Price Valley Lumber Co.

26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In its exceptions, the Employer states that both men are classified as nonsupervisory salaried employees , that neither of them has anyone under his supervision, that neither can affect the status of any other employee by an unfavorable decision, and that their authority is limited to routine deci- sions . The Employer further contends that the pictures of both men were included in the leaflet "Northrop Promotes From Within," and although the Petitioner met its observers before the election and was informed that they worked in the industrial relations department, there was no objection to their serving as observers, and their conduct at the electionwas exemplary. As we are not satisfied that these individuals are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and as the Petitioner, although on notice of their status prior to the election, raised no objec- tion to their serving as observers, we find the Employer's exceptions to the Regional Director ' s findings in this regard to have merit. On the basis of the foregoing, we find, contrary to the Re- gional Director, that the objections filed by the Petitioner do not raise substantial or material issues. Accordingly, we find that no union won the election, and we shall therefore issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO (UAW- CIO), or for International Association of Machinists, AFL, and that neither of the said labor organizations is the exclusive representative of the employees of the Employer, in the unit heretofore found appropriate.] Member Murdock took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election. J. E. McCATRON, R. F. NINE, AND M.M. DINKEL, Partners, doing business as PRICE VALLEY LUMBER CO. and BLUE MOUNTAIN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LUMBER AND SAW- MILL WORKERS, A. F. of L. J. E. McCATRON, R. F. NINE, LOREN WEEKS, AND LLOYD URQUARHT, Co-partners, doing business as IDAHO PINE MOULDING CO. and BLUE MOUNTAIN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS, A. F. of L. Cases Nos. 19-CA-698 and 19-CA-700. July 8, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On April 30, 1953, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they 106 NLRB No 8. PRICE VALLEY LUMBER CO. 27 cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston , Murdock, and Peter- son]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Exam- iner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has con- sidered the Intermediate Report, the Respondents ' exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications: 1. The Trial Examiner found , and we agree, that Respond- ents Price Valley and Idaho constitute' a single employer within the meaning of Section 2, subsection (2), of the Act. In addition to the findings of fact relied upon by the Trial Exam- iner to support this conclusion , we find that there existed, as between both Respondents , a common control of labor relations. Thus, the discussions that took place after the sawmill em- ployees left their work were conducted between Nine, a partner common to both Respondents, and employees of both Price Valley and Idaho. Furthermore, McCatron, also a partner common to both Respondents, discharged employees of both Price Valley and Idaho, without the advice or consent of any of the other partners , and with the apparent authority to do so. 2. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondents' dis- charge and refusal to reinstate the employees who struck in protest of the discharge of employee Patton was discriminatory and constituted violations of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. The Respondents contend , inter alia , that their refusal to continue the employment of these employees was not violative of the Act because the Respondents were faced with the economic necessity of deciding whether to retain a small group of secondary, nonskilled employees or to accede to the demands of a larger group of key employees who refused to work with the smaller group because of their concerted action on behalf of Patton; and that in choosing to yield to the suggestion of the larger group so as to retain their services, the Respondents acted as any reasonable employer would have acted when placed in the same position . We find the Respondents ' contention to be without merit. It is well established both by the Board and by the courts that an Employer cannot excuse the discriminatory discharge of an employee because such discharge is the result of pressure brought to bear by other employees even though to disregard such pressure would result in the disruption of the employer's operations with concomitant economic loss . Nothing in the Act permits or justifies its violation or grants immunity from the consequences of such violation.' 'Majestic Metal Specialties, Inc., 92 NLRB 1854, 1861-1862; N L.R.B v. Star Publishing Company, 97 F. 2d 465, 470; Hudson Motor Car Co., 128 F. 2d 528, 532-533. 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. The Trial Examiner found, inter alia , and we agree, that the Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by the conduct of Planing Mill Foreman Cooper in his conversation with employee Patton on, or about, August 5. However, in finding such violation we rely solely upon that portion of the conversation in which Cooper told Patton that if a union came into the plant the Company would probably go to a 40-hour week in its operations. THE REMEDY The Trial Examiner, having found that the Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act by discharging the em- ployees who went out on strike on August 14, 1952, recom- mended that the Respondents be ordered to offer full reinstate- ment to the dischargees and that each dischargee be made whole for any possible loss of pay incurred as a result of his discharge, such back pay to be computed from August 14, 1952, the date of the discharges, to the date of reinstatement or offer of reinstatement. In making this recommendation and his pro- posed order thereon, the Trial Examiner failed to mention specifically the offer of reinstatement made on the record by the Respondents at the hearing onMarch 11, 1953. By this offer the Respondents offered full reinstatement to the dischargees, "at the beginning of our season." We shall not toll the running of the back-pay period as of the date of this offer because we do not find that the offer is unconditional or entirely valid in that the record does not reveal whether all of the dischargees were, in fact, seasonal workers. Nor does the record indicate when the Respondents' season starts . Moreover, we cannot ascertain, from the record, if the Respondents have fulfilled the conditions of the offer by notification to the dischargees that the season has commenced and that work is available. Therefore, we shall adopt the proposed order set forth in the Intermediate Report. However, the order to offer reinstatement is not intended to place upon the Respondents the obligation of making an additional offer of reinstatement to those employees who have already been given notice to report to work in accord- ance with the offer of reinstatement made at the hearing. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Boardhereby orders that Respondents J. E. McCatron, R. F. Nine, and M. M. Dinkel, Partners d/b/a Price Valley Lumber Co., and Respondents J. E. McCatron, R. F. Nine, Loren Weeks, and Lloyd Urquarht, Co-partners d/b/a Idaho Pine Molding Co., their agents , successors , and assigns, both copartnerships doing business at Tamarack , Idaho, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Blue Mountain District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers , A. F. of L., or in PRICE VALLEY LUMBER CO 29 any other labor organization of its employees by 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 their employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist Blue Mountain District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization , to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer the employees named on Schedule A of the Inter- mediate Report immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondents ' discrimination against them, as provided in the section entitled " The Remedy ," of the Inter- mediate Report. (b) Upon request make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll records , social- security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports , and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the rights of employment under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at their planing mill, sawmill , and moulding plant at Tamarack , Idaho, copies of the notice attached to the Inter- mediate Report .' Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents ' representatives , be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and main- tained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by other notices. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in writing within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 2 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof, the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order " 30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Blue Mountain District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued an amended consolidated complaint dated February 4, 1953, against the above-named individuals, doing business under the names of Price Valley Lumber Co and Idaho Pine Moulding Co , herein referred to as the Respondents, alleging that they had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat 136, herein called the Act Copies of the charges, complaints, amended com- plaints, and a notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondents and the Union With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended consolidated complaint alleged in substance that. (1) The Respondents constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2, subsection (2) of the Act and that their activities affect interstate commerce, (2) beginning on July 15, 1952, the Respondents committed various acts by which they interfered, with, restrained, and coerced their employees; (3) on or about August 14, 1952, Respondent Price Valley discharged James Patton, one of its employees, because of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union; (4) on or about August 14, 1952, a number of employees of the Respondents, acting in concert, engaged ina strike in protest of the discharge of James Patton and the 16 striking employees were thereupon discharged; and (5) by the above conduct the Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. The Respondents in their answer admitted certain allegations of the complaint setting forth facts of the Respondent's business operations but in general denied the commission of any unfair labor practices Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at McCall, Idaho, on March 10, 11, 1953, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Associate Chief Trial Examiner At the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, to argue the issues orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings Oral arguments were heard, and all parties waived the filing of briefs Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observations of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT L THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS a Price Valley Lumber Co It was stipulated at the hearing that Price Valley Lumber Co , herein referred to as Price Valley, is a partnership composed of J. E. McCatron, R. F. Nine, and M. M. Dinkel, having its principal office at Tamarack, Idaho, where it engages in logging, and the operation of a sawmill and planing mill During the year 1952, Price Valley made purchases of logs, supplies, and equipment valued in excess of $ 500,000, of which approximately 2i percent was shipped directly to Price Valley from points outside the State of Idaho, and an additional 122' percent originated at points outside the State of Idaho During the same period Respondent Price Valley produced and sold lumber having a value in excess of $700,000, of which approximately 70 percent, by value, was sold and shipped by Price Valley to customers located at points outside the State of Idaho Undisputed testimony established that McCatron owns 63 percent of the partnership, Nine, 33-1/3 percent, and Dinkel, 3-2/3 percent b. Idaho Pine Moulding Co Idaho Pine Moulding Co., herein referred to as Idaho, is a partnership composed of J. E. McCatron and R. F. Nine, the same two individuals who are partners in Price Valley, and Loren Weeks and Lloyd Urquarht Each of these men owns 25 percent of this partnership, which has its place of business at Tamarack, Idaho, and is engaged in the manufacture of mouldings from scrap lumber Undisputed evidence established that Idaho came into existence for the purpose of salvaging some profit from the "edgings," resulting from the sawmil! operations of Price Valley Prior to the formation of Idaho, these edgings were given away, or burned as scrap Idaho PRICE VALLEY LUMBER CO. 31 came into existence as the idea of partners Weeks and Urquarht Weeks owned some ma- chinery for the manufacture of mouldings , which he contributed to the partnership Urquarht provided the partnership with some funds, and McCatron and Nine erected a building to house the operations of Idaho on the property of Price Valley . McCatron and Nine did not convey title to the building to Idaho, but permitted Idaho to occupy and use it. Idaho was and is under the active supervision of Weeks. Mike Dinkel, the small stockholder in Price Valley , performs the job of office manager for the larger company and also for Idaho He draws a monthly salary from Price Valley, and he charges Idaho a nominal fee for his work In the year 1951 he charged the latter company $150 for his services , and had not made a charge for the year 1952, at the time of the hearing For this fee he provides all office management for Idaho Dinkel testified without contradiction as to the arrangement between the companies He said that the em- ployees of Idaho are paid by checks bearingthe name Price Valley, signed by either McCatron or Nine , later Idaho reimburses the larger company for these amounts . Idaho has one building , mentioned above, in which it conducts its operations This is located in close proximity to the planing mill , dry kilns, and sawmill of Price Valley . Idaho pays Price Valley the sum of $ 1 per day for all the edgings which it takes This price includes trans- portation of the edgings from the sawmill or planing mill to the moulding building which is accomplished by means of Price Valley lumber loaders All the operations of Idaho are conducted on the property of Price Valley The power which Idaho uses in its moulding manufacturing operations is charged to and paid for by Price Valley Idaho reimburses Price Valley for the power at a rate of $ 50 per month Upon these undisputed facts I find that Price Valley and Idaho had a common ownership to the extent that McCatron and Nine participated in both partnerships Further , the opera- tions of Idaho were integrated with those of Price Valley Idaho received all its raw material from Price Valley at a nominal cost, and used Price Valley equipment to move this raw material All of Idaho' s operations were performed on Price Valley property, and except for a small amount of its own equipment , with Price Valley facilities Financially too, Idaho was integrated with Price Valley The latter paid Idaho's employees with its check, and provided to Idaho such basic commodities as electric power Idaho merely reimbursed Price Valley for these cash expenditures at a convenient accounting Dinkel the smallest partner in Price Valley performed all office work for Idaho, for a nominal annual fee Under these circumstances I find that the Respondents constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2, subsection (2) of the Act and that the operations of the Employer affect interstate commerce.i IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Blue Mountain District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers, A. F. of L , and its affiliate Local 2856, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The hiring of Patton ; his demotion ; the Union' s organiza- tional activities ; the discharge of Patton J. E. McCatron testified credibly that in the fall of 1951 the Company lost the services of its planer man Planer men were scarce , soMcCatron sent inquiries to friends in the industry concerning a planer man One of them recommended James Patton to McCatron Patton was not a planer man, but he had had some experience as a setup man, and McCatron' s friend felt that Patton could handle the job McCatron employed Patton Patton took over the job of planer man which entailed being foreman of the planing mill. McCatron testified that Patton did very well, considering that he was not an experienced planer man During the winter of iSa-Mor Quality Brass Company, 93 NLRB 1225; Home Furniture Company. 77 NLRB 1437; Salter Mills Company, 76 NLRB 930; Victor Hosiery Corporation, et al., 86 NLRB 195; Atlas Imperial Diesel Engine Co.. et al , 89 NLRB 372; L W. Hayes, Inc , et al , 91 NLRB 1408; Gerber Products Company, 93 NLRB 1668; Vulcan Tin Can Company, 94 NLRB 10; Merchants Express Corporation, Inc., 92 NLRB No 107, Lloyd A Fry Roofing Company, et al , 92 NLRB 1432; Launderepair Company, 90 NLRB 778; Federal Engraving Co , Inc , 153 F 2d 533; American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, 71 NLRB 503; Orleans Materials and Equipment Company, Inc , 76 NLRB 48; Ecusta Paper Corporation, 66 NLRB 1204 32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1951-52 the Company undertook extensive repairs to the planer In late February , after the seasonal layoff, Patton came back to the job and began the repairs For several years McCatron had been trying to obtain the services of Gene Cooper , a planer man of experience and reputation About that time McCatron engaged Cooper as planer man and foreman of the planing mill for the coming season McCatron went to Patton, explained to him that the Company now had an opportunity to obtain the services of an experienced planer foreman in the planing mill , and that he intended to hire Cooper McCatron explained that Cooper's employment did not mean that Patton would be out of a job He told Patton, that if Patton wished to look elsewhere for a job, he would pay him for his time, plus $ 200, to enable him to look for a job at some other mill. However, if Patton didn't want to do this, the Company would be glad to continue Patton's employment in the job of " feeder" in the planing mill McCatron also suggested that Patton place his application with other companies for a job as planer - foreman, or setup man. A few days later McCatron and Patton had a second talk in similar vein Patton accepted the job as feeder man McCatron also instructed Cooper as to the situation , telling him to get along with Patton if possible , but that if he could not get along with him, he was to treat him the same as any other man on the job McCatron testified that later he heard that the two men did not get along very well , but McCatron paid very little attention to it, inasmuch as he was busy in charge of the logging operations of the Company.2 Cooper discharged Patton on August 14, 1952 According to Cooper's testimony he found Patton inefficient and uncooperative Cooper testified that the principal reason that he dis- charged Patton was that Patton had failed to grease the planing machine as it was his duty to do According to employment practices in the plant the feeder man had the responsibility of oiling and greasing the planer He worked 30 minutes longer each day than the other men in the planing mill He was supposed to start 15 minutes earlier in the morning and 15 minutes earlier at lunchtime , and at those times to accomplish the greasing and oiling of the planer This arrangement was necessary because it was difficult and dangerous to grease the planer when it was in operation Cooper testified that on several occasions he spoke to Patton about greasing or oiling the planer , but that Patton exhibited no disposition to perform those duties Cooper also stated that he considered Patton not dependable On one occasion Patton had agreed to assist Cooper in rebabbitting one of the bearings . This part of the machinery was very heavy , requiring two men to perform the job on the Sunday afternoon that Patton was to help Cooper , Patton did not show up. Later Patton apologized to Cooper explaining that he had friends visiting him from out of town Cooper also testified that Patton on many occasions was slow to start the men back to work after "breaks " He explained that often , when the planer shut down for an interval in the course of operations the men would step outside for a smoke When Cooper was ready to resume work it would be necessary for Cooper to find Patton, and to instruct him to start the machines As feeder man, if Patton started the machines, the other men would necessarily go to their places He spoke to Patton on several occasions about this dilatory conduct About 2 weeks to 10 days before Patton was discharged, Cooper brought to his attention again the fact that he was not greasing the machine on this occasion he walked up to Patton during the lunch hour when Patton was talking to several men and told him that he would like to have him grease the machine every other day or at least twice a week Cooper testified that Patton did not make any reply to him, but simply glared at him He watched Patton during the afternoon and noticed that Patton did not grease the planer as directed On August 13 Cooper again remonstrated with Patton He said to him, "Jimmy, are you going to grease the planer like the other feeders have done before you? " Patton replied that he did not have time Cooper then said, "Jim, when you were foreman the feeders greased their planer, didn't they9 " Patton admitted that they had, but again said that he didn't have time Cooper then pointed out to him that he did have time, and that he was being paid 30 minutes extra pay a day for the particular job of greasing and oiling After the men discussed the matter a little, Patton said, "Well , if you don' t like the way that I am doing this, why you had better get you another man " Cooper then said, "Well, Jimmy, I think that can probably be arranged " On the following day, August 14, Cooper made arrangements for a replacement for Patton He obtained a man by the name of Warning from Ingle , the yard boss At noontime he went to Patton and told him that he had taken Patton's suggestion , that he had a man to take his place, and that the Company would no longer need Patton. 2 In his testimony Patton denied that McCatron ever offered him the sum of $200, in addi- tion to his pay This difference in testimony is of minor importance inasmuch as Patton in his testimony generally admitted that the conversations as outlined by McCatron took place. PRICE VALLEY LUMBER CO. 33 Cooper, testified that he alone was responsible for the discharge of Patton and that his only reason for discharging the employee was that Patton was inefficient and uncooperative Cooper was questioned in regard to his attitude on unions He testified that for many years while he was engaged in the lumber business as a rank -and-file employee , he was a member of the Union and that he had stopped being a member of the Union when he became a super- visor Patton's version of the events leading up to his discharge varied only slightly from that given by Cooper. Patton testified that on or about August 6, Cooper spoke to him about greasing the machine. According to Patton, at that time he was having lunch with several other men when Cooper came to him and said , " I want you to grease the machine every 2 or 3 days " Patton made no answer to Cooper Patton admitted that on several other occasions Cooper had spoken to him about greasing the machine Patton stated that generally he oiled the machine but didn't grease it . He also stated that when he was foreman the feeder man greased the machine , but he explained that when he was foreman he relieved the feeder man so he could do the greasing , or had somebody else relieve him Patton stated that he received an additional 30 minutes pay per day for the purpose of greasing the planing machine, but said that in 30 minutes he had time to oil the machine only, and did not have time to grease it He substantiated Cooper' s testimony about the occasion when Patton entertained some friends from out of town instead of helping Cooper rebabbitt the bearing in the planer He testified that on the following morning he apologized to Cooper for his absence and explained his absence He testified that on August 13, when he was on his way to get an oilcan, he encountered Cooper who said to him , "Didn't you understand me when I said to you that you were to grease the machine every 2 or 3 days?" Patton said, "Yes, Gene , but I just haven't got time Whenldotheoilingandtake care of the fans I just haven ' t got time to do it all " Patton went out and oiled the machine, but Cooper grabbed up the grease gun and went out and greased the machine himself Cooper on this occasion said to him, "Well, Jim, like I said, you're either going to have to grease the machine or we are going to have to get another man " Patton replied , " Well, that is your privilege " Patton also testified that it was up to him to see that the men started to work after " breaks" and that he felt that he was alert in doing that, except on some occasions when he had stepped out to relieve himself, or for someother valid reason Patton testified that Cooper discharged him on August 14 On that day Cooper came to him at the noon hour and said, "I took your suggestion and went to town last night and got a man to take your place, so your check's made out for you, you can go up to the office and get it " Patton picked up his tools and said to Cooper , " What are you firing me for , Genet" Cooper said, "I don't have to have no reason to fire you You're fired. Now get out " Cooper testified in a straightforward and forthright manner He appeared to be a sincere and conscientious individual who harbored no rancor or malice toward Patton or any of the employees I credit his testimony that he attempted to get along with Patton, but that he discharged the latter because Patton was inefficient and uncooperative The Union' s Organizational Campaign Prior to July 24, 1953, there had been no significant union activity among the employees of either Price Valley or Idaho However on that date some of the employees invited Everett A. Weller, an organizer for the Union, to assist them in organizing Weller went from Baker, the headquarters of the Union, to Tamarack and talked to approximately 23 employees The 23 employees all signed cards authorizing the Union to represent them in collective bar- gaining At that time Price Valley had approximately 68 employees, and Idaho had 3. On August 5 Weller spoke to Nine at his home at lunchtime Weller told Nine that employees had signed authorization cards for the Union in sufficient numbers to enable the latter to obtain an election . He further informed Nine that it was his duty as a representative of the employees to ask Nine if the Company, wished to recognize the Union or, in the alternative, if they would rather have an election among the employees Nine replied that he thought an election would be the only fair way to handle the matter In passing, Nine also said that the fact that the employees had signed up with the Union was news to him, and that he didn't particularly approve of the action On August 11 the Union filed a representation petition for a unit of all production and main- tenance employees of the Price Valley Lumber Co The witness explained that at that time he assumed it was all one Company. Following receipt of the petition a field examiner of the Board telephoned to the Company, informing Dinkel of the receipt of the petition Dinkel told the field examiner that the Company would consent to an election in the appropriate unit Weller scheduled a union meeting for August 6, but this meeting was canceled He then wrote 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a letter to each employee who had signed a card asking him to appear at the Boise-Payette Hall, New Meadows, Idaho, for a meeting on August 13 Invitations to this meeting were sent only to those who had signed authorization cards. At the meeting Weller signed up the men for membership in the Union and accepted $2.50 dues from each of them 3 Several of the employees testified credibly that an employee by the name of Stanley Whet- more came uninvited to the meeting. This employee was the son of Walt Whetmore, who was the sawmill foreman. According to these witnesses, Whetmore addressed the meeting His first statement was that he had attended the meeting in order "to count noses " He told the men that they were throwing away their money and their jobs by joining the Union. He said that if the Union came into the mill that the men would be limited to a 40-hour week. At that time the men were working 50-55 hours per week Patton then asked Whetmore why he didn't leave the meeting, and leave the men alone, if he didn't like the Union. Whetmore countered by asking Patton why he didn't quit if he didn't like his job Patton replied that he would not quit, that he would have to be fired. Whetmore replied, "That can be arranged." On the following day Patton's employment was terminated under the circumstances related above. The General Counsel alleges that in the course of the organizational campaign, on several occasions, supervisors of the Respondent interrogated employees. Patton testified that on or about August 5 at the mill he had a conversation with Cooper about the Union On that occasion Cooper said that he understood the boys were trying to get a union. He said that he didn't know why they should want a union, as the wage scale at the mill was higher than the Union's scale Patton in his testimony said that he "thought" he disagreed with Cooper on that point Then Cooper said that employee Murphy was getting paid higher wages than any grader in the northwest Patton said that he knew a grader who was getting at least 20 cents an hour more than Murphy. The men then discussed the question as to whether Murphy was a "shop grader" and thus merited a higher rate of pay During this conversation Cooper also said that if a union came in the plant, the Company would probably go to 40 hours a week in its operations Employee Urban Murphy testified that on or about August 6 Cooper asked him if it was true that Murphy was trying to get a union in the mill Murphy denied it On the evening of this same day Murphy met Sales Manager Ingle in a beer parlor in town Ingle said to Murphy, "This is serious business, Murph Do you know whether or not Jim Patton has talked to Shorty Weller " Murphy replied that he didn't know, but felt that Weller had talked to Patton Employee Gail McCarty testified that on or about August 5 or 6 Cooper told him that he understood that the boys were trying to get a union McCarty made no reply Cooper then said if they did get the Union in, the Company would more than likely put on 2 shifts, run the lumber out early, and go back to 40 hours a week, that it would be a losing proposition for the men Employee Edward Baker testified that on one occasion he met Walt Whetmore, the sawmill foreman, while the men were fishing Whetmore observed that employee Don Matthews was also fishing at that time and added, "That is funny I thought you were supposed to have a Union meeting tonight " Baker told Whetmore that there was no meeting scheduled for that evening to his knowledge On another occasion Baker discussed the Union with Sales Manager Ingle while they were having a glass of beer at a beer parlor in the town Ingle made the statement that he heard that the Union was going to petition for an election Baker said that if the Union came in, he would join it Ingle then told Baker that he was wrong about the Union, that he had held three union cards and he knew what he was talking about Ingle said the men were overpaid on the job, and that they wouldn't gain anything by joining the Union for in the event the Union came in, the men would be restricted to 40 hours work a week. On another occasion about a week after Patton's discharge and the walkout of the union men, Baker had another conversation with Ingle at his home on an occasion when Ingle and his wife were calling upon Baker and his wife. Baker explained to Ingle that he felt he had to walk out, inasmuch as he felt that he would be fired anyway Ingle agreed that he would have been fired, and told Baker that the latter should have consulted him before taking action. Employee Don Matthews testified that on or about August 5 he had a conversation with Walt Whetmore, superintendent of the sawmill, Roy Nine, and George Weeks Nine said to the witness, "Don, what do you know about this Union business? " Matthews said that he knew nothing about it Nine then said, "That's fine. It seems like everybody you talk to don't know nothing about it " Matthews started to walk away when Whetmore said to him, "Don, I understand that you are the man that brought the Union man in here " Matthews said, "No I'm not the man that brought him in here " Nine then passed the matter off, saying that it looked as though Matthews was blamed for everything that went on around the mill 3 The findings thus far in this section of the report are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Weller and Dinkel PRICE VALLEY LUMBER CO. 35 The Walkout When Patton was fired, as previously related, he immediately told the rest of the union men in the planing mill, including employee Murphy who apparently was the leader of the union adherents The union employees at the planing mill then discussed the discharge and in a matter of moments, without any investigation, arrived at the conclusion that Patton had been discharged because of his membership in the Union The men decided to walk out in protest of Patton's discharge. After this decision was made by Murphy and his small group apparently all other union men were notified of their decision Murphy also undertook to notify Nine of their decision He went to the office, but Nine was out to lunch Murphy saw Sales Manager Ingle and said to him, "Bob I have something to tell you that I don't think you will like " Murphy then said, "The planing crew, not the whole planing crew, but several of the planing crew are striking in protest of Jimmy being fired, and for recognition of the AFL as our bargaining agent " Ingle then told Murphy to notify Cooper When Murphy found Cooper the latter was working on the planer. Murphy said, "Gene, we are striking in protest of Jimmy being fired and for recognition of the AFL as our bargaining agent " Cooper said, "Well, Murph, the Union isn't in here " Murphy didn' t answer Ingle who was present said, "You fellows who are striking, you can get your checks " Murphy then went back to the men who had walked out and told them that they had been fired for striking Murphy and the group then went to the grinding room to sign out their timesheets Cooper was there Murphy said to him, "Gene I don't want there to be any hard feelings over this " Cooper said, "Not a bit, Murph " But added, "You fellows are making a mistake " Murphy disagreed with that saying, "I don't think we are " Murphy then told Ingle that he had no hard feelings against the latter, but Ingle said, "On my part there is I have always felt that I have treated you fellows right You fellows can go to the office and get your checks " The men then entered their cars and went to the town of New Meadows At the time of the walkout there were 13 men employed on the planer including Patton, 6 of them struck in protest of the discharge of Patton, leaving the planing mill crew 7 men short The union men who were employed at the sawmill heard of the firing of Patton during the lunch hour. At 1:30, when they were about to start work, they were informed that the union men at the planing mill had walked out in protest of Patton's discharge They immediately gathered, and decided that they too should walk out in protest As the men left the sawmill they encountered Nine, who asked them what was going on The employees told Nine that they were walking out in protest of Patton's discharge Employee James C. Matthews asked Nine why the Company had fired Patton for his union activities Nine denied that Patton was fired for his union activities saying, "We couldn't dothat We couldn't fire him for that " Matthews then said, "Well, we have heard some talk that we would be fired for union activities " Nine again said, "No, we can't do that " One of the other employees mentioned that it looked bad, inasmuch as Patton was fired on that day following the union meeting at New Meadows Nine agreed that it looked bad, saying that a bad time for the discharge of Patton had been chosen Matthews then asked if there was some settlement that could be made of the matter. Nine agreed that some settlement was possible and said, "I think it's my duty to round up the planer crew " Nine then said, "If you fellows go back to work, there will be nobody fired " At that, the sawmill men went back to the mill and took their places at their various jobs stations. However the mill was not put in operation at that time In his testimony Nine ex- plained that he had given instructions not to start the sawmill until McCatron, the majority partner, could come to the mill and participate in any conference which might occur Mean- while employees Baker and Matthews took it upon themselves to go to New Meadows to round up the crew of the planer and Nine sent for McCatron, the majority partner , who was in the woods conducting logging operations The sawmill men waited around for McCatron at the sawmill and were joined by some of the planer men Murphy, Patton, and several of the planer crew were found by Baker and Matthews, and they returned to the mill Murphy and Patton waited with the others until approximately 4 30 p m when Murphy and Patton left. At approximately 4:50 p in McCatron and Nine appeared at the mill By this time the employees had separated into two distinct groups; a larger group composed of the nonunion men stood apart from a second group composed of the union men Nine and McCatron spoke briefly to the nonunion men and then came to the union group Nine said, "I guess I owe you boys an apology " Then employee James C. Matthews said that the men would like to get the deal settled up McCatron said, "I am sorry fellows, my keymen won't work with you There will be no Union in this plant There will be no meeting held here Therefore, go to the office and pick up your time " Employee Baker asked, "You mean we are fired " And McCatron said, "That is right Get your checks," At that time, as it was close to the quitting time, all employees and the dischargees left the premises of the mill The walkout and subsequent discharge of the protesting employees 322615 0 - 54 - 4 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD involved approximately 14 men of approximately 68 on the payroll of Price Valley, dis- tributed among the departments of the Company as follows : Planning mill, 13 employees--1 discharged, 6 struck, sawmill , 24 employees--7 struck; yard 10 employees - -unaffected, shop, 4 employees--unaffected; woods, 16 employees --unaffected ; kiln, 1 employee unaffected Idaho employed 3 employees of which 2 joined in the walkout and were discharged These men comprised the 16 men alleged to have been illegally discharged named in paragraph 11 of the complaint Russell Chandler, business agent of the Union, testified credibly that he was notified of the strike on the day that it occurred He went to New Meadows that evening and discussed the matter with the men On the following day he went to the mill and talked to Nine He explained that he desired to negotiate some sort of a settlement with Nine Nine explained that he would have to take the matter up with McCatron, inasmuch as McCatron was the principal partner , but that he would relay Chandler' s message to McCatron He received no reply from the Company Chandler then notified the United States Conciliation Service of the strike and requested the Conciliation Service to arrange a meeting with representatives of the Company Later Chandler heard from the Conciliation Service that it was having considerable difficulty in locating McCatron That was the last that Chandler heard of the efforts of the Conciliation Service to effect a meeting Chandler then filed the instant charges with the Board The testimony of Roy F. Nine to some extent corroborated the testimony of the employees He testified that after his conversation with the men concerning a settlement of the strike, he told Walt Whetmore not to start the mill until McCatron could arrive , and discuss the matter , because he understood that the men would not go back to work without Patton being reinstated Nine also testified that later the Company decided that it would not rehire any of the employees who had walked out; that the position of the Company was that it would hire some of the men back, but not on the terms dictated by the Regional Office of the Board He stated that he had offered employment individually to Craddock, Larkins, and Larson, but that these men refused individual reinstatement He explained that he apologized to the men on the day of the walkout because he had told them that he would round up the planer crew , and he had not done so , because he had learned that Baker and Matthews had gone to the town for the same purpose He testified that it was McCatron' s decision that the men should get their money He stated that, to his knowledge, McCatron never told the men that they were fired According to his recollection , McCatron told them that inasmuch as they had walked off, and "quit" their jobs, that they had better get their time Also, that when one of the men had asked about a meeting, McCatron had said, "There will be no meeting here . You boys have no union contract with the company." Nine also stated, that prior to the time that McCatron told the men to get their money, that McCatron had made a statement to the effect that some of his keymen did not wish to work with the union men. Nine also said that on one occasion he had discussed the Union with employee Don Matthews He explained that Matthews had come to him and asked him if the Union organized the plant , if the Company would put the men on a 40-hour week. In answer to Matthews question , he told him that if the Union obtained a contract with all the usual rigid demands, overtime pay, etc , that in all probability the Company would be forced to a 40-hour week Nine also told Matthews that he gave him that answer to his question, but did not want to influence him in any way concerning his acceptance or rejection of the Union Jerry McCatron testified that he was on the Salmon River conducting logging operations when he was notified that there was trouble at the mill. He reached the mill about 4 30 and went to the office, where he was told by Dinkel that the Company had discharged Patton, and that part of the planing crew and part of the sawmill crew had walked off their jobs in protest at Patton' s discharge Dinkel told him that some of the men had asked for their checks, but that he had asked the men to wait until McCatron could get there, and that the men were waiting for McCatron McCatron then left the office and went out to the mill site where he talked to the nonunion men who were gathered upon the green chain From his conversation with the nonunion men he gathered that they considered it a mean, dirty trick for the union men to walk off the job without notice to either the Company or the nonunion men, and that the nonunion men had decided not to go back to work if the Company put the union men back on the job After talking to the nonunion employees he went to the union group He said, "This is a sorry thing, and I'm sorry that it's happened But now under the circumstances , you boys have quit, and I can't put you back to work, because this other crew refuses to go back after you boys have walked out like this, and if I did those fellows are mostly all key men I would lose them , and you fellows are just common laborers " At that point employee PRICE VALLEY LUMBER CO. 37 James Matthews said that the men would call a meeting McCatron asked what kind of a meeting, and Matthews replied, "a union meeting " At that McCatron said, "Just a minute, Jimmy. We don't have a union here, and in order for you fellows to do anything of that kind, you would have to get or to hold an election. And if that carried here, then we would make a contract with the Union, and then we would have to bargain with you fellows, you could can a union. Now, you can call all of the union, all of the meetings, that you want, but you can't hold them here on our premises." With that McCatron walked off McCatron denied that he told the men that they were fired, or that they asked him if they were fired. According to his testimony he said, "You have already quit Go ahead and get your time " McCatron said that he never talked to any of the men about the Union, or a 40-hour week, or any other matter affecting the Union Counsel for the Respondent also called as a witness Stanley Whetmore, son of Walt Whetmore, superintendent of the sawmill. This witness testified that he is employed at the sawmill as a grader . He said that he attended the union meeting on August 13 without an invitation. He explained that he had been informed by a man named Knee, that Knee's brother- in-law had received an invitation to the meeting, which contained a note to the effect that the fact of the meeting was to be kept confidential. Despite the fact he had no invitation, Whetmore attended the meeting and addressed the assembled men for about 10 minutes speaking against the Union In his testimony Whetmore stated that he had no authority to speak for the Company, and spoke only as an employee He did not deny that the altercation between himself and Patton, as narrated by Patton, had occurred Whetmore also testified as to the reaction of the nonunion men to the walkout. He said that when the men walked off the job Smith, the sawyer, "was very miffed, he was hurt The principal of the matter touched him deeply, and he felt it was very unloyal of his fellow workers to desert the mill at the time it was operating, without even telling him about it, and leaving him in a very bad position " Whetmore portrayed the sawyer as being taken by surprise Whetmore denied that he, personally, told any representati"e of management that he would not work with the union men if the Company and the union men solved their differ- ences, but he said that the nonunion men as a group decided that they wouldn't work with the union men because of "the summary manner in which the operation was shut down, and the principal of the matter " They felt that they would not "care to continue operations with this type of a crew." At the hearing counsel for the Respondents moved to strike all testimony regarding the altercation between Patton and Whetmore at the union hall, on the ground that the statements of Whetmore on that occasion were not binding upon the Respondents I agree with that position of counsel, and I have not considered the conduct of Whetmore as binding upon the Respondents inasmuch as there is no proof that he was acting as an agent of the Respondents at any time. However, I deny the motion to strike on the ground that the testimony is relevant as purporting to show the attitude of Whetmore and the other nonunion men. As a witness Whetmore appeared to be extremely partisan, self-righteous, and bombastic I do not accept his testimony as giving a fair or reliable account of the attitude of the nonunion men Concluding Findings As will be noted from the brief summary of the evidence, there is no real disagreement between the parties as to the sequence of events outlined above The difference between the parties arises from their differing judgments as to the motive of the Company in the dis- charge of Patton. Other than that, there is little conflict in the testimony From a consider- ation of all the testimony it appears that both the walkout and the discharge of the striking employees were both snap judgments made in haste and without any deliberation From the testimony of Cooper, and of Patton himself, it is clear that Patton took his demotion from the position of foreman of the planing mill with very poor grace, and that thereafter he gave only grudging and surly assistance to Cooper, the new foreman. Cooper impressed the undersigned as an honest and truthful witness In his testimony he related facts which led him to the conclusion that Patton was undependable, uncooperative, and inefficient. Patton, in his testimony, did not deny the various delinquencies and shortcomings charged by Cooper, but tried to offer an excuse for them. From his testimony only one conclusion can be drawn, that Patton had taken umbrage at Cooper's employment and had conducted himself in the manner related by Cooper. While it is clear from the testimony of Patton, Murphy, and Gail McCarty that Cooper on three occasions spoke to employees about the advent of the Union in the mill, it is likewise clear that Cooper himself had no feeling of opposition or animus to the Union During his years as a rank-and-file employee he had been a member 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the charging Union, and at the plant of one of his former employers , he had organized the Union with the assistance of Weller , the union organizer in this case . This record is barren of any substantial evidence which would outweigh the testimony of Cooper and Patton, which demonstrates that Cooper discharged Patton because he was an unsatisfactory employee. Though Cooper on three occasions violated the prohibition of the Act against interfering with employees in the exercise of their rights in Section 7 , I am satisfied that the incidents of interrogation were unconnected with Cooper ' s discharge of Patton In the light of all the evidence, it appears that the relationship between Patton and Cooper was deteriorating simultaneously with, but independent of, the Union ' s organizational campaign . While Cooper's conversations with the men on the subject of the Union were violations of the statute in the stritt sense , they are insufficient to sustain a finding that Cooper had an antiunion motive in the discharge of Patton I find, therefore , that Cooper discharged Patton for cause However , on the day of the strike it appeared otherwise to the union men on the job. From their testimony it is clear that they entertained some fears that the Company would effect a reprisal against some of their number for joining the Union, and that when Patton was fired they immediately jumped to the conclusion that he was fired because of his union activities Without further investigation of the matter , they decided it was their duty to protest Patton' s discharge , so they struck. Regardless of whether the union employees were correct or in error in their judgment that Patton had been discriminately discharged , they had the right to strike in protest of his discharge , and their concerted activity was well within the protection of the Act 4 [low- ever , their right in this regard was not understood , or if understood , not respected by either the nonunion men, or by the Company, because each of these in turn contributed an additional rash and ill-considered decision to the controversy Shortly after they stopped working, some of the union men told Nine that they wished to discuss the matter of Patton ' s discharge with management and Nine on his part displayed a disposition to discuss the matter with the men At that point , calm judgment and good will exerted its effect in the controversy Pur- suant to their conversation , Nine undertook to bring the planer crew back to the mill, and the sawmill union men returned to their stations of work , ready to go to work But during this interim , for reasons of their own, the nonunion men unlawfully arrogated to themselves the position of judge in the matter , and decided that the union men had not acted properly and that they would mete out punishment by forcing the discharge of the union men by the Company The nonunion men notified McCatron that they would refuse to resume work with the union men, in the event the union men and the management were able to effect a com- promise of their differences The view of the nonunion men was evidently shared by McCatron for he quickly acceded to their ultimatum , abrogated his right as an employer to employ whom he pleased , and unlawfully discharged the striking employees McCatron testified that he did not tell the men that they were discharged , but told them that, inasmuch as they had quit , they might as well get their time Regardless of the phraseology used by either McCatron or the -men, it is apparent , and I find, that McCatron discharged all the striking employees at that time When McCatron came to the mill , the striking employees were gathered close to their positions of work. They were waiting to confer with McCatron and Nine regarding the validity of their protest It was plain to all, and must have been equally clear to McCatron, that the men at that time had not quit but were on strike as a protest over the discharge of Patton, and were there assembled to present their protest to him, as the principal owner of the Company When McCatron told the men that they could get their time, he clearly intended to discharge the employees who were making the protest However , I am not persuaded that McCatron indulged in this nicety of language and that he said substantially , " Inasmuch as you have quit , you might as well get your time " I credit the testimony of the employees to the effect that one of them said, "Doyou mean that we are fired , Jerry? " To which McCatron said, " Yes, you are fired Get your time " Upon all the evidence I find that the employees named in paragraph 11 of the complaint were discharged by McCatron on August 14, 1952, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. I further find that the Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by the following conduct of its supervisors : (1) Cooper' s conversation with Patton on or about August 5 in which Cooper said he could not understand why the employees wanted the Union inasmuch as the wage scale at the mill was higher than the union scale: (2) Cooper ' s questioning of employee Murphy as to whether it was true that Murphy was trying to get a union in the mill , (3) Cooper' s statement to employee Gail McCarty on or about August 5, that if the employees brought a union in the mill the Company would more than likely put on 2 shifts, 4Kallaher and Mee, Inc , 87 NLRB 410; Agar Packing and Provision Corporation, 81 NLRB 1262. J I Case Company, 95 NLRB 47, enforced 189 F 2d 599 (C A 8). PRICE VALLEY LUMBER CO 39 run the lumber out early, and go back to 40 hours a week, (4) Ingle's statement to employee Baker that the men would not gain anything by the Union, for in the event the mill was organized, the men would be restricted to 40 hours work per week, (5) the interrogation of employee Don Matthews by Nine and Whetmore, superintendent of the sawmill, as to what Matthews knew about the Union, and as to whether he was the man who brought the Union into the plant IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with their activities described in section 1, 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 Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Having found that the Respondents discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the employees listed in Schedule A, attached hereto, by discriminatorily discharging them for engaging in concerted and union activities, it will be recommended that the Respondents offer to each of the employees named in Schedule A, full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make whole each of the employees listed on Schedule A, for any loss of pay each may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. In the case of each employee the back-pay period shall begin on August 14, 1952, and continue to the date of his reinstatement, or the date on which reinstatement is offered to him Consistent with the policy of the Board enunciated in F, W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, it will be recommended that losses of pay be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion thereof during the appropriate back-pay period The quarter shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from the sum equal to that which these employees normally would have earned for each quarter or portion thereof, the net earnings, if any, in any other employment during that quarter; 5 earnings in any one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter It is also recommended that the Respondents be ordered to make available to the Board upon request payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of amounts of back pay due Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I Blue Mountain District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers, A. F of L., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act 2 Price Valley Lumber Co and Idaho Pine Moulding Co constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act and that the operations of the employer affect interstate commerce 3 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the employees named in Schedule A attached hereto thereby discouraging membership in Blue Mountain District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers, A F. of L , and labor organizations generally, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, 4 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 5See Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corporation v N.L.R.B , 311 U. S 7 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 discourage membership in Blue Mountain District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers, A. F of L., or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment WE WILL NOT discriminatorily discharge any of our employees for engaging in strikes or concerted activities protected by the Act WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees regarding their union desires, sympathies, activities, or membership, the status of any union's organizational efforts, or the identity of employees active in behalf of any labor organization WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with shorter working hours in the event that they join any labor organization WE WILL NOT in any other 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 Blue Mountain District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all 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 amended WE WILL offer to the employees named in Schedule A, attached hereto, full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and will make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against them All of our employees are freetobecome, remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named union or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended We will not discriminate in regard to the hire and 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 PRICE VALLEY LUMBER CO , Employer. Dated By. (Representative) IDAHO PINE MOULDING CO., 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 SCHEDULE A Edward W. Baker M. McCarty Bert White Robert Craddock Donald R. Mathews Ira A. Durham Glen N. Deasy James C. Mathews Joe Gabica Jess Gabica Urban C. Murphy Carroll Lee Lowell J. Madison Guy R. Royster David V. Anderson Gail G. McCarty