Schaefer-Hitchcock Co.

In the Matter Of SCHAEFER-HITCHCOCK COMPANY and LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 2614, CHARTERED BY THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Case No. C-2002.-Decided March 12, 1942 Jurisdiction : pole processing industry. Unfair Labor Practices ' In General: employer held responsible for activities of a person characterized as a "straw boss" who took the place of the foreman when absent; gave orders around the plant; was used to "transmit" orders; and who could recommend hiring and firing. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statement; questioning employee as to what he thought about a union; instigating and holding meeting to counteract efforts to interest employees in union. Discrimination: discharge of only employee who had applied for union member- ship and engaged in organizational activity, reasons advanced in justification held mere subterfuges designed to conceal the true reason for the discharge which was to remove this employee from the scene and thus prevent his efforts to organize its employees into the union from attaining success. Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded. Mr. Charles M. Brooks, for the Board. Mr. C. H. Potts, of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, for the respondent. Mr. Charles A. Paddock, of Spokane, Wash., for the Union. Mr. Max W. Johnstone, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local No. 2614, chartered by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued its complaint dated August 27, 1941, against Schaefer-Hitchcock Company, Priest River, Idaho, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged 39 N. L. R. B., No. 135. 1 709 710 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. A With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent (1) discharged Clifford Dainschen, one of its employees at its Priest River plant, on or about March 19, 1941, and has at all times since said date refused to reinstate him because of his membership in and activity on behalf of the Union, (2) ques- tioned certain of its employees concerning their membership in the Union and made disparaging remarks about the Union and other labor organizations in February and March 1941, (3) called and held a meeting of its employees on or about February 15, 1941, at which meet- ing it advised its employees that they, would derive no benefit from membership in the Union, that its employees should not join the Union, and that it would close its plant or curtail operations if its employees joined or were active in the Union, and (4) by the foregoing acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in' the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Copies of the com- plaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. The respondent filed an answer, dated September 2, 1941, denying the allegations of unfair labor practices contained in the complaint, and setting up certain affirmative defenses, hereinafter considered. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Priest River, Idaho, on September 15 and 16, 1941, before P. H. McNally, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the re- spondent, and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine'witnesses, and,to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. , At the close of the Board's case, on motion of the Board's counsel, the complaint was amended to conform to the proof, without objection. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On November 7, 1941, the Board, pursuant to Article II, Section 36, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered 'that the proceeding be transferred to and continued before it; that no Intermediate Report be issued by the Trial Examiner; that, pursuant to Article II, Section 37 (c), of said Rules and Regulations, Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclu- sions of Law, and Proposed Order be issued; and- further ordered, pursuant to Article II, Section 37, of said Rules and Regulations, that SCHAEFER -HITCHCOCK COMPANY 711 the parties herein should have the right , within thirty (30) days from the date of said Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, to file exceptions thereto and a brief in support thereof, and to request oral argument before the Board within twenty (20) days after the date of said Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order. Thereafter , on November 22, 1941, the respondent filed a brief before the Trial Examiner, which brief the Board has considered. On January 23, 1942, , the Board issued and duly served upon the parties Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order. None of the parties requested oral argument before the Board. The respondent, on February 20, 1942, filed exceptions to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order and , on the same date, a brief in support thereof. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order and finds no merit in them. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent , Schaefer-Hitchcock Company, is a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Idaho, having been incorporated in 1930. It owns and operates plants where it processes poles at Priest River, Bovill , and Sandpoint, Idaho, and at Minneapolis , , Minnesota . Its principal office is at Sandpoint, Idaho. The only plant involved herein is its Priest River,, Idaho, plant . This plant normally employs from 22 to 70 persons. The respondent annually uses about 21,680 poles and 105,800 gallons of creosote in its processing operations at its Priest River plant. All of said creosote and approximately 10 percent of said , poles are purchased and shipped to its Priest River plant from points outside the State - of Idaho. It annually handles or processes poles at its Priest River plant valued at approximately $148,000, of which Approximately 85 percent are sold and shipped to points outside the State of Idaho. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local No. 2614 , chartered by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , affili- ated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization which admits employees of the respondent to,membership. 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion There was no union activity among the respondent's employees at its Priest River plant prior to early February 1941. At that time, Clifford Damschen, alleged in the Board's complaint to have been discriminatorily discharged on March 19, started to talk to the em- ployees about organizing a union. At, about this same time he com- municated with the president of the local union at a nearby town, requesting him to send a union organizer to Priest River. On Feb- ruary 10, Belden, a union organizer, came to the plant and inquired for Damschen. Thereupon Damschen went to the outskirts of the plant and conferred with Belden who was waiting there. At this time Damschen signed an application for 'membership in the Union, and a meeting was arranged for the next night, February 11, to be held at Wright's Hall in Priest River, for the purpose of attempting to organize the employees. Immediately after returning to the plant from his conference with Belden, Damschen spoke to a number of the employees, telling them of the projected meeting and its purpose. He continued to dissem- inate news of the meeting the next day, urging the employees to attend, and, by the time set for the meeting, had so approached a majority of them. - The respondent moved swiftly to counteract this nascent union activity. On February 11, Con Wear, one of the respondent's super- visory employees, spoke to John Webb, a production employee, while they were at work, and asked him what he thought about a union. Webb replied that he thought conditions had come to a point where a union was necessary. - This discussion continued and Wear told Webb that it would be better for the employees to leave the Union alone, until Schaefer, the president of the respondent, told them to join a union and what union to join. The foregoing findings with respect to Wear's statements to Webb are based upon Webb's un- contradicted testimony.' At the union meeting that night, but two of the respondent's employees, other than Damschen, appeared. It was decided there that a further union meeting, for the same purpose, i At the hearing the respondent maintained that Con Wear was not a supervisory employee Damschen and another Board witness characterized Wear as a "straw boss" and testified that Wear gave orders around the plant and had given them orders Wear, in his testimony, admitted that he took the place of Pat Conlee, the foreman of the plant, when Conlee was away and had done so at various times theretofore, that he did give orders around the plant, and that he was in complete charge of the plant for a period of 4 or 5 months in 1939 before Conlee came and assumed authority. Conlee testified that Wear may recommend hiring and firing and had done so in the past, and that he utilized Wear to "transmit" orders We find Con Wear to boa supervisory employee and, as such, the respondent is responsible for his acts. See National Labor Relations Board v. Link-Belt Co , 311 U. S 584; International Association of Machinists v. National, Labor Relations Board, 311 U S. 72; National Labor Relations Board v Jahn & Oilier Engraving Company) (C. C A 7) decided November 26, 1941. , SCHAEFEiR-HITCHCOCK COMPANY 713 would be held on February 19. Damschen continued his efforts to organize the employees into the Union, telling them of the meeting set for February 19. A few days before February 15, however, George Conkright, a checker, Con Wear, and others, approached-a majority of'the respond- ent's employees telling them of a meeting to be held on February 15, at the Peterson Hotel in Priest River, for the purpose of discussing the question of unionization. Con Wear invited Damschen to attend. When so invited Damschen asked if a union organizer would be present, and Wear replied that the meeting *would be confined to the employees. Wear testified, and we find, that he invited others to attend, including Conlee, the foreman. Conlee testified that he was informed of the purpose of the proposed meeting when he was invited. Wear also admitted in his testimony that it was only after he had heard that a union organizer had been in Priest River that he and Conkright conceived the idea of the meeting and started organizing it. At this meeting, which was attended by 21 of the respondent's force, which then numbered 25 or 26, Con Wear announced the presence of Foreman Conlee, stating that Coulee had previously had experience with unions "back east," and could tell the employees about them.2 At Wear's invitation Coulee spoke to the employees, saying that everything was "rosy in the yard"; that he thought they "were' getting along swell"; that if the employees had any troubles they should bring them to him; that be had "had experience with unions back east" and "they went out on strike and lost much more than they gained by their strike"; and that unions "can call you out on strike any time they want to and tax you on your dues." At this point in Coulee's speech Damschen stated that he understood that members of a. local union had the right to vote on the questions of taxation, dues, and strikes. Coulee replied thereto, "Yes, but they can tell you how to vote." Damschen then suggested that a union organizer should be present in order to give the employees the Union's viewpoint, and "make it a two-sided discussion." To this Coulee replied, "that would not be a two-sided discussion. Them fellows have answers for every question you ask. They can paint some beautiful pictures, but I-never seen one developed." During the meeting Damschen stated that he was not satisfied with his wages and that several of the employees were likewise dissatisfied. Toward the end of the meeting, one of the employees suggested that they vote on the question of whether or not they should organize into a union. Damschen objected to such a vote until the employees had an oppor- tunity to hear a union organizer on the subject. Also, during this meeting, Damschen announced that a union meeting would be held on, 2 Conlee had been superintendent of the respondent 's Minneapolis yard from 1930 to 1938 , during which time the employees there had struck the yard twice in 1935 or 1936, and again in 1938 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR` RELATIONS BOARD February 19. Conlee and Con Wear, in their testimony, admitted the substance of the account of the meeting of February 15, above set forth.' `Thereafter, only Damschen, among the respondent's employees, appeared for the Union meeting on February, 19. He testified, and we so find, that he continued to urge the employees to join the Union during the remainder of February and in March. Likewise, the respondent's countering efforts continued. About a week after the respondent's meeting of February 15, according to Damschen, Con Wear brought the subject of the Union into a conversation with Damschen, George Conkright, and Fay Dempsey, stating that the employees were getting along pretty well and that he "hated" to see a union go in and "break us up." When Damschen told Wear, at this time, that he was not satisfied with his wages, Wear replied, "Well, I believe we can straighten things out without a union." Damschen's testimony about this conversation, above set forth, was undenied, although Wear and Conkright were called by the respondent and testified at the hearing. We find that Wear made the statement above attributed to him substantially as testified to by Damschen. It is apparent from the entire record, and we find, that the respond- ent, through its supervisory employees, sought to counteract Dam- schen's efforts to interest the employees in union organization and to discharge the employees from exercising their rights under the Act. Wear's statements to Webb 'on February 11 and to Damschen, Conkright, and Dempsey after February 15, considered in conjunction with the February 15 meeting, were all intended, we believe, to make clear to the employees that the respondent did not desire that its employees join the Union. Thus, the respondent, by seeking to urge its employees to refrain from self-organization, injected itself into a sphere of activity reserved under the Act exclusively to employees. It is significant to note that whereas the employees attended a meeting arranged by Wear, union meetings called by Damschen were ignored by the employees. ' We find that the respondent, by the statements of Con Wear to Webb on February 11, by instigating and holding a meeting on February 15, by the statements of Conlee during this meeting, and by the statements of Con Wear to Damschen about a week thereafter, inter- fered with, restrained', and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. a The account of this meeting above set forth is based on the undisputed testimony of Damschen, corrobo- rated by John Webb There was no essential difference in the testimony given by the Board's and the respondent 's witnesses relative to the meeting. Some of the respondent's witnesses indicated that Conlee prefaced his remarks with the thought that the respondent was indifferent to the question of whether or not its employees,joined the Union. We find it unnecessary to make a finding on this, for, assuming that Conlee did so preface his other remarks , that would not vitiate the effects of his open attack on the Union and unions generally SCHAEFER -HITCHCOCK COMPANY 715 B. The discharge of Clifford Damschen Clifford Damschen, the only one of the respondent 's employees to apply for membership in the Union and to engage in organizational activity on behalf of the Union , was discharged by the respondent on March 19, 1941 . As found hereinbefore, Damschen continued his organizational activity after the respondent's meeting of February 15 into the month of March. Damschen was first employed by the respondent in 1934, and from 1935 to the date of his discharge worked whenever the Priest River plant operated .4 He had performed numerous operations such as hooking chain, working on the skidways , tailing down, .sawing on cross-cut saws, working on the -vats, decking poles, driving a team, "odd jobs," and driving a tractor , at various times throughout the years since he was first employed by the respondent . Damschen drove the first tractor acquired by the respondent for' motive power, in 1937 , and continued to drive a tractor thereafter until his discharge, except for very short periods of time when he was temporarily trans- ferred to other tasks. On March 19 , 1941, Conlee handed Damschen two pay checks representing payment in full for his services to the end of that day, and indicated to Damschen that his services were no longer required. Damschen testified ,' without denial , that when be asked Conlee if his remarks meant that he was , not to report for work the next day, Conlee replied , " That is right . We are cutting down the force. We won't be needing you any more." Damschen immediately referred the matter to Butler, president of the Union, who, with Paddock , a union representative, visited Coulee on March 22 , about the discharge . Later in the same day the union officials , accompanied by Damschen , conferred with Schaefer , president of the respondent . The reasons advanced by Coulee and by Schaefer on these two-separate occasions for the discharge of Damschen a"re inconsistent. , As established by Damschen's undenied testimony, partially corroborated by Conlee and Schaefer, but in no respect contradicted by any of the respondent 's witnesses, Conlee told Paddock and Butler that Damschen was discharged because of a reduction in force, whereas Schaefer told Damschen , Paddock, and Butler that he told Conlee to discharge Damschen because Damschen was rough on the machinery and he had caught Damschen " jerking a tractor." Further, according to Damschen 's undenied testimony, Schaefer also said on this occasion that he had heard that Damschen was not satisfied with his wages , and when Damschen admitted this Schaefer said, "By God, if a man ain't satisfied then he can quit.". 4 Conlee testified that he had never before laid off Damschen except when a majority of the employees were likewise laid off, and that Damschen was the only employee whose services were dispensed with on March 19, 1941. 716 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Schaefer's statement that he had told Coulee to discharge Damschen is also at variance with Conlee's unqualified testimony that Conlee had 'discharged Damschen without consulting anyone or receiving advice or orders from anyone. Damschen also testified without denial, and we find, that he had never ,been adversely criticised by Coulee, Wear, Schaefer, or anyone else, in connection with his work. Indeed, Coulee testified on cross-examination that Damschen's work as a tractor driver and all of his work was "quite satisfactory," and that he had "nothing in particular" against him. In its answer and at the hearing, except for Schaefer's testimony, the respondent maintained that Damschen was discharged in connec- tion with a reduction in force upon the discontinuance of the use of one of its tractors. Conlee testified that he had discharged Damschen because one of the three tractors operated by the respondent had worn out. The record shows, however, that the tractor in question had been operated by one Dempsey, and not by Damschen. Moreover, within 2 weeks' after Damschen's discharge, a new tractor was pur- chased and placed in operation, again increasing the number of tractors in operation to three, the same number in use on March 19. Less than 2 months thereafter, when a second shift was added, of the six em- ployees assigned to the operation of tractors, two had been hired after Damschen's discharge. Moreover, one Clyde Wear had been assigned to driving a tractor only 1 week prior to the discharge. The respond- ent offered no explanation for choosing Damschen for discharge in view of his long experience, nor did it explain why new men were hired as tractor drivers thereafter, when it was aware that Danischen, an admittedly competent operator, had sought reinstatement.' ' Furthermore, not only did the respondent hire new tractor drivers following Damschen's discharge, but the respondent also increased greatly its working force after February 15. On that date the respond- ent had approximately 26 employees, on March 19 approximately 35, and on May 15 the respondent added a second shift which raised the number of employees to 70. At the time of the hearing the re- spondent had approximately 55 employees. It is apparent that Dam- schen, because of his,varied experience with the respondent, was quali- ' The respondent sought to show at the hearing that Damschen had not appeared for work after March 19 It is apparent , however, that Damschen protested his discharge on March 22 In addition , throughout the hearing and its brief before the Trial Examiner , it was the respondent 's position that Damschen was dis- charged on March 19, and we so find Also, at the hearing , the respondent sought to show that it had no seniority policy in effect at its Priest River plant, and that therefore it could discharge anyone it wished, presumably in connection with a reduction in force The operative conditions in effect at the respondent's plant, however , do not support the respondent's contention The uncontradicted testimony shows that the respondent favored employees who had been with it for 2 or more years in assigning work at slack times, and that the respondent had placed in effect in 1940 , a vacation-with-pay plan for only those of its employees who had been with it for 2 or more years Damschen 's testimony , likewise uncontradicted , also establishes the fact that'the majority of the respondent 's employees on March 19 had less service with the respondent than Damschen had. He named four such employees and testified that two of them were performing operations on March 19 , which he had performed we find that these defenses , if such it was intended they be considered , are mere afterthoughts , totally inconsistent with the facts , and without merit SCHAEFER -HITCHCOCK COMPANY 717 fled to perform some of the tasks for which these new employees were hired. It is thus clear that the respondent's contention that Dam- schen's discharge was necessitated by reason of a reduction in force is contrary to the facts which demonstrate not only that the respond- ent hired new tractor drivers after March 19, but further that the period immediately preceding and following Damschen 's discharge was marked by a large expansion in the respondent 's personnel. . At the hearing, when asked on cross-examination why he had not permitted Damschen to run a tractor after March 1'9, Foreman Con- lee replied , "Well, I just did not want Damschen, I guess was the reason," and when asked if the reason why he had not offered Dam- schen employment thereafter was that Damschen had taken matters up with the Union, Conlee replied, "I don't think that was a particu- lar reason . I think it may have had some bearing on it." Thus, we find that the various reasons advanced by the respondent through its operative heads and in its answer for the discharge of Damschen are inconsistent with each other, and at variance with the conditions ob- taining in the respondent's plant throughout the period of time in question . Upon consideration of all the evidence , we find that these defenses were mere subterfuges designed to conceal the true reason for the discharge which was, in fact , the respondent 's desire to remove Damschen from the scene and thus prevent his efforts to organize its employees into the Union from attaining success. We find that the respondent, by discharging Clifford Damschen on March 19, 1941 , discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of' employment , thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and thereby interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT bF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above , occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondent 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 certain unfair labor practices , we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to effectuate the policies of tlae Act. We have found that the respondent , by discharging Clifford Damschen, discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employ- 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union. We shall, therefore, order the respondent to offer Clifford Damschen immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privi- leges, and to make him whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from March 19, 1941, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings" during said period. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1.' Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local No. 2614, chartered by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is it labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. , 2. By discriminating in regard to the -hire and tenure of employ- ment of Clifford Damschen, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning,of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act' ORDER Upon the basis of the forego'ng findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Schaefer-Hitchcock Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local No. 2614, chartered by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American 6 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses such as for transportation , room , and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the respondent's discrimination against him and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of Americd, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal, or other work -relief projects shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corp v. N L R B, 311 U. S 7. SCHAEI ER-HITCHCOCK COMPANY 719 Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,' join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through 'representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. - 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds.will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Clifford Damschen immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole the said Clifford Damschen for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of his discriminatory discharge by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages during the period from the date of his discharge, March 19, 1941, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period; (c) Immediately post in conspicuous places in and about its plant at Priest River, Idaho, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the con- duct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 -(a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local No. 2614,,chartered by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in that organization; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region; in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. 448105-42-;of ;9-47