Plum Creek Logging Co., Inc.

800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Plum Creek Logging Company, Inc. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 3029 and The Montana District Council , Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union. Case No. 19-CA-1006. August 18, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER On December 22, 1954, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative 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 and the Union filed a brief.' The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted below.' 1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied because the record and excep- tions and briefs, in out opinion , adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 2 Contrary to the position expressed in the dissent with respect to the termination of Milton Keck, we find in agreement with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent dis- criminatorily discharged this employee . As the Trial Examiner points out , Foreman Fred Winegar was admittedly cognizant of union organizational activity among the employees. Although Winegar testified on diiect examination that he did not "know" that Milton' Keck was a member of the Union , Winegar admitted twice during the course of this examination -that he heard information to this effect . And on cross -examination Winegar further explained that he learned from "common talk around the plant" that Milton Keck, among others , was a member of the Union In the face of this admission as contained in repeated testimony, Winegar's later contradictory statement that he did not hear that Milton Keck was a union member deserves little weight Accordingly, we are convinced from the weight of the evidence , which was in the nature of an admission against interest, that Winegar was aware of Milton Keck's union affiliation when the latter was discharged along with Ole Carlson , Clifford wolvington , and Einer Mohn. In defense of its conduct in discharging certain union adherents in violation of Sec- tion 8 (a) (3), the Respondent points out that two known union officers , George Keck and James R. Binns, were retained in its employ despite their activity on behalf of the Union. Rejecting this defense, the Trial Examiner found that the Respondent had a policy of not discharging employees who were indebted to it and that it was uncontested that both of these employees owed the Respondent substantial sums of money Evidence, however, as to Keck's indebtedness was stricken from the record without objection from any of the parties Accordingly , the Board does not adopt the Trial Examiner 's findings as to Keck's indebtedness. The Respondent's contentions ale nevertheless insufficient as a defense Keck was absent from his job from late March until late June 1954, and on the latter date charges of unfair labor practices had been filed against and served on the Respondent. Moreover, it is a well-settled rule that the absence of discrimination against all union adherents does not establish nondiscrimination against individual union mem- bers. Brady Aviation Corporation, 110 NLRB 25, 29. The Trial Examiner states that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America granted a charter for the Local Union of Lumber and Sawmill Workers, No. 3029, on April 10, 1954. The record shows that the charter was granted on April 15, 1954 The Trial Examiner 's inadvertence does not affect his findings or our concurrence therein. 113 NLRB No. 88. PLUM CREEK LOGGING COMPANY, INC. 801. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Plum Creek Logging Com- pany, Inc., Columbia Falls, Montana, 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, Local No. 3029 and The Montana District Council, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of their employment or any term or condition of employ- ment. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union activities in a manner violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (c) Threatening its employees with plant closure or curtailment of operations in the event they become organized. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Unions, or any other labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, or to refrain from any and 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 the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Ole Carlson, Clifford Wolvington, Einer Mohn, and Milton Keck immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respond- ent's discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the sec- tion of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (b) Upon request preserve and 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 its plant at Columbia Falls, Montana, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix." I 3 This notice shall be amended by substituting in the caption thereof the words "A De- cision and Order" for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner." In the, 802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's rep- resentative, be posted by the Respondent and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ- ing 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 Nineteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting in part : I dissent from the decision of my colleagues in this case to the extent that it finds that the Respondent discriminated against Milton Keck. I do this because his case stands in a different posture from that of the other three employees named in the complaint as discriminatees, and because as to Keck there exists a serious failure of proof. As the Intermediate Report shows, it is established that by May 10, the date on which the Respondent's-mill resumed operations and some of the laid-off employees were put back to work, the Respondent had learned through a May 7 newspaper story that Mohn, Carlson, and Wolvington occupied important positions among the union leader- ship. On the other hand, there is no evidence in the record whatever, except the inconclusive testimony of Foreman Winegar that he had "hearsay" information that several employees were union members, that even faintly suggests that the Respondent may have known that Milton Keck was in any way connected with the Union. Thus he testified : Q. Had you heard that they [Wolvington, Carlson, and Milton Keck] were members of a union? A. Hearsay. Q. Had you heard that all three of them were members of the union? A. Hearsay. Q. I mean did it apply to all three? A- Well, Well, no, I wouldn't say that it did. It was hearsay that there was several. Q. Did it include these three men? A. I wouldn't say that it included them any more than it did some others there. However, Winegar specifically denied that he "knew" of Milton Keck's affiliation with the Union : 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 "Pur- suant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." PLUM - CREEK LOGGING COMPANY, INC. 803 Q. Did you know that Milton Keck was a member of any Union ? A. No, I didn't. Q. Did you know that Milton Keck was a member of the union when you handed his name to Rude? A. No. Q. Did you ever see Milton Keck talking to other employees about the union ? A. No. Q. Did you ever see him wearing a union button? A. No. Q. What was your reason for turning his name in as one to be laid off ? A. Inefficient. And Winegar even denied, moreover , that he had "heard" of Milton Keck's membership in the Union : Q. Did you hear that Ole Carlson was a member? A. No. Q. Did you hear that Clifford Wolvington was a member? A. I believe that I heard that he was a member. Q. Did you hear that Milton Keck was a member? A. No. As a matter of fact, so far as the record shows , Milton Keck's only connection with the Union was that he, along with other employees, some unnamed, had signed an application requesting the Brotherhood to charter the local group. In discussing the May 7 newspaper story which listed the names of the Union's permanent officers, the ' Trial Examiner said : "Milton Keck's name did not, appear but George Keck, his brother , was listed as one of the trustees." The implication from this is that although the General Counsel was unable to show that the Respondent knew that Milton Keck was a union adherent , the missing element of proof is supplied by showing that the Respondent was aware that his brother George was a union leader. Had the complaint charged, and had this case been tried on the theory that Milton had been discharged as a reprisal for George's union activities, the Respondent's awareness of George's activities would have been material .4 But this is not the case here . The complaint charged, and this case was tried on the theory, that Milton was discharged for his own, not George's, union activities . In this context, whether or not the Respondent knew that George was a union leader is altogether immaterial. 4In this connection , see foi example , The Dalton Company, Inc., 109 NLRB 1228, footnote 6. 804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In addition to the failure to show that the Respondent was aware of Milton Keck's union connections, there is another element that dis- tinguishes his case from that of the other three discharged employees. After their layoffs on April 17 and May 3, Mohn, Carlson, and Wolv- ington attempted to ascertain from the Respondent whether they would be recalled. The Respondent gave each an equivocal response, and it was not until after the plant had reopened on May 10 that they learned that they had been discharged. By contrast, as early as April 20, the Respondent let Milton Keck know that his layoff was perma- nent, and that his recall was doubtful. In these circumstances, I have concluded that the General Counsel has not sustained the burden of proof that the law places upon him. The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, said recently with respect to a situation comparable to the one that exists here : 5 The finding that the discharge of'these men was discriminatory cannot be sustained by speculation drawn from the flimsy evi- dence presented that the Company knew of their CIO activity if any... . Unless there is a reasonable basis in the evidence for the finding of knowledge "the employer need not excuse or justify his action." As "there is no reasonable basis for the finding of knowledge" in this case, I would accordingly dismiss the complaint as to Milton Keck. N. L. R. B. v. Wagner Iron Works and Bridge, Structural rt Ornamental Iron Workers, Shopmen'a Local 471 (AFL), 220 F. 2d 126, 137 (C. A. 7). INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was heard before the duly designated Trial Examiner at Whitefish, Montana, on October 20, 21 , and 22, 1954, pursuant to due notice to all parties. All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine the witnesses, to intro- duce evidence relevant and material to the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings. Briefs have been received from the Respondent and the Union. The complaint, issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called respectively the General Counsel and the Board , alleged in substance that Plum Creek Logging Company , Inc., herein called the Respondent, discharged four named employees because of their affiliation with and activities in behalf of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Local No. 3029 and The Montana District Council , Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, herein called the Union , and made certain statements independently violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In its duly filed answer the Respondent denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a Minnesota corporation having its principal office and place of business at Columbia Falls, Montana, where it is engaged in the business of logging and manufacturing lumber . In the conduct of its business at all times PLUM CREEK LOGGING COMPANY, INC. 805 material hereto, it has continuously manufactured and shipped from its plant in Columbia Falls to customers located outside the State of Montana, manufactured products, consisting principally of lumber, valued in excess of $180,000 annually. Jurisdiction is admitted. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 3029 and The Montana District Council, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background facts Organizational activities among employees of various sawmills located in the vicinity of Columbia Falls, Montana, site of Respondent's operations, were initiated by the Union's organizer, Albert Root, in March 1954. Organizational efforts among these employees had occurred in the spring of previous years but according to Root, a credible witness, on a less intensive scale. Meetings conducted by Root in March and April were attended by certain of Respondent's employees, and in the period March 20-April 9, 17 sawmill employees, including 13 employees of the Respondent, signed an application requesting the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America to grant a charter to the local group. Among Respondent's employees signing the application were Milton Keck, Ole Carlson, Clifford Wolvington, and Einer Mohn, the dischargees named in the complaint. At a meeting on April 9, Mohn was elected temporary secretary and James R. Binns, also an employee of the Respondent, temporary, president. While their names do not appear on the application for a charter as officers, Root testified that Wolvington, Carlson, and George Keck, brother to Milton, were named temporary trustees. On about April 10 the charter was granted. Those designated temporary officers at the April 9 meeting were elected the permanent officers of the Union at a meeting on May 3. In the interval between April 9 and May 3, there had been a partial closing of Respondent's mill, and 13 employees, including the 4 alleged to have been dis- criminatorily discharged, had been laid off or discharged, as the case may be. Twelve, including Keck, Carlson, and Wolvington, were laid off on April 17, and Mohn's layoff occurred on May 3. Full operations of the mill were resumed on May 10, but the aforesaid four employees were not recalled to work. The Respondent admits the discharge'of the four employees and avers that the discharges occurred on the dates their employment was initially terminated. The complaint alleges that the discharges occurred on May 10, the date the mill resumed full operations. Respondent's defense is twofold: That it lacked knowledge of the union affiliation and activities of the four named employees as of the date their employment was initially terminated, and that the discharges were predicated solely on grounds of inefficiency. Among Respondent's officers and supervisors chiefly involved in the allegations of unfair labor practices are its president, D. C. Dunham; its manager, Lawrence Rude; and Foremen Fred Winegar and Clifford Tuftom. B. Respondent's knowledge of union activities and affiliations First, as to Respondent's knowledge of union activities among its employees on and prior to April 17, the date of the mill's partial closing. That the Respondent had general knowledge of organizational activities on and prior to this date is clear, and I assume not denied, inasmuch as its plant manager, Rude, testified that on his return to the plant April 16, following a 6-week vacation, Respondent's president, Dunham, and foreman, Winegar, informed him of such activity. The fact of knowledge might otherwise be inferred from a widespread distribution of union literature placed by the Union's organizer in the cars of employees at Respondent's and other plants in the Columbia Falls area, and was definitely established by the posting in Respondent's plant of a report on his union activities by Root to his superiors, a report which Root had inadvertently included in some papers he left at the home of an employee. This report mentioned inter alia a statement of employee George Keck to the effect that one Kenny Knapton, a "foreman," had said that he knew the names of all those who had signed the application for a union charter. Finally, there are certain statements and interrogations by Respondent's president, Dunham, which show not only Respondent's knowledge of organizational activities but its concern over this development. 806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employee Carlson testified without contradiction that on April 9 Dunham said to him, "I didn't see you at the union meeting last night ...,thought you would be there," and when Carlson made no reply, added, "Well, you stick with me and I will do better than the union." There having been no union meeting on the night of April 8, Dunham's statement was obviously a maneuver to gain information and was tantamount to an interrogation.' On or about the same date Dunham asked employee Binns, "What is this I hear about you joining the union?" and when Binns replied that as yet he had not joined any union,2 told the latter, "If the, company goes union . . I will shut it down. . I have one graveyard in Minnesota for the last twenty-five years. I might as well have one here." 3 During this same conversa- tion Dunham said that if the plant went union he would reduce the workweek from 50 hours, as it was then, to 40 hours .4 Binns repeated Dunham's statements to other employees and at a union meet- ing attended by seven of Respondent's employees, and this no doubt was sufficient to set in motion rumors, referred to by several witnesses, of the plant closing in event of unionization-rumors reported by Foreman Winegar to Plant Manager Rude on April 16, on the occasion of the latter's return to duty after a vacation.5 Such rumors, as some witnesses testified, normally accompanied organizational cam- paigns and it is assumed that an employer not implicated in providing the substance from which they spring is under no affirmative duty to take steps to allay and dis- sipate them, but in view of Dunham's remarks to Binns and with knowledge that such rumors were being circulated among the employees, Respondent's duty was plain if it was to "neutralize" statements made by its chief officer.6 While general knowledge of union activities is thus established and, it seems, ad- mitted, it may be contended that specific knowledge of the union affiliation of Carlson, Wolvington, and Keck prior to their layoff on April 17 rests on a more tenuous base. It appears that none of these employees wore union buttons or otherwise-aside from attending union meetings-engaged in conspicuous union activities prior to the layoff, but Foreman Winegar, while denying knowledge of their union affiliation, i In Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Ltd., Case No. 20-CA-512 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders), heard by this Trial Examiner, the respondent's president admittedly used a similar technique in an effort to discover when and where union meetings were being held. 2 As of that date, though he had signed the Union's application for a charter, and had been named teinpoiary president, he had not formally joined. As a mattes of fact, only 10 of the 17 employees signing the application ever became affiliated with the Union. 3 Apparently referring to operations in Minnesota where the Respondent was engaged in the sawmill business before starting operations in Montana 4 These findings aie based on Binns' credited testimony. Dunham was not available to testify, being on vacation, but it was stipulated that if called as a witness he would deny having made the statements attributed to him by Binns There was nothing in Binns' demeanor, however, to raise doubts as to his veracity, and while it may seem illogical that in the same conversation Dunham would threaten to close the mill and also to re- duce the workweek, persons utteiing threats which in all probability they have no inten- tion of carrying out, do not necessarily present them in a logical or coherent manner. Had Dunham appeared and testified the matter might have been clarified to Respondent's advantage, but findings must be made on the evidence presented 5 Rude testified that he had heard no such rumors but Winegar admitted, after his recollection had been refreshed from a statement he had given an agent of the General Counsel, that he mentioned such rumors to Rude on April 16 9 There was further the testimony of George Keck that Foreman Winegar told him, "Don't start this union talk The old man is going to shut her down," and statements attributed to Kenneth Knapton, a shipping clerk, to the effect that Dunham knew the names of those who had signed the application for a union charter and "didn't like it." I found Keck to be a credible witness and have been unable to extend the same full credit to the testimony of Winegar, but In this instance Winegar's testimony that it was Keck who referred to the plant closing to which he, Winegar, made a joking reply seemed equally acceptable, and while the testimony with respect to Knapton was undenied and credible, I am not persuaded that his supervisory status at the time the statements were made is established by a predominance of the evidence. The issue I regard as a close one for Knapton does seem to have been vested with at least sufficient ostensible authority to set him apart from rank-and-file employees, and on the resumption of mill operations he was made a foreman. PLUM CREEK LOGGING COMPANY, INC. 807 admitted that information of such affiliation had reached him by "hearsay." 7 Ob- viously there is no valid distinction between knowledge and belief as a causative factor in effectuating a discharge. The fact that Dunham singled out Binns and Carlson, both of whom signed the application for a union charter and were named temporary officers, for interrogation and antiunion statements, indicates that "hear- say" information on union affiliations had reached him also. While doubtless he never saw the application for a union charter, and therefore could not have had first-hand knowledge of the identity of those signing it, this does not mean that their identity remained a secret. It is recalled that only 10 of the 17 employees sign- ing the application ever actually affiliated with the Union, and Dunham's statement to Carlson, "I didn't see you at the union meeting last night . thought you would be there," and further statement to Binns, "What is this I hear about you joining the union?" in the absence of explanations not forthcoming and in conjunction with Winegar's admissions of hearsay information, places Respondent's knowledge or belief in the union affiliation of the four employees in question, on something more than a purely speculative basis. But if any doubt persists as to such knowledge or belief existing prior to April 17, there is none at all as to the state of Respondent's knowledge as of May 10, when the mill resumed full operations, for on May 7 the local newspaper published the names of the permanent officers of the Union, among them, Mohn, secretary-treasurer, and Carlson and Wolvington, trustees, and admittedly this article promptly came to Respondent's attention. Milton Keck's name did not appear but George Keck, his brother, was listed as one of the trustees. C. Circumstances of the partial closing and later resumption of operations The partial closing of the mill on April 17 was caused by a dwindling of the log supply. Of the three main divisions of the mill-the sawmill, the yard, and the planer-only the sawmill operations were halted. Such a temporary curtailment of operations was not unusual at this season of the year and it was customary to under- take repairs and improvements in mill operations at such times. For lack of specific detail it is not clear whether these seasonal curtailments in operations normally resulted in substantial layoffs of personnel but it affirmatively appears that employees whose jobs were temporarily halted were sometimes kept on the payroll in repair work or odd jobs about the mill. The announcement of the April 17, 1954, layoff was made by the posting of a notice in the lavatory on that date. This notice simply stated that employees whose names appeared thereon were laid off as of that date, and their checks would be available on a certain later date. Twelve names appeared on the list, among them Carlson, Wolvington, Milton Keck, and the following: Greenland, Greve, John- son, Klein, Luce, Mueller, Ott, Ott, Jr., Pederson. This list was compiled in Rude's office on April 16. 0 His testimony was not entirely consistent on the point . Excerpt from examination by Respondent 's attorney : Q Had you heard that all three of them ( Wolvington, Carlson, Keck ) were mem- bers of the union? A Hearsay Q I mean dud it apply to all three9 A. Well, no, I wouldn't say that it did It was hearsay that there were several. Q Dui it include these three men? A. I wouldn't say that it included them any more than it did some others there. Excerpt from cross-examination. Q. Now, I believe you testified that on April 16th you were not aware of the fact that Carlson, Wolvington and Keck were members of the union. A. That's right. Q. And I believe you also testified that you beard that they were. Is that correct? A. Heard rumors. Q. Where did you hear these rumors?' A. Common talk around the plant. Q. What did you hear? A. I heard that there was various fellows that had joined the union. Still later in his cross-examination, Winegar, while admitting that he'had heard of Wol- vington's union affiliation denied that such information had reached him concerning Carlson and Keck. 379288-56-vol. 113-52 808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On that date, Winegar, foreman of the sawmill whose operations were suspended, submitted the names of six men to be laid off in his department , these being Carlson, Wolvington, Keck, Greenland, Greve, and Pederson. Some 35 employees were' under his supervision at that time and those not included in the layoff were retained for cleanup and repair work. The six employees outside of Winegar's department had jobs in the yard or in planing mill operations , and there is little specific detail con- cerning them. Rude testified that with the exception of Greve, it was intended that all those whose names were published on the layoff list should be denied future employment, and Winegar testified with respect to the six employees on his layoff list, that the layoff was intended to be permanent with respect to all of them except Greve. Mohn , not included in the April 17 layoff, was laid off, or discharged, by Yard Foreman Clifford Tuftom, under whose supervision he was then employed, on May 3. His appears to have been the only termination on that date. Both Winegar and Tuftom had authority to hire and discharge employees and while it appears that they normally consulted Rude in such matters, the tenor of the testimony was that their judgment normally prevailed. D. The dischargees Rude testified that it was customary 'during seasonal curtailments to lay off em- ployees with the least seniority and to get rid of employees whose work had proved unsatisfactory. So far as it appears, with the exception of Greve, whose April 17 layoff admittedly was temporary, all employees laid off on that date had less job seniority than the four employees named in the complaint, some of them having been employed only a few weeks at the time of the layoff. Respondent's position, how- ever, is that Carlson, Wolvington, Mohn, and Keck were discharged not in order of seniority but because they were unsatisfactory employees. A good deal of the testi- mony had to do with the alleged unsatisfactoriness of the work performances of the four employees in question . This testimony involved in large measure the various job operations on which the four employees were engaged prior to April 17, and while it has been considered in its entirety it is not practical to reproduce it here in more than outline form. 1. Carlson During most of his 3 years in Respondent's employ, Carlson was engaged on the green chain in pulling lumber and grading selects. The marking or grading of "selects" was added to his duties as puller in 1952 and the gravamen of the com- plaint against him was that he let too many of the selects pass without marking them. Admittedly, it would be difficult and impractical to disengage the selects from the common grades at a later stage in operations and therefore the failure of the grader to mark them before they passed over the green chain, might result in a substantial loss to the employer. Carlson was reluctant to take over the grading function in addition to his duties as a puller, and it was his credited testimony that Rude urged him at the time to at least go ahead and try it. He thereafter asked to be relieved of the grading function but was retained on the job for about 2 years and until his April 17 layoff. He had been laid off during prior seasonal shutdowns but always previously had been recalled to his job when the mill resumed full operations. Rude testified that for some time prior to April 17 he had been looking for a grader in order to relieve Carlson of that post, and that subsequent to Carlson's discharge he let Winegar have one of his own men and later was able to find a replacement for Carlson. He ad- mitted that Carlson was capable as a puller and Winegar, Carlson's foreman, admitted that "Ole tried to do his job to the best of his ability." There was further testimony that on occasion Carlson had reported for work in a condition that showed he had been drinking, and on one occasion he was laid off for a week for being absent from his job without notice to his foreman. These matters appear to have been substantially removed in time from the date of the layoff and I do not understand that either his alleged drinking or absence from the job without notice was a causative factor in his selection for the April 17 layoff or Respondent's refusal to employ him subsequently ; upon consideration of the entire testimony, I am convinced that it was not. 2. Keck Working on the green chain with Carlson , but at a different station, was Milton Keck. Keck, along with some five others , was employed as a lumber puller, a job PLUM CREEK LOGGING COMPANY, INC. 809 which apparently required industry and alertness but not a great deal of skill. The ,complaint with respect to him was that he grumbled about having too much to do and let too much lumber go by his station without pulling and sorting it. His fore- man, Winegar, testified that it was necessary 2 or 3 times a week to "clean up" the 'lumber which Keck negligently let go past his station. He admitted, however, that not all the lumber which went over the end of the chain was Keck's, and that he would be unable to estimate the percentage of it that was due to Keck's lack of application to his duties. He thought that Keck was the worst offender in this respect. There was further testimony that with the resumption of operations on May 10, and the substitution of other employees for Carlson and Keck, production on the green chain increased on the average from 75,000 to 90,000 feet daily, a gain of some 15,000 feet, and that fewer selects were passed without being marked or graded. Admittedly, however, the total crew on the green chain was increased from 6 to 7 men and certain mechanical improvements were made in its operations. Aside from his experience on the green chain, Keck was employed in the yard under Foreman Tuftom on another chain, referred to variously as the dry or sorting chain, where his function of removing lumber from the chain and sorting it seems to have been similar to his work on the green chain. Mohn loaded the lumber onto this chain and thereby determined the amount that would have to be handled by employees stationed along the chain. Here, as in the green chain operation, Re- spondent's complaint against Keck was that he grumbled about having too much to do, and also that he "feuded" with Mohn. Mohn denied this and testified that on one occasion he admonished Keck to keep up his end of the work and that thereafter Keck performed satisfactorily. Keck was transferred back to the green chain about 2 months prior to April 17, at Tuftom's request and with Winegar's approval, when a man then employed on the green chain quit. Keck had been employed by Respondent about 18 months as of April 17, and had been recalled to his job after being laid off for a short period during a seasonal shutdown of the prior year. 3. Wolvington Wolvington was in Respondent's employ for more than 3 years and during that period worked as edgerman , operator of the gangsaw, spare man in various jobs about the plant, and, as of April 17, on the resaw. During the entire period of his employment he had never been included in the seasonal layoffs prior to 1954 and testified that he was "astonished" when he saw his name on the layoff list. If Respondent's witnesses are believed, he was at no time a satisfactory employee and would have been discharged earlier than April 17 except that he owed the Respondent a substantial sum of money. Although he had not been employed in that capacity for more than a year prior to April 17, a good deal of the testimony had to do with his alleged inefficiency on the gangsaw. This is an important operation having a substantial effect on total production. Winegar testified that Wolvington was too slow, that he would increase the speed of the operation when Winegar was present, and then would slack off again ; Rude also testified that he had observed Winegar speed up the operation on his, Rude's, approach. When a night shift was added sometime in 1953, Wolvington was taken off the gangsaw and given the job of spare man on the day shift at an increased wage. As spare man he appears to have worked on most of the jobs in the mill, substituting for employees during their rest periods, and there is little evidence which would indicate his unsatisfactoriness while working in this capacity. When the night shift was discontinued about February 1954, he was assigned to a job on the resaw and his rate of pay reduced to the amount he had received as operator of the gangsaw. He continued to substitute, on occasion, for absentees on various jobs. Winegar testified that the employee who replaced Wolvington on the gangsaw was more productive and Wolvington admitted that a reason given him for not being reassigned to the gangsaw was that his foreman thought his successor on that job was the better man. Regarding Wolvington's work on the resaw up to the date of his termination, Winegar testified that he did not keep the "cants" close enough or "butted together" and that this resulted in production loss. "I didn't figure he was trying hard enough to do the job," Winegar testified, and further testified that Wolvington's successor on this job was a better workman and that under him production had increased. He was unable, however, to produce actual production records for the period of Wolvington's tenure on the job. When on repair work, Winegar testified, Wolvington did not work fast enough or to Winegar's satisfaction, and would work an entire afternoon on a job that actually required no more than an hour or so. 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. Mohn Mohn, who had been in Respondent's employ continuously for more than 4 years, like Wolvington, had never, prior to 1954, been included in the seasonal layoffs. He worked under the supervision of Foreman Tuftom and his job was loading. lumber on the sorting or dry chain and pulling out selects. In addition to Mohn, there were 2 to 4 employees engaged on this operation, their duties generally being to sort the lumber as it came over the chain, according to length and width. Mohn's discharge of his responsibility in loading the lumber onto the chain affected materially the total production of this unit of operations. The charge of unsatisfactoriness as to him was supported principally by testimony from Tuftom, Rude, and certain rank-and-file employees, that when there was a full crew working with him he did not load enough lumber on the chain to maintain production at the desired level but that on occasions when his crew was reduced he loaded more lumber than could be handled satisfactorily. Tuftom testified that when there was a full crew he would direct Mohn to "put plenty of lumber on" and when the crew was short he would direct him to "slow up a bit," but that actually Mohn did just the opposite. Tuftom's explanation of this conduct was that with a full crew Mohn had to work hard to keep enough lumber going over the chain, birt with a reduced crew he could, without much effort, load on so much lumber that it would "work hell out of them." Tuftom admitted that Mohn's work in pullinit selects was satisfactory. - Respondent's further complaint as to Mohn was that he could not get along with his men. This apparently was due to the fact that on occasion Mohn loaded more lumber on the chain than his crew could or wanted to handle, inasmuch as there is no evidence that any of his crew complained on those occasions when, according to Tuftom, he failed to load enough lumber on the chain to maintain production. Employee Richard Ott, laid off on April 17 but later returned to his job, and a brother-in-law of Tuftom, supported the latter's testimony that the men complained about Mohn because he loaded the lumber on the chain too fast for them to handle. Employees Klein and Mateka also gave corroborative testimony, and it was the testimony of Tuftom and others that total production on the chain had increased since Mohn's discharge. Among those alleged to have complained about Mohn was Milton Keck. Also, there was Rude's testimony that on one occasion three of Mohn's crew came to him and told him that if Mohn was not removed they would quit. This incident, however, occurred in 1952. Tuftom, while testifying that he had received complaints with respect to Mohn as much as a year prior to his discharge and that Mohn never did get along with his men-"He was just that way as far as that goes"-at another point testified that Mohn "slacked off" the last 2 months of his employ' and before that time his work was satisfactory. Admittedly, in April, Tuftom asked Mohn if the Union's organizer had been to see him. According to Tuftom, Mohn answered in the negative. Mohn denied that the employees complained to him, but admitted that on one occasion Rude said that while his, Mohn's, work was satisfactory a majority of the men on the dry chain were always kicking about something, and, whether it was Mohn's fault or somebody else's, if it did not stop Rude would fire the whole gang. E. S. Knadler, formerly employed by Respondent, stated that he was present on an occasion when Dunham and Tuftom ordered Mohn to speed up the chain by load- ing on more lumber, and that while he had worked on the chain with Mohn he had made no complaint concerning the latter's handling of that operation. Questioned about complaints against Mohn , Knadler testified, "I know quite a few of them were lazy down there. There is no easy job around a sawmill. It is all hard work, and most of them didn't want to work very hard in getting the lumber off the chain." Mohn had been on the sorting chain about 15 months at the time of his May 3 layoff. Among his duties was the "breaking in" of new employees assigned to work on the sorting chain. E. Analysts and conclusions on the discharges The validity of Respondent's ably presented and argued position depends, in the main, on the credibility of its witnesses, Rude, Winegar, and Tuftom. If these witnesses are fully credited, Winegar,' without consultation with either Rude or Dunham, made the decision to lay off Carlson, Wolvington, and Keck, with the in- tention that the layoff should be permanent ; and Mohn's layoff or discharge on May 3 was Tuftom's decision. All denied that Dunham was consulted in any of these matters. While the April 17 layoff list was processed through Rude, both Rude and Winegar testified that there was no discussion of employees included in'the PLUM CREEK LOGGING COMPANY, INC. 811 list individually at that time, and no mention was made of their actual or possible union affiliation. The same situation prevailed relative to Mohn's layoff, according to Rude and Tuftom. Further, these witnesses testified that the decision to discharge the aforenamed employees at the first curtailment of operations, was made well in advance of April 17 and at a time when, in fact, there were no union activities among Respondent's employees. Obviously, if this testimony be given full credit the discharges were lawfully made. There are numerous factors, however, which singly or in combination militate against its acceptance. Respondent's opposition to the unionization of its employees is established in the anti-union statements of its president, Dunham, previously mentioned. Admittedly, Dunham discussed the matter with Rude on April 16, the day Rude returned from his vacation, and if the matter concerned him to the extent that he would express his animus to two rank-and-file employees such as Binns and Carlson, it is incon- ceivable that he kept his attitude a secret from his plant manager, Rude. I find it equally incredible that those in charge of Respondent's operations such as Winegar and Tuftom were kept uninformed in the matter. And while, as previously recorded, there is reason to believe-that the Respondent was informed as to the activities of those employees who signed the application for a charter, there is no doubt that it -was fully informed before the mill resumed operations on May 10, that Carlson, Wolvington, and Mohn had been designated officers of the Union, and that George Keck, brother of Milton, was also an officer. There are persuasive reasons for concluding, contrary to the testimony of Respond- •ent's witnesses, that no decision had been made at the time of their respective lay- offs to discharge the employees named in the complaint. (1) Neither the announce- ment of the April 17 layoff nor any oral statement accompanying it gave any indi- cation that it was any more than the customary seasonal layoff. (2) Oral state- ments made to Carlson and Wolvington after their April 17 layoff, and to Mohn at the time he was laid off, were indicative not of discharge but of temporary lay- off. Thus, Wolvington, who was "astonished" to see his name on the layoff list, never having been laid off before, asked Rude if the layoff was to be permanent, and Rude replied in the negative, saying, "We figure on having it going in a couple of weeks." 8 At a later date, Wolvington again saw Rude and questioned him about the resumption of sawmill operations, and whether Wolvington's testimony that in this conversation Rude definitely said that Wolvington would be called back to work be accepted, or Rude's to the effect that he answered that operations would be resumed shortly but that no mention was made of calling Wolvington back, it again appears almost incredible that if Wolvington's discharge had been definitely agreed upon he would have been given no information to that effect. With respect to Carlson, it was his credited testimony that on or about April 20 he told Winegar that he had heard that he, Carlson, would not be called back to work and that Winegar replied, "Oh, you can hear anything around here." It was not until May 10 that Winegar informed him definitely that he was not to be returned to his job. It was Mohn's credited testimony that on May 3, the date of his layoff, he was told by his foreman, Tuftom, that he would not be needed for a week, the time that it would take to get repairs done on the sorting chain where he then worked, and it was not until May 11, that he was informed that he was discharged, when Rude told him, "I am all through with you. The men don't want to work with you." Of the four dischargees in question, only Milton Keck was advised earlier than May 10 in such manner that he might have inferred that his layoff was permanent. It was his credited testimony that he saw Rude and Dunham to- gether about April 20 and that when he asked if he would be called back Rude re- plied, "I doubt it," but did not amplify his remark. (3) While as asserted by Rude, it lies within the discretion of management whether to inform an employee at the time of a layoff that his services are being permanently terminated, it is a little difficult to believe that the Respondent would deliberately have kept its laid-off em- ployees in a state of uncertainty concerning future employment during the period of the layoff, thus discouraging them from seeking other employment, when it had been determined at and prior to the time of the layoff that it should have the effect of a discharge. Nor is there a satisfactory explanation given for this variation in the practices of prior years, concerning which Rude testified: "We had posted lists, and also we have went to the individual when the list isn't too great, and if it was be- cause of inefficiency, we would tell them." 8 Rude testified that in giving this answer he understood that Wolvington was referring to the layoff, not his layoff, but it is hard to believe that if he had intended at that time to discharge Wolvington, he would have given the latter no hint of such action, or that he thought Wolvington's inquiry was not related to his own employment status. 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employees with much less seniority than any of the four employees named in the complaint, while laid off on April 17, were restored to their jobs when the mill resumed operation. Of the six men on Wolvington's list, admittedly Greve's lay- off was temporary and Greve had seniority over Carlson, Wolvington, and Keck. Greenland, hired while Rude was on vacation, was given a job by Rude on the morning of May 10, the day the mill resumed operations. Pederson, about whose seniority information is lacking, was given some work during the period of the layoff and left the community before the sawmill resumed operations.• Among others on the layoff lists outside Winegar's department, Klein, also hired while Rude was on vacation, and Richard Ott, then some 10 months with the Respondent, returned to work on May 10, and Luce, another new employee, was put back to work later in May. Detailed information on others included in the layoff list is lacking. Respondent's contention that the four discharged employees were consistently un- satisfactory in their various job capacities was not convincing. All of these em- ployees had been in Respondent's employ during prior periods of curtailed operations but 2 of them, Wolvington and Mohn, had never been included in prior layoff lists, and the other 2, Carlson and Keck, though laid off, had been recalled as soon as the mill resumed full operations. Why, it must be asked, if the work of these employees had been consistently unsatisfactory, as in most instances Respondent's witnesses testified it was, had they not been previously laid off, or if laid off, why had they been recalled? Rude testified that it was customary to get rid of unsatisfactory em- ployees during seasonal layoffs, and there is no showing that these employees had been retained in previous ,years because of a shortage in the labor supply. This dis- crepancy in Respondent's position is particularly conspicuous in the case of Wolving- ton. The bulk of the testimony critical of his work related to his operation of the gangsaw. Thus, Rude testified, "Well, what I had against Wolvington was his tendency to slow down the operation of the gangsaw, and that is what I conversed with Fred about and asked him to jump him and watch him." But Winegar had not been engaged on the gangsaw for more than a year prior to his layoff. Further, it must be asked, if, as testified to by Winegar, Wolvington would take an entire after- noon on repair work which could have been completed in an hour, why had he been retained in prior layoff seasons when, presumably, a good deal of his work had been of this character? The testimony with respect to Mohn, developed at considerable length, raises similar questions. According to Rude as early as 1952 employees threatened to quit if Mohn was not discharged but while, still according to Rude, he was shifted to another job, he was not then discharged nor laid off nor penalized in any way and continued uninterruptedly in Respondent's employ until his April 1954 layoff. And yet the sole reason given him for his discharge was that the employees objected to working with him. Tuftom's testimony that Mohn "slacked off" during the last 2 or 3 months of his employ, but previous thereto had been satisfactory, was inconsistent with certain other portions of his own testimony as well as that of other witnesses for the Respondent. And there is the further inconsistency in that whereas the chief complaint registered against him in the testimony was that he loaded too much lumber on the sorting chain, thereby causing the other employees on the crew to complain, a reason advanced for Milton Keck's discharge was that he complained about not being able to handle all the lumber reaching his station and could not get along with Mohn. Finally, with respect to Carlson, it is admitted that he got along with his fellow employees and performed to the best of his ability and was in fact a competent "puller" on the green chain, being deficient only in the grading of lumber, but when the mill resumed operations an additional puller, without grading duties, was put on the green chain and a total of three replacements were made on that operation. As supporting its position of nondiscriminatory discharges, the Respondent relies on the fact that Binns and George Keck, whose names appeared in the local news- paper on May 7 as officers of the Union, were not laid off and are still in Respondent's employ. This argument loses some force, however, in the uncontested fact that both Binns and George Keck owed the Respondent substantial sums of money at the time of the April 17 layoff, and admittedly it was then Respondent's policy not to discharge employees,, except in rare instances, while they were indebted to it. Furthermore, George Keck, due to an injury, was absent from his job from late March to late June, and on the latter date charges of unfair labor practices had been filed against the Respondent, and notice thereof had been served on the Respondent. Further support for Respondent's position is sought in the testimony of its witnesses of increased production in operations following the replacement of the four employees here involved, but there is little substantial evidence to go on here in resolving the issue of Respondent's motive in effectuating the discharges, for no records were intro- duced showing comparative periods of production and therefore Respondent's posi- PLUM CREEK LOGGING COMPANY, INC . 813 tion depends in the main on the credibility of its witnesses. Conceding however that such increased production figures as were given were actually achieved, there are counterbalancing factors, such as the enlargement of the crew on the green chain and an improved method of moving the lumber over it and, as to the sorting or dry chain, where under Mohn the crew varied from 2 to 4-men, there is no comparative table of man-hours engaged in that operation before and after Mohn's discharge to afford a basis for an evaluation of Mohn's services in comparison with those of his successor. The same considerations are involved in the operation of the resaw where Wolvington was engaged at the time of his layoff. Coming now to a consideration of all factors involved and their combined weight, and taking into account the observed demeanor of the witnesses, I can only conclude that the General Counsel's position on the discharges is sustained by a very substan- tial predominance of the credible probative testimony. And should it be argued that such conclusion is based on conjecture I would agree that to some degree that is true, believing as I do-the Trial Examiner not being blessed with omniscience-that an element of speculation necessarily enters into any decision that is not based wholly on uncontroverted evidence of a decisive character or the certitude afforded by ad- missions. Were it otherwise there would be little need for Trial Examiners, or judges for that matter, and lawyers might well go begging. As a matter of fact, not in- frequently the only measurable difference in the acceptance of findings as "reasonable inferences" and their rejection as "mere conjecture" is that one party agrees with the conclusions reached whereas the other does not. As a very wise court said some years ago, Persons engaged in unlawful conduct seldom write letters or make public pro- nouncements explicitly stating their attitudes or objectives; such facts must usually be discovered by inference; the evidence does not come in packages labeled, "Use me," like the cake bearing the words, "Eat me," which Alice found helpful in Wonderland. F. W. Woolworth Co., 121 F. 2d 658 (C. A. 2). It is found that on May 10, 1954, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, the Respondent discharged Carlson, Wolvington, Mohn, and Keck because of their union affiliation and activities, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act .9 F. Conclusions with respect to independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) Dunham's statement to employee Carlson, "Well, you stick with me and I will do better than the union," I do not regard as a promise of specific reward for refraining from union affiliation within the meaning of the decisions. Had Dunham addressed the entire complement of employees and expressed the opinion that the Company had more to offer them than the Union, such remarks, I think it would be agreed, would not have constituted a violation of the Act. Dunham's statement to Carlson is in the category of such remarks. I have found, however, that his statement to the' effect that he did not see Carlson at the union meeting of the previous evening was actually a maneuver to gain information on union meetings and therefore tanta- mount to an interrogation. His comment to Binns, "What is this I hear about you joining the Union?" is of the same character. And finally there is Foreman Tuftom's interrogation of Mohn concerning whether the Union's organizer had visited the latter's home. Aside from these exploratory statements or interrogations, there is Dunham's un- deniably coercive threat that the plant would close, or its operations be curtailed, if the employees became organized. Whether considered in the context of unfair labor practices previously found, or in isolation from such a context, such a threat coming from Respondent's president and not retracted nor "neutralized" by subse- quent statements or actions is violative of the Act and in effectuation of the Act calls for remedial measures. True, his threat was made to but one employee but I do not infer that "isolated" in the context of the decisions means that it is permissible to violate the Act with respect to a single employee but not with respect to a dozen. If I read the Act aright, one employee enjoys the guarantees of Section 8 (a) (1) to the-same degree as a dozen or a thousand, and were it otherwise any. cognizance of the realities of the industrial situation would compel the conclusion that an employee so addressed normally gives as prompt and as wide circulation to such a threat as time and circumstances permit. , Such was the case here. "It has little materiality that Wolvington and Keck apparently did not return to the mill on May 10 to seek their old jobs back, inasmuch as Respondent admits that they were discharged, and it had been the practice in prior years to recall laid-off employees. 814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I find that by its interrogation of employees concerning their union activities, and by • the threat of plant closure or curtailment of the workweek in the event the employees became organized, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondent's activities set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Respondent having discharged Ole Carlson, Clifford Wolvington, Einer Mohn, and Milton Keck because of their union affiliation and activities, I recommend that Re- spondent offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position 10 without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges and make each whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against him, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned from May 10, 1954, the date of the discrimination against them, to the date when, pursuant to the recommendations herein contained, Respondent shall offer them reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during said period." Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which these employees would normally have earned for each quarter or portion thereof, their net earnings, if any, in other em- ployment during that period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter. The quarterly periods de- scribed herein shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and October.12 It is recommended further that Respondent make available to the Board upon request payroll and other records, in order to facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay due.13 Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose and , tendency, I find that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to other unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's conduct in the past.14 The preventative purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantee of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, I will recommend that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Plum Creek Logging Company, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 3029 and The Montana District Council, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By interrogating its employees concerning their union activities and by threaten- ing plant closure or curtailment of operations in the event its employees became organized, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 10 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827. n Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-8; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311U.S 7. 12 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. 13 F. W. Woolworth Company, supra. 14 N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426. LOCAL 140 815 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Ole Carlson, Clifford Wolvington, Einer Mohn, and Milton Keck, thereby discouraging membership in the labor organizations named in paragraph numbered 2 above, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. . [Recommendations omitted from publication.] APPENDIX 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 employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 3029 and The Montana District Council, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively 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 and 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. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union activities in a manner violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with plant closure or curtailed opera- tions in the event they choose to become organized. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 3029 and The Montana District Council, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminating in any manner with regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL offer to Ole Carlson, Clifford Wolvington, Einer Mohn, and Milton Keck immediate and full reinstatement to their,former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by them by reason of the discrimination practiced against them. 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 this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act. PLUM CREEK LOGGING COMPANY, 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. Local 140, United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, Alex Sirota and Joaquin Pijuin Alvares and Brooklyn Spring Cor- poration and Lorraine Fibre Mills, Inc. Case No. 2-CB-1246. August 19,1955 DECISION AND ORDER On.June 8, 1955, Trial Examiner Robert L. Piper issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 113 NLRB No. 92.