have you at
any time over there ever discussed the union with any of these people?" to be a specific
denial of the remarks attributed to him by Gregory
4 The findings as to the actual discharge interviews rest upon the undisputed testimony
of the employees.
796-027-66-vol. 153-82
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
offered to support even the reasons given the two above-named employees by Muncy
when they received their checks 5
I conclude and find that employees Christian and Giles were discharged on May 4,
1964, to discourage union membership and activity, thereby interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
Employee Stevens was fired when he reported for work on the afternoon shift of
the same day, by Foreman Murphy who, it is undisputed, gave him no reason for
the summary action.
Employee Capper was discharged the next morning, May 5, by Murphy. When
he returned later for his check he was told by Muncy that the dismissal was because
he was "looking at the birds."
Although it does not appear that Stevens had been active in the 1964 union cam-
paign, it is undisputed that he had been a leader during the campaign in late 1963.
It is unchallenged that Capper signed a union card on April 24, 1965. I find that
both were known, or at least suspected, by management to be union adherents.
As in the cases of Christian and Giles, no competent or credible evidence was
adduced by the Respondent as to why either Stevens or Capper was discharged.
5 As the record repeatedly shows, the Respondent's representative at the hearing, not
an attorney , demonstrated an intent to rest his case, if possible , not upon competent and
admissible evidence , but upon unsupported accusations against Board representatives and
procedures . For example , in lieu of asking Kindell directly as to his reasons for firing
the four employees , he endeavored unsuccessfully to place in evidence an affidavit notarized
in mid-June 1964, by Attorney Vaughn, then counsel for the Respondent, and in the pres-
ence of counsel for General Counsel. ( Rector offered the document as follows: "I am
offering it in evidence now, sir , as his testimony .") Upon this offer the document was
rejected . Rector then had received in evidence another typewritten document, consisting
of two pages, which Kindell, upon oath, declared he had "dictated" as a memorandum
to "Mr. Muncy" on the date appearing upon it, April 15, 1964. I am convinced that
the affidavit taken by Attorney Vaughn, of a reputable Springfield law firm, in June,
is authentic . ( The affidavit , after being used by General Counsel for cross -examination,
was received in evidence on my suggestion ) I am equally convinced that the "memoran-
dum" thus identified by Kindell , and proffered by Rector as the "original," is
quite the opposite . I doubt if Kindell had ever before the hearing actually seen the docu-
ment, much less dictated it. He blandly swore that he had signed it. Yet the document
bears no signature, and the fact was pointed out to him. He claimed that it was dictated
to someone who, after much deliberation , he said was a "Mrs Nelson ." Yet the document
bears neither his own initials nor those of anyone to whom it was dictated Nor was
Mrs. Nelson or anyone else called by the Respondent to testify as to the typing of the
document . When placed in evidence the two pages were unwrinkled and unsoiled,
presenting the clear appearance of having come fresh from some typewriter. I
believe that this document was prepared just before the hearing, either by Rector
or with his knowledge and consent , for the sole purpose of deceiving the Board
in an attempt to make it appear that it was in existence before union activity in April
began. It is admitted that Kindell retained a copy of his affidavit in June before At-
torney Vaughn While the language is not verbatim, the substance of the "memorandum"
is the same as that in the affidavit. Other factors support the reasonable inference that
it was not in existence when Kindell gave his affidavit to Vaughn. Not a word in the
affidavit refers to, or even suggests, that Kindell had in April or at any other time, orally
or in writing , recommended to Muncy that the employees named therein be fired. On the
contrary, the affidavit states that he, himself, "agreed to the termination" of all but two
of the employees listed in the original charge "actually on the recommendation of (Fore-
man) Murphy" And as so often happens, simple flaws reveal the falsification of docu-
ments. For example, all relevant documents up to and including the June affidavit, show
that the spelling of one dischargee's name is consistently "Robison." And the individual
himself, who sent in a letter of withdrawal, so spells his name Yet the false document
spells it "Robertson " Furthermore, the first name of Capper, one of the dischargees
here involved, is spelled as consistently in all earlier documents as "Ferrie," but in the
"memorandum" It appears as "Fairy." It seems a reasonable inference that shortly be-
fore the hearing (I specifically absolve Attorney Vaughn as having had any part in this
deception) someone dictated the "memorandum" with the affidavit before him, and failed
to correct the misspelling in the typed document It seems doubtful that the typing was
done in the Respondent 's office by anyone familiar with the proper spelling of the em-
ployees' names. Because of this false document , I can believe no part of the testimony
of either Kindell or Muncy. The latter also said, under oath, that it was given to him
by Kindell in April.
STEMUN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1283
I am convinced and find that management discharged both employees to discourage
union membership and activity, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
C. Unlawful conduct after the discharges
Following the unlawful discharges described above, Muncy continued his coercive
conduct. It is undisputed that he told employee Gregory on several occasions-
apparently after the Union had filed a petition for certification-that if the Union
came in he did not have to "furnish" tools and other things, and "could and would"
job the work out. Muncy also told him that if the Union sought a contract, it would
either sign the contract he presented or he "would close the doors."
These threats seemingly were effective. According to his credible testimony, just
before the elections scheduled for June 23, Gregory telephoned Muncy and asked
him to meet him and another employee at a place called the "Old Mill." Muncy
came as requested. Gregory apologized even to the extent of offering his resigna-
tion for his part in the union organization, and told Muncy that he and others had
given statements to a Board agent supporting the charges of unfair labor practices.
Muncy declined to accept his resignation. The employee with Gregory offered to
get the employees at the election "on the side of the company," and Gregory said
he would try also.
For the next day or two Muncy asked Gregory if he had talked to any of the men.
The employee said he had had no time. Muncy then told him to take all the time
he needed for this purpose. Gregory proceeded as instructed. The election was
held and the Union lost.
A few days after the election Muncy came to Gregory and said someone would
have to get the statements to the Board agent supporting the charges withdrawn.
Shortly after this remark Muncy called the employee into the office, gave him the
Regional Office address and some envelopes and paper. (The address is upon a
form notice, apparently sent to the Company by the Regional Office, notifying it of
the change in office address.) Muncy also gave the employee suggestions as to how
the withdrawals should be worded, and instructed him to be sure that he, himself,
mailed them and to do so on different dates.
Upon Muncy's instruction Gregory, usually accompanied by Foreman Murphy,
visited discharged employees and got them to sign withdrawals. (Exhibits in evi-
dence show that the Board received "withdrawals" on different dates in July, which
Gregory obtained, from employees Capper, Raymond Norton, Christian, Knief,
Robison, and Carr. Gregory also signed and sent in one himself.) At least some
of these "withdrawals" were obtained by Gregory after he gave them the promise,
suggested to him by Muncy and/or Kindell, that the Company would withdraw its
objections to their obtaining unemployment compensation. And at least Carr and
Robison were permitted to return to work after sending in the "withdrawals."
The Respondent must be held accountable for the activities of Gregory described
above. He was plainly acting as Muncy's agent. Furthermore, it is undisputed that
Muncy himself urged employee Ray Norton, who was not discharged, to "get the
matter cleared up," and that finally he sent in his "withdrawal." Such conduct by
Gregory and Muncy interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
D. Additional conclusions in summary
In addition to the conduct above-described as violations of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, it is now concluded and found that the following incidents also interfered
with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights:
(1) Kindell's threat to Sheridan concerning moving of dies and having the work
done on the "outside", (2) Kindell's interrogation of Gregory and announcement
that several employees would get a "shock" on Monday; (3) Kindell's direction to
Gregory to report to him whatever he "learned" about union activity; and (4)
Muncy's threat to Gregory that if the Union came in it would either sign his con-
tract or he would "close the doors."
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection 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.
1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer employees Giles, Christian,
Stevens, and Capper immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them by payment to each of a sum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the
discrimination to the date of the offer of full reinstatement, less his net earnings
during said period, and in a manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, and with interest on the backpay due in accordance with
Board policy set out in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
In view of the serious and extended nature of the Respondent's unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner
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 No. 82 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating against employees, as described herein, to discourage mem-
bership in and activity on behalf of the above-named labor organization, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing 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.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, I recommend that the Respondent, Stemun Manufacturing
Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in and activity on behalf of District No. 82 of the
International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organiza-
tion, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner
discriminating against, employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment.
(b) Threatening economic reprisals, or promising benefits, to discourage union
activity.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning union activities in a manner violative
of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
(d) By threats or promises persuading employees to withdraw charges or state-
ments given to Board agents.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to employees Christian, Giles, Stevens,
and Capper, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against them, in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Notify each of said employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of
1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due and the right of reinstatement under terms of this Recom-
mended Order.
MILLMEN & CABINET MAKERS UNION, LOCAL 550, ETC. 1285
(d) Post at its Springfield, Ohio, plant, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 9, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representa-
tive, be posted 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
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any material.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps it has taken to comply
therewith.7
9 If 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".
71n the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to conduct our labor relations in compliance with
the National Labor Relations Act, we notify you that:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discourage you from being members of District
No. 82 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, or any other
union.
WE WILL NOT in any way interfere with your right to file charges with, or give
statements to agents of, the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights you have under the National Labor
Relations Act to join a union of your own choice or not to engage in union
activities.
WE WILL offer reinstatement to Michael Giles, Donald Stevens, Ferrie
Capper, and Dennis Christian, and will give them backpay due them.
STEMUN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify each of the above-named employees if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days after posting, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room
2023, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, Telephone No.
381-2200, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Millmen & Cabinet Makers Union, Local No. 550, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and
Steiner Lumber Company. Case No. 20-CC-448. July 2, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 25, 1965, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his
Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that Respondent had
153 NLRB No. 85.