Waynline, Inc.

In the Matter Of WAYNLINE, INC.' and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L. Case No. 10-0-2139.-Decided February 9, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER On July 9, 1948, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his Intermediate Report 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 copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the Provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con- nection with this proceeding to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul- ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by the Respondent, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications, additions, and corrections 2 set forth below. 1. As set forth in the Intermediate Report, the "Business Men's Committe," consisting of Thomas and Henderson, with the knowledge and approval of the Respondent's supervisors, questioned employees Faulk and Pye about their union activities, urged them to abandon the Union, and offered to "make" the Respondent grant a wage in- crease for the employees if they would do so. Furthermore, although this occurred during working hours, the Respondent paid Faulk and Pye for the time thus spent. The Trial Examiner found that , The complaint misspelled the Respondent 's name as Wayneline. It was corrected by stipulation at the hearing. ' Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock. 2 The Trial Examiner , in discussing the telephone call from Henderson , a local grocer, and Thomas, a local attorney, to Tarte, the Respondent's assistant superintendent, in which they asked Tarte to come to see them, inadvertently stated that they asked that Pye, an employee, come to see them. 81 N. L. R. B., No. 95. 511 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD there was no evidence that the Respondent had authorized the state- ment of the Committee about the wage increase, but that, in any event, the Respondent's failure to disavow the actions of the Com- mittee was convincing evidence that the Respondent approved and adopted the Committee's action in its behalf. The Trial Examiner concluded that, under the Act prior to its amendment, this adoption of the Committee's actions would have constituted a violation of Section 8 (1), but that it did not now constitute an unfair labor practice because of the prohibitory language of Section 8 (c) of the amended Acts We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's con- clusion as to the effect of Section 8 (c) in these circumstances. We have held, both prior to 4 and since the amendment of the Act,a that employer interrogation of employees concerning union member- ship is coercive and, per se, an unfair labor practice. Such interro- gation is not protected by Section 8 (c), because it is not an expression of "views, argument, or opinion," within the meaning of that Section. 6 In view of the actions of the Respondent's supervisors in allowing the Committee to interrogate Faulk and Pye concerning union activ- ities, to urge them to abandon the Union, and to promise them a wage increase, and in view of the Respondent's subsequent payment of these employees for the time they spent with the Committee, a clear responsi- bility devolved upon the Respondent to disavow the actions of the Committee? By its silence under these circumstances, the Respondent clearly, as the Trial Examiner found, acquiesced in and approved the interrogation of and promise of benefit to, its employees. We find that the Respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) thereof. 2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Griffis was dis- criminatorily discharged. With regard to the question of Weinstein's knowledge of Griffis' union activity, it should be pointed out that cred- ible evidence shows that on the day before Weinstein discharged Griffis, he observed Griffis talking in the plant yard with McGee, the union organizer, immediately after McGee had made his demand for recognition. This Section provides : "The expressing of any views , argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed , graphic, or visual form , shall not constitute or be evidence of any unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." ' Matter of Sewell Manufacturing Company, 72 N. L. R B 85. S Matter of Ames Spot Welder Co., Inc., 75 N . L. R. B. 352; Matter of Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills, 75 N. L. R. B. 883. 6 Matter of Ames Spot Welder Co , Inc , 75 N. L R. B . 352, 355. 'Sep Matter of Fred P. Weissman Company, 69 N. L. R. B. 1002 , 1019, enf'd 170 F. (2d) 952 (C. A. 6). WAYNLINE, INC. ORDER 513 Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Waynline, Inc., Jesup, Georgia, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America, A. F. L., or in any other labor organiza- tion of its employees, by discharging and refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all of 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 in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed by Section 7 thereof. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer Charles Faulk and William Griffis immediate and full re- instatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole Charles Faulk and William Griffis for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimi- nation against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages during the period from the date of the discrimination to the date of the Re- spondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period; (c) Post at its plant in Jesup, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 8 Copies of such notice, to be fur- nished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after 8 In the event that this order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER" the words, "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING." 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX A NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : 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 UNITED BROTHER- HOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activ- ities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities ex- cept 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 in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent po- sitions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination : Charles Faulk William Griffis All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of the above-named union or any other labor organization except to the extent that the right to refrain may be affected by a lawful agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment. We will not otherwise discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee WAYNLINE, INC. 515 because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. WAYNLINE, INC., Employer. Dated--- --------------------- By---------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Messrs. Charles M. Paschal, Jr., and Milton 0. Talent, for the General Counsel. Mr. E. Kontz Bennett, of Waycross, Ga., for the Respondent. Mr. George H. McGee, of Savannah, Ga., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a second amended charge duly filed on March 22, 1948, by United Broth- erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. L., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) issued his complaint on May 10, 1948, against Wayn- line, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act, and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Labor Manage- ment Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the amended Act, and Sec- tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and the amended Act. Copies of the complaint and charge together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that on or about November 15, 1946, the Respondent discharged Charles E. Faulk and W. B. Griffis because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and because they engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, and that the Respondent thereafter failed and refused to reinstate the said employees for the same reasons. The complaint further alleges that the Respond- ent by its officers, agents, and employees, from about November 8, 1946, to the date of the complaint interrogated its employees concerning their union affilia- tions, activities and leaders ; threatened and warned its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of the Union ; and on about November 15, 1946, did offer, promise, and grant wage increases, paid vacations, paid holidays, and other benefits to its employees. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on May 12 and 13, 1948, at Jesup, Georgia, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel was represented by an attorney who will be herein called G. C. counsel. The Respondent was represented by counsel and the Union was represented by its organizer. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertaining to the issues was afforded the parties. 829595-50-vol. 81-34 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Respondent's answer, filed on April 5, 1948, denies the allegations with respect to commerce, denies that the Union is a labor organization, admits the discharge of Faulk and Griffis, but denies that they were discharged for the cause alleged, and denies all the other alleged unfair labor practices. The answer affirmatively alleges that a wage increase of 10 cents an hour, given on November 15, 1946, was the result of the lifting of wartime OPA regulations and because the Respondent was able to raise the price of its product ; that the insurance and vacation benefits had been promised employees since the opening of its plant and that the granting of these rights followed a period of calculating the amounts and benefits to be given ; and that Faulk and Griffis were released because they became inefficient, were loitering on the job, and were not doing the work for which they were being paid. The answer also pleads that the complaint should be dismissed for the reason that the Union has never been certified as bargaining agent and so is without legal right "to bring this complaint." 1 Concurrently with the filing of its answer the Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground, first, that the complaint failed to show that the Union is legally entitled to bring the action ; and second, that the com- plaint shows on its face that the action was brought more than 6 months after the alleged unfair labor practices. This motion was, by order of the Regional Director, transferred to and reserved for ruling by the Trial Examiner. The motion was denied on both grounds. The first ground is wholly without merit. The original charge in this case, filed on November 18, 1946, made identically the same charges that the second amended charge made.' A copy of this charge was served on the Respondent on June 28, 1947, almost 2 months before the effective date of the amended Act. It has been held that the 6 months' limita- tion is inapplicable to cases pending before the effective date of the Act' At the conclusion of the hearing, G. C. counsel moved to amend the pleadings to con- form to the proof with respect to technical matters, including dates. The motion was granted. At the request of the parties the undersigned fixed a date for the filing of briefs or proposed findings and conclusions or both. A brief has been received from the Respondent. On May 26, 1948, the undersigned received from Counsel for the Respondent and the General Counsel a stipulation dated May 12, 1948, concerning the date on which six named employees' services were termi- nated. The stipulation is accepted by the undersigned and is incorporated in the record as a part thereof. Upon the entire record and from his observation of the witnesses, the under- signed makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a Massachusetts corporation having its principal offices and plant at Jesup, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and dis- tribution of furniture. In the course of its business operations at the Jesup plant, the Respondent purchases raw materials consisting principally of lumber, cotton, and fabric valued in excess of $50,000 annually, approximately 50 per- cent of which is purchased outside the State of Georgia and is shipped in inter- 1 This is substantially the same as a motion to dismiss and is treated by the undersigned as disposed of by his ruling on said motion. 2 A first amended charge added a charge of a third discriminatory discharge and a refusal to bargain. These were dropped in the second amended charge. 2 Matter of Bewley Mills, 77 N. L. R B. 774; Matter of Union Products Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 591 ; Matter of Briggs Manufacturing Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 569. WAYNLINE, INC. 517 state commerce to the Jesup plant ; and the Respondent manufactures and sells finished products consisting principally of platform rockers and settees valued in excess of $100,000 annually, approximately 90 percent of which is sold and shipped in interstate commerce from the Jesup plant to customers outside the State of Georgia. The foregoing findings of fact, based upon a stipulation be- tween G. C. counsel and counsel for the Respondent, establishes that the Re- spondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion 1. Verbal acts of interference, restraint, and coercion Upon the request of Charles Faulk, an employee of the Respondent, the Amer- ican Federation of Labor sent its organizer, George McGee, to Jesup, Georgia, where, on November 8, 1946, he met with a group of the Respondent's employees in the City Hall. At that meeting the group chose as temporary officers Charles Faulk as president, Harry Baker as vice president, Jim Pye as financial-secre- tary, and another as recording secretary. At a second meeting on about Novem- ber 11, 1946, the Local acquired its charter and elected the same men as permanent officers. According to George Weinstein, the Respondent's factory manager, he learned of the Union's organizing about November 13, 1946. Other evidence indicates that he knew of it earlier. J. B. Lastinger, who was in the Respondent's employ from September 1946, to the end of that year, testified that in the course of his duties it was necessary for him to carry reports into Weinstein's office daily, and that, in the course of such visits to the office, Weinstein questioned him as follows: The day before one of the fist union meetings, Weinstein asked him if they were going to have a meeting about a Union. A day or two after that meeting, Weinstein asked if he had gone, if he had joined and paid the entrance fee, and if there were many there. After the second union meeting Weinstein asked Lastinger how many members there were and who the officers were. Twice thereafter Weinstein asked Lastinger what he thought the result of a vote would be. Weinstein did not deny Lastinger's testimony but denied that Lastinger bad talked to him about the Union before "the middle of that week" (November 13). Lastinger did not appear to be too certain of dates, but his testimony appeared to be honestly given and the undersigned credits it as to the substance of the conversa- tions and finds that Weinstein's first questions were asked before November 14. On the night of November 13, the local Union met in the Court House and in- structed McGee to ask recognition. The next day, November 14, 1946, Hobson Tarte, the Respondent's assistant superintendent,' received a telephone call from Merle Henderson, a local grocer, and Glenn Thomas, a local attorney, asking Pye to come up to see them during the lunch time. Henderson and Thomas were among a group of local men who 4 Tarts described himself as a foreman, but Weinstein testified that he was more nearly assistant superintendent. 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were instrumental in getting the Respondent to locate its plant at Jesup. When Tarte went to meet Thomas and Henderson that noon, they questioned him about the Union. Tarte told them that he had no connection wtih it except for the fact that he held a card, and in response to their question named Faulk and Pye as officers. Thomas and Henderson asked if they could see Faulk and Pye, and Tarte said that he would see if he could get permission . When he returned to the plant, Tarte told Faulk that he had been to a business men's meeting and that they wanted to find out who the bead of the Union was, that he told them that Faulk was the head of it, and that they would shortly have him up to the office. At about 2 p. in. that day, November 14, 1946, McGee , accompanied by an organizer for the Georgia Federation of Labor , went to the plant and told Wein- stein that the Union represented a majority of the employees in the plant. Wein- stein told them that he would not recognize the Union without an election. Before leaving, McGee asked Weinstein for permission to speak with Harry Baker, the Local's vice president, and Weinstein gave his consent. Baker was sent for, and when he came, McGee took him outside in the yard . Faulk learned that McGee was there from William Griffis ( whose discharge is hereafter related ), who en- countered Faulk in the men's room. Faulk requested Griffis to ask McGee to wait until he could speak with him. Griffis went to McGee and conveyed the message. About this time, Weinstein came out and sat in his car for a few minutes before driving off. He saw Faulk come out to confer with McGee, but drove off before Faulk left. Faulk conferred with McGee for about 5 minutes and then returned to his work .5 Later that afternoon , Tarte asked Faulk and Pye to go with•him to talk to Henderson and Thomas. Faulk refused to go unless he had permission from someone higher than Tarte. Tarte thereupon went and got permission from Plant Superintendent Kramer , and returned to tell Faulk that he had procured Kramer's permission, and he assured Faulk and Pye that they would lose no pay for being away from the plant. The three then went to see Henderson and Thomas, in Thomas's office. Thomas told Faulk and Pye that they were interested in Wayne County and the Respondent because they had brought the plant there; that they realized that the employees were not getting sufficient wages ; that they were willing to help and did not want outside interference . Thomas asked why the employees wanted to organize and why they had not come to them to tell them of their troubles and let them settle it. Thomas asked if there wasn't some way that they could head the Union off. Faulk told Thomas and Henderson that the employees had already voted to have McGee act as representative for them and had put it in his hands, and that the only thing that would stop a Union from coming in would be if the employees voted it out . Thomas asked if Faulk would go back to the plant and influence the other employees to vote against the Union. Faulk refused , saying that he was 100 percent for the Union and would work for it . During this conversation , Robert Warren, the Sheriff of Wayne County , came in , and after listening for a while, he asked if the Union representative had been invited in or had come in of his own accord. Faulk answered that he had been invited in. Henderson said that if the employees would let him and Thomas be their committee they would go to Weinstein and make him give them a raise. Faulk told him that there was nothing that could be donee When the meeting was concluded, Faulk, Pye, and Tarte returned to the E Faulk testified that he conferred with McGee about what Tarte had told him. 6 The foregoing findings as to what was said in this meeting are based principally on the testimony of Faulk. Neither Thomas nor Henderson testified . The legal aspect of this conference will be discussed in the concluding findings hereof. WAYNLINE, INC. 519 plant. According to Faulk's and Pye's account, they were gone altogether about an hour or an hour and a half. According to Tarte's account they were gone for about half an hour. In any event, the employees were paid for the time that they lost. Weinstein testified that a few days thereafter Henderson and Thomas told him what they had done and that he had told them that "voluntarily I couldn't stop them from doing what they wished, but I would countenance no action on their part."' Weinstein apparently did not, however, inform Faulk, Pye, or any other employee that this was his attitude. The next day, Friday. November 15, Weinstein had the employees assembled in the paint department of the plant at about 11 a. m., and made a preannounced speech to them. He said that he had called them together because he needed to talk to them, that he had neglected the plant too long, and he now realized it, that he wanted to tell them about some of the things the Respondent was going to give them. He told them that they would receive a 10-cents-an-hour increase as of the following Monday, that the Respondent intended to give them insurance, hospitalization, paid holidays and paid vacations.' He also announced that there would be a morning and afternoon rest period . He said that the OPA had removed the ceiling from their product 9 and that the Respondent had raised the price of its chairs about 50 cents, which amount would take care of all the foregoing except about 5 cents of the 10 cent increase, which the Respondent would pay. He said, according to Faulk's uncontradicted testimony that he knew "some of you folks are thinking Union, but we've 10 never had any experience with Union that is very satisfactory." He alluded to an incident that happened in Springfield, Massachusetts, and said that he was not there at the time but would have Kramer relate it. Superintendent Kramer then related an incident that had occurred while he had been superintendent of the plant at Springfield. Kramer did not testify himself, but he was quoted without contradiction by Faulk as follows: "We had a very nice group of boys working for us. We had chicken suppers and we had a ball club and we had a bowling team, and we just got along fine. They organized and it like to shut the plant down. It went from bad to worse. As you know, Union works with a steward on the job. A foreman is not allowed to talk to his men about the conditions ; he has to go to the steward and the steward go to the men and tell them. We had one man that wouldn't work very much, and so I went to that steward and asked him to go to that man and get him straightened out, and he said, `I'm scared of him; I can't go to him."' Kramer then related how he had gone to the man himself and had straightened him out and as a result the steward had been taken off the job, and he concluded by saying that their experience with organized labor had not been very satisfactory. When Kramer was through, Weinstein said a few more words and presumably called for questions, because Faulk then asked T Weinstein fixed the time as a few days after the occurrence because in relating it to him, Henderson and Thomas used the past tense. However, he testified that he had learned of the matter before Henderson and Thomas spoke to him about it, that Kramer might have told him, and that he would not deny that he had heard about it before noon on Friday, November 15. 8 The increased wages were paid the following week ; Thanksgiving bay 1946 was the first paid holiday ; paid vacations started in 1947 ; and the several insurance benefits were given sometime in the spring of 1947. 8 OPA ceilings were removed from all but a few items on November 14, 1946. 10 Since the Respondent had been in production only since May or June of 1946, and there is no evidence that it had dealt with any other Union, the use of the first person plural by Weinstein presumably referred to a Springfield, Massachusetts, company that had com- mon officers or stockholders with the Respondent. 520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD if McGee from Savannah had been there the day before. Weinstein said that he had and that McGee had claimed to represent the majority of the workers of the Respondent but that he had told McGee that it would have to be confirmed by a vote. Faulk said, "Well, we voted and gave Mr. McGee the power of our repre- sentatives, so we will not commit ourself." Weinstein asked Faulk what his name was. When Faulk told him, Weinstein told him that he would not be committing himself and that the employees had a right to change their minds. Faulk said that money was not all they were interested in-that they also were interested in job protection. Weinstein asked what he meant by that, and Faulk said that he (Weinstein) or any foreman could run him off but that if they were organized then the Respondent would have to prove its charges to organized labor as to why they had been "run off." In some way the subject of a closed shop was raised and Weinstein remarked that they would not have a closed shop there and that the Government was going to pass a law to outlaw closed shops." Jim Pye and Doffie Hope, employees in November 1946, each credibly testified that around the middle of November Kramer separately asked them why the employees wanted a Union. Pye also testified that, in December 1946, Kramer asked him why the employees were still holding onto the Union. 2. Conclusions The questioning of employees by Weinstein and Kramer concerning their union membership, officers, activities, and views are per se coercive 1' and a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act and would still be under Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act. Evidence is lacking that the 'Business Men's Committee" of Thomas and Hen- derson was requested by the Respondent to take the action it did in ascertaining the identity of union officers and then urging those officers to abandon the Union and to influence the union members to appoint the committee as their agent to deal with the Respondent. But it is clear that the Respondent fell in with the plan. Tarte testified that Thomas and Henderson wanted to talk to Faulk and Pye about "the possibility of forming a Union up in town" and that he told Kramer of that when he asked permission to take Faulk and Pye up to Thomas' office on November 15. Henderson's offer to make Weinstein give a raise in pay if the employees would let him and Thomas act as their agents, if authorized by the Respondent, would be tantamount to a promise. The undersigned finds no evidence that such a statement was authorized by the Respondent. But the Respondent's failure to disavow the committee's action to the employees as well as Weinstein's announcement of an increase the next day are convincing evidence that the Respondent approved and adopted the committee's action on its behalf. Under the Act prior to the amendment, the Respondent's participation in the committee's action on its behalf would, in the opinion of the undersigned, be an inseparable part of the Respondent's coercive conduct and therefore a violation n Weinstein denied that he had said in so many words that there would be no closed shop. The State of Georgia enacted legislation against a closed shop on March 27, 1947. The Taft-Hartley Act was passed a few months later . The undersigned does not construe Weinstein ' s statement as an anticipatory refusal to bargain. 11 Fontaine Converting Works, Inc., 77 N. L. R. B. 1386 ; Coopereville Cooperative Elevator Co., 77 N. L. R. B. 1083; Reeves-Ely Laboratories Inc., 76 N. L R. B. 728-, Differential Steel Car Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 714; Hagy, Harrington & Marsh, 74 N. L. R. B. 1455. WAYNLINE, INC. 521 of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Because of Section 8 (c) of the amended Act, this would no longer be an unfair labor practice. The Respondent at the hearing moved to strike the testimony with reference to the visit to the committee. The undersigned reserved ruling thereon and now denies the motion. Whether or not the testimony discloses an unfair labor practice in itself, it is relevant evidence on the question of motivation for the discharge of Faulk. The Respondent sought to justify the benefits announced or promised In Wein- stein's speech of November 15 by evidence that the Respondent had been planning for some time before the Union started organizing to give those benefits. The evidence does warrant the conclusion that the Respondent had commenced to investigate various insurance plans before November 1946. The undersigned does not regard the evidence of planning other benefits before November 1946 as thor- oughly convincing. Weinstein testified that in August (when the foremen were asking about increases for themselves and some of the men) he called the fore- men together and explained to them the Respondent's position-that it could not afford a raise at that time-and told them what the Respondent was hoping to do in the way of benefits when it was possible to obtain more money for its product. He testified that he told the foremen "we were not only planning a higher hourly rate of pay, but also were going to make effective as soon as possible these other features for the benefit of employees that we had in mind." Pye, who attended that meeting, could not remember any mention of benefits other than the pay increase. In that respect, he testified that Weinstein told them that there would be an increase in September but no more until after the first of the year. Wein- stein admitted that he told them, as conditions then were, he did not see how it would be possible to give any further increases before the first of the year. The September increase was not a general increase. It was apparently limited to the foremen and a few of the deserving employees.* Foremen Miller and Tarte were not asked about what was said at this meeting. M. A. Madray, foreman of the shipping department, testified that insurance, paid holidays and paid vacations were mentioned at the August foremen's meeting, but his testimony was so vague on other matters as to suggest that he may have confused the announcements of the August meeting with those of the November 15 speech. If Weinstein did in- form the foremen of all the expected benefits at the August meeting, he did not instruct them to inform the employees. The November 15 announcement of them was the first the employees had received. Lifting of OPA price ceilings on Novem- ber 14 made an increase in prices possible. However, Weinstein testified that the increase in price just about took care of the 10 cents-an-hour increase, but that it did not take care of the insurance nor paid vacations. Actually, the Insurance was not given until about the spring of 1947. Under all the circumstances, and especially in view of the timing in relation to the Union's requested recognition and the discriminatory discharges, the undersigned concludes that, even if the Respondent already had a general plan of such benefits, as Weinstein testified, the announcement of them on November 15, 1946, was precipitately made to dis- courage the employees from organizing or continuing their membership in the Union. It is therefore found that the announcement of wage increase and other benefits interfered with, restrained and coerced the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and amended Act.14 xa Faulk received an increase at this time. 14 Cf. Wilson cE Co., Inc., 77 N. L. R. B. 959; West Ohio Gas Co., 76 N. L. R. B. 179. 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The discharges of Faulk and Griffis 1. Employment and work of the dischargees Charles Faulk was employed by the Respondent during the last of July 1946," at 60 cents an hour. On August 18, he was raised to 65 cents an hour; and on September 2, he was raised to 70 cents an hour. Faulk was by trade a boilermaker. Tarte testified that Faulk had more ability than other men and that he was a good worker. Faulk did several special jobs for the Respondent such as making two air presses and a platform for a motor ; and when Tarte asked his advice on what to do with waste material, Faulk suggested and made a small rocker. Faulk's usual duties involved doweling on platform rockers and nailing on cleats to hold the spring that supported the cushion. Except when a few others would occasionally be assigned to assist him, he worked alone and was the only one on these jobs. When he was doing doweling work, he was in the assembly depart- ment, but when he needed materials, such as dowels, nails, and glue, or when he had to do some drilling on the drill presses, it was necessary for him to go to other departments. William Griffis was employed by the Respondent some time between June 16 and July 14, 1946.10 He was started at sanding; but after a month or so when work got somewhat slack, he was shifted about to the shipping and other departments for a while. Then he was transferred to the paint department, where he remained for the last 2 months of his employ. In the paint depart- ment it was his duty to sand down the chairs after they had been stained. His foreman , Gerald Miller, testified that Griffis was a fast worker and that the quality of his work was good. For about a month, Miller kept a daily record of production, and all during that time Griffis was either at the top or close to the top of the list, which contained the names of six men who did the same type of work. Throughout the period of his employment, Griffis had the fault of going to the men's room more often than most of the employees did. This practice was known by Miller and by Superintendent Kramer. Miller would some- times get after Griffis about it, but Griffis was never disciplined nor warned that he would be discharged because of the practice. Miller testified that al- though Griffis would go to the men's room and sit around a good bit, this did not interfere with his getting his work done; that Griffis would work fast and get production ; and that that was the reason why he did not complain more about Griffis. Miller also testified that he had another man in his department by the name of Mathis who also went to the men's room more than most em- ployees, that he thought that Kramer knew about Mathis also, that Mathis was a fair producer but was not as good as Griffis and that he had never talked about firing either Griffis or Mathis with Kramer. Miller testified that he spoke to Kramer about giving Griffis a raise in pay; that Kramer said he would see about it ; and that Kramer knew what kind of work Griffis was doing as he had seen Miller's production chart. On November 13, 2 days before Griffis' 15 Faulk testified that he was employed on August 1st. The pay roll indicates that Faulk worked 38 hours in the week ending August 4, 1946. 16 Griffis testified that he was employed on July 14, while a copy of the Respondent's record in evidence , in conflict with itself , indicates that Griffis was getting 60 cents an hour on June 16, 1946 , but indicates also that his first week was the week ending July 7, 1946, in which he worked 15 hours, but the record indicates that he was getting 65 cents per hour at that time . Griffs testified that he got his first raise about 2 weeks after he was hired. William Griffis is named in the complaint as W. B . Griffis. WAYNLINE, INC. 523 discharge, Kramer notified Griffis that he had procured him a 5 cents- an-hour raise. 2. The discharges It was Weinstein's custom to go through the plant every day. However, on November 15, 1946, the day on which he made his speech, Weinstein visited the various departments of the plant much more frequently than usual, care- fully scrutinizing the work of the various employees. On one occasion when he was in the paint department, Weinstein noticed that Miller was not only paint- ing but was also carrying chairs down from, and back to, the rack for him- self, although it was customary to have one of the men do that if there was one who was not busy sanding. If there was sanding to be done, Miller would not take a man away from his sanding job to carry chairs for him, but he would carry the chairs for himself. After standing for a while and watching Miller, Weinstein asked Miller where Griffis was. According to Miller's testimony he made no reply to Weinstein but turned and went to get Griffis. According to Weinstein's testimony, Miller said that Griffis was indisposed or not there at the particular time. Weinstein did not wait, however, until Miller came back with Griffis. On one occasion that afternoon when Weinstein was in the assembly depart- ment, he saw Faulk away from the place where he had been doweling, talking to one or more of the men in the sanding department. Faulk testified and the undersigned finds that Faulk went to the sanders to get a few pieces of wood sanded so that he could finish an order that he was working on.17 A little while later, Kramer told Griffis to get "his hat and coat and everything" and go to the office. Tarte notified Faulk that he was being discharged and that he would have to go to the office to get the reason. Griffis and Faulk went to Weinstein's office. There Weinstein told Griffis that he was discharged for loafing and talking, and he told Faulk that he was discharging him because he was not satisfied on the job and that he had been loafing. Faulk denied that he had been loafing. Weinstein contradicted him and said that he had seen him the "other evening" in the packing plant talking to five men. Faulk said that he had been talking business. Weinstein again contradicted him, and said that that very afternoon he had seen Faulk talking to some more men, referring to the incident when he had seen Faulk talking to the sanders. Faulk asked Weinstein to give him a statement of why he was being fired. Weinstein refused but offered to give him a recommendation. Faulk asked if his work had been satisfactory, and Weinstein replied that it had been when Faulk was on the job. Faulk again asked for a statement of why he was being fired and Weinstein again refused. Weinstein gave Faulk and Griffis each a check and told them not to go back through the plant but to go out the front door. Faulk said that he had left his lunch kit and coat down there and he was going to go after them. Faulk passed Kramer and told him that he had enjoyed working for him, that he had a lot of respect for him, but that he had been "dished out of a rotten dish here." Kramer told Faulk he hoped he would not think too harshly "of some of us." Through an oversight, the checks which Weinstein had given to Faulk and Griffis were not signed. On Monday, Faulk went back to the plant and asked Weinstein to sign the check and at the same time asked for a recommendation. Weinstein signed the check but refused to give the recommendation. On Tues- day, November 19, Weinstein, driving down the street, encountered Griffis, 17 Faulk's testimony was corroborated by Harry McGinn, to whom Faulk made his request for material. McGinn testified that Faulk talked of nothing else. 524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stopped and commented to Griffis that he had forgotten to sign his check, and asked if he had it with him. When Griffis said he had left it at his house, Weinstein offered to drive him there, but Griffis said he was busy. Weinstein told Griffis he would sign it if Griffis would bring it in. Griffis testified that on this occasion he accused Weinstein of discharging him because of the Union, and that Weinstein had replied, "There's some more going to get fired, too." Weinstein emphatically denied this part of the conversation. While the under- signed received the impression that Weinstein was not altogether candid in his testimony about motivation for the discliargos and other matters closely related thereto, nevertheless he credits Weinstein's denial, first because the denial sounded genuine, second, because Weinstein did not appear to be the type who would stupidly assist Faulk or Griffis in making out a charge of an unfair labor practice, and third, because the statements denied did not appear to come into the conversation in a natural way. Griffis later received a signed check by mail. 3. Conclusions as to Faulk's discharge Weinstein had no criticism of Faulk's work. At the time of the discharge he gave Faulk two reasons for his termination of employment : Faulk's dissatis- faction with his job and Faulk 's talking to other employees . At that time, according to Faulk, Weinstein mentioned two incidents when he had seen Faulk talking, once in the packing house, on November 14, when Faulk had been stopped on his way back from the men's room by Lastinger who had asked Faulk about long screws going through chair backs , and once when he went to the sanders to ask McGinn to sand some needed material on the day of his discharge. On direct examination , Weinstein omitted the packing house incident in naming three occasions when he said he saw Faulk talking . He testified that the first was near his office, presumably when Faulk came out to talk to McGee on November 14; the second he gave as the time Faulk went to the sanders just before his discharge ; and the third, was testified to be near the rough mill, talking to Baker, the vice president of the local. Faulk denied any such incident as the last. The undersigned credits Faulk's denial, believing that Weinstein was mistaken either as to identity of the man he saw or of the time he saw Faulk there. If it was Faulk, it was an incident which did not occur within the last 2 days of Faulk 's employment . But whether Weinstein had seen Faulk three times, as he testified, or only twice, as he told Faulk at the time of his discharge, is immaterial . Weinstein customarily made daily trips through the plant, yet apparently he had no fault to find with Faulk until the day of his discharge. Weinstein testified that he had seen Faulk talking to others before that day but had paid no particular attention to it. He further testified that before discharging Faulk, he had asked Tarte if he had observed Faulk, and that Tarte had replied that he had but had not observed anything except what he noticed any other day. This inquiry and the reply suggest that Weinstein was looking for ill effects of union organization , and, knowing that Faulk was presi- dent of the local Union, was watching him closely to find something wrong. Despite Tarte's reply, without investigation as to what Faulk was talking about on the occasions when he had seen him, without warning or even reprimand to Faulk at the time he saw Faulk talking, without asking Tarte's recommendation, and contrary to normal practice,18 Weinstein took it upon himself to discharge 38 Weinstein could not remember the name of any employee under a foreman , other than Faulk and Griffis, whom he personally had discharged , although he remembered that there was one other whom he had discharged . The undersigned infers that it was customary to leave the matter of discharge to the foreman and superintendent. WAYNLINE, INC. 525 Faulk for doing something that was not even a breach of an established rule.19 Weinstein testified that he deduced from what he saw that Faulk could not have been talking about work 20 Had this been true, a manager with no discriminatory design would have reprimanded Faulk, or warned him that such conduct would bring a penalty. Weinstein's failure to do so under the circumstances warrants the inference that he was merely looking for an occurrence to make use of as a pretended excuse in effectuating his design to check the Union . Weinstein testi- fied that the plant was very busy on that day, Friday , November 15, and indicated that as his reason for his careful observation of the men that day. The plant was apparently not, however, so rushed that he could not afford to take all the employees from their work and make a speech to discourage their organization. Weinstein testified that in October 1946 , the Respondent was still experiencing difficulty getting experienced men. If this situation was still true in November, little consideration was given to it when Faulk an employee of more than average skill, was discharged for a comparatively trivial reason. Weinstein's statement at the time he discharged Faulk that the latter was not satisfied is interpreted to mean that Weinstein thought Faulk was not satisfied without the Union. Weinstein could have formed this opinion either from Faulk's outspoken statements following Weinstein's speech or from Wein- stein's possible receipt of information that Faulk had withstood the efforts of Thomas and Henderson to use him to effect a disorganization of the Union. But whether or not the failure of the Business Men's Committee to sway Faulk entered into the motivation for Faulk 's discharge, the undersigned is convinced and finds that but for Faulk's union membership and activities he would not have been discharged. 4. Conclusions as to Griffis' discharge Griffis had a fault which , if it was the real basis for his discharge, would have been a sufficient justification . That this fault was, without discriminatory intent, the basis for Griffis ' discharge is, in the opinion of the undersigned, disproved by the following facts : Throughout the period of his employment and until after the organization of the Union , Griffis' fault was tolerated. With full knowledge of that fault , the Respondent on November 13, just 2 days before his dicharge, gave Griffis a raise in pay . No one had warned Griffis that he would be discharged if he did not make less frequent trips to the men 's room, where his more than customary journeys apparently were made for smoking purposes. Before November 15, Weinstein had reprimanded no one for going to the men's room to smoke, much less discharge anyone. Mathis had the same fault as Griffis and was not as good a producer, but he was not then discharged although his fault was known to Miller, Kramer, and presumably even to Wein- stein himself. Weinstein testified that before November 15 he had asked Miller why Griffis went to the men's room so much , that Miller had mentioned the name of someone else ( possibly Mathis ) in connection with diligence ( or, inferentially, lack of it ), that he had made a mental note to watch that man, but that he did not notice him particularly . The union organization obviously prompted Wein- 19 It was generally understood that work time was for work and that employees were not supposed to group up and waste time talking, but there was no rule against talking. Weinstein had never reprimanded anyone for talking too much. Tarte's response to Weinstein's query about Faulk indicates that there was nothing unusual in Faulk's conduct. 20 Weinstein testified that Faulk neither took materials to the sanders nor brought any back . Weinstein does not appear to have seen Faulk on his way to the sanders, and Faulk might well have left the materials there to be sanded , expecting to return for them when they were ready. 526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stein, on the day that he discharged Faulk and Griffis, to make more than his customary number of tours of the plant and to scrutinize the men more closely. Here again, Weinstein did not ask the foreman for his recommendation, but, contrary to normal practice, made the discharge himself. Weinstein testified that he did not know Griffis was a union man. Of course, Weinstein may have suspected it without knowing it, or he may have wished to discharge an employee other than a prominent union *man to lend an appearance of legitimacy to Faulk's discharge. But whatever Weinstein's knowledge, the undersigned is convinced, by the unusual way in which Griffis was discharged, the timing of this discharge in relation to the other evidences of interference, coercion, and restraint, including Faulk's discharge, by the precipitateness with which Griffis was discharged for a long-standing fault, and by all the evidence, that Weinstein discharged Griffis as part of his design to discharge the union organization and activities of the Respondent's employees. This being the case, Griffis' discharge is discriminatory and in violation of the Act whether or not he was a member of the Union or known to be such.' IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operation 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 It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices. The undersigned will therefore recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since it has been found that the Respondent descriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Charles Faulk and William Griffis, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent offer to each immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former or substantially equivalent position 22 without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make each whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of such discrimination by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which each would have earned as wages from the date of his discriminatory discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnigs 22 during such period. The violations herein found clearly indicate that the Respondent's purpose was to defeat the exercise by its employees of their right to self-organization. Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, the undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed in the Act and amended Act, and danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's u American Rolling Mill Co , 43 N. L. R. B. 1020, 1149. 22 In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression "former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wher- ever possible, but if such position is no longer in existence then to a substantially equivalent position " See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N. L. R. B. 827. 23 See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R. B. 440, 492-498. WAYNLINE, INC. 527 conduct in the past 24 The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the recommendations are coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the policies of the Act and amended Act, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing on the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and amended Act 26 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Charles Faulk and William Griffis, thereby discouraging the formation of, and member- ship in, a labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, as reen- acted in Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and amended Act the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, as reenacted in Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act and amended Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed recommends that the Respondent, Waynline, Inc., Jesup, Georgia, its offi- cers, agents , successors, and assigns , shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization of its employees by in any manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment ; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to join or form labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing and to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and the amended Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec- tuate the policies of the Act, and the amended Act : (a) Offer to Charles Faulk and William Griffis immediate and full reinstate- ment each to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges ; (b) Make whole the said Faulk and Griffis for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent 's discrimination against them, in the man- ner provided herein in the Section entitled "The remedy" ; 24 See N. L. R. B. v. Empress Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426 and May Department Stores Company V. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376. 21 Since the undersigned has found that the Respondent's participation in the activities of Thomas and Henderson would not constitute a violation of the amended Act, the under- signed excepts this conduct from his "cease and desist" recommendation. 528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Post immediately at its plant in Jesup, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of such notice, to be fur- nished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), in writing within twenty (20) days from date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report of what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies the said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recom- mendations , the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid. As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all mo- tions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Imme- diately upon the filing of such statements of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board. In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendation and recom- mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. JAMES R. HEMINGWAY, Trial Examiner. Dated July 9, 1948. APPENDIX A NoTIcE To ALL EMpLOYEEs Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT In any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor WAYNLINE, INC. 529 organizations, to join or assist UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L. or any other labor organization, 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. WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. CHARLES FAULK WILLIAM GRIFFIS All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition-of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. WAYNLINE, INC., Employer. Dated------------------------ By ------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE : Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.