Gordon-Ladley Plywood Products Co.

Enterprise Industrial Piping Company and Filippo Palombi and Luzon L. Anderson J. J. White, Inc. and Filippo Palombi and Luzon L. Anderson Local 322, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada AFL-CIO [Enterprise Industrial Piping Company et al.] and Filippo Palombi and Luzon L. Anderson. Cases Nos, 4-CA-13-15,4-CA-1316, and 4-CB-303. June 4,1957 ORDER On April 5, 1957, a panel of the Board issued its Decision and Order 1 in this case. On April 18, 1957, the Respondent Union filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" by the full Board of the Panel decision and requested oral argument. On April 25, 1957, Respondent J. J. White, Inc., filed a motion, to substantially the same effect. The Board has considered these motions and has referred them to the panel authorized by Section 3 (b) of the Act, which decided the case on April 5; in doing so the Board determined that the parties to a Board case which has been decided by such Board panel are not en- titled to full five-member Board consideration of the panel decision as of right because such review would tend to defeat the purpose for which Congress authorized the Board to panelize under Section 3 (b) of the Act. It is the policy of the Board for the same panel which decides a case to pass upon any motion for reconsideration of a panel decision and for the full Board to consider such a motion only if the panel refers it to the full Board. The motions for reconsideration and request for oral argument in this proceeding have been considered by a panel of Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean, and the panel has determined that the motions present no matters not previously considered. [The Board denied the motions and requests for oral argument.] 1117 NLRB 995. 118 NLRB No. 11. Gordon-Ladley Plywood Products Company and Olin Watkins and Lester Virtue. Case No.19-CA-13592. June 5,1957 DECISION AND ORDER On November 16,1956, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 118 NLRB No. 7. 450553-58-vol. 118-2 1 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Mem- bers Murdock and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi- ate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Gordon-Ladley Plywood Products Company, Elma and Olympia, Washington, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to present grievances and to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through re- presentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi- ties 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.' 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to the seven employees named in Appendix A, attached hereto, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. i In its exceptions and brief, the Respondent contends for the first time that Watkins was discharged for an act of insubordination . We find this claim is an obvious after- thought, in that it was neither advanced by the Respondent at the time of the discharge nor was it raised in the Respondent 's answer or urged at any time during the hearing. GORDON-LADLEY PLYWOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY 3 (b) Make whole the aforesaid seven employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." - (c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, for examination or 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 under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its plants at Elma and Olympia, Washington; copies of the notice attached hereto as "Appendix A.' 12 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representa- tive, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) 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. 2 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." APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to present grievances and to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza- tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, 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. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL offer the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. Walter Gruhn Ted Moe Theodore E. Hultman Everett Sund Milton W. Lamphiear Lester Virtue Olin Watkins GORDON-LADLEY PLYWOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding is brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat . 136, and stems from a complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board against Gordon -Ladley Plywood Products Com- pany. The complaint, dated August 17, 1956, alleged that Respondent had en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge upon which it was based, and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon Respondent. The complaint alleged that Respondent on or about March 22, 1956 , had dis- criminatorily discharged nine named stockholder -employees 1 because they had organized themselves for mutual betterment of working conditions and had negoti- ated with management concerning prompt payment of wages and improvement of working conditions . Respondent's answer denied the commission of any unfair labor practices and alleged that the Labor Management Relations Act was uncon- stitutional because it promoted and encouraged labor organizations, because it established the Board as court and prosecutor, because it deprived employers of the right to freely negotiate contracts , and because it deprived persons of the right to work unless they met the requirements of labor unions. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Elma, Washington, on September 24 and at Seattle, Washington , on September 25, 1956. The parties were represented by counsel who were afforded full opportunity-to be heard , to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence . At the commencement of the hearing, I granted a motion by Respondent that witnesses be sequestered and a motion by the General Counsel that the complaint be dismissed with respect to Michalak. A motion by Respondent that the complaint be dismissed on the grounds that it did not state a cause of action , that the hearing was not being con- . ducted by a duly constituted court of the United States, and that the Act was un- constitutional was denied . - At the end of the hearing, ruling was reserved on a motion argued by Respondent that, the complaint be dismissed on the merits; it is hereby denied . At the close of the hearing, the parties were afforded an oppor- tunity to argue orally and to file briefs . Oral argument was waived ; briefs have been received from the General Counsel and Respondent and proposed findings and conclusions from the latter . Proposed findings of fact 1 and 2 are accepted but in all other respects the proposed findings and conclusions are rejected. . 'Their names are Walter Gruhn, Theodore E. Hultman, Milton W . Lamphiear, Vincent Michalak, Ted Moe, John Rhodes, Everett Sund, Lester Virtue, and Olin Watkins. As will be seen below , the General Counsel did not proceed with the case against Michalak. GORDON-LADLEY PLYWOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY 5 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 RESPONDENT Gordon-Ladley Plywood Products Company is a Washington corporation en- gaged in the manufacture and sale of plywood, with plants located at Elma and Olympia, Washington. Its entire output is sold to Western Skagit Timber Company, a Washington concern whose main office is in Seattle, Washington; these purchases in the year 1955 were valued in excess of $118,000. The 1955 sales of the latter concern, consisting of plywood and lumber products, were between 3 and 4 million dollars; over one-half of this total represented plywood and lumber products shipped to points outside the State of Washington. It is clear from the foregoing that Respondent annually sells plywood products valued in excess of $100,000 to a concern which in turn ships these and other prod- ucts valued in excess of $50,000 per annum to points outside the State of Wash- ington. I find, therefore, that the operations of Respondent affect commerce and that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Jones- boro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481, and Whippany Motor Co., Inc., 115 NLRB 52. The General Counsel has also contended that jurisdiction should be asserted on the independent ground that Respondent itself ships products valued in excess of $50,000 outside the State of Washington. The fact'is that Respondent, in behalf of Western Skagit, ships from Olympia, Washington, the major part, if not all, of its production to various geographical locations in the United States, outside the State of Washington, designated by Western Skagit via railroad boxcar in care of the originating or a connecting carrier, the vendees of Western Skagit being un- known to Respondent. The lumber is loaded on boxcars on a siding at Respondent's plant by Respondent's employees. Most, if not all, of the boxcars shipped in 1955 were consigned to Western Skagit out of the State, subject to later rerouting by Western Skagit. In fact, at least 19 of the 28 boxcars purchased by Western Skagit were directly transmitted by the principal carrier, the Union Pacific Railroad,. by through train to Portland, Oregon, the first diversion point for that line, and thence to other points. The bills of lading designate Western Skagit as the shipper, but they are generally signed in behalf of that concern by an official of Respondent Company; that is, the person signing in behalf of Western Skagit is usually Rollin Gordon, the president of Respondent. Obviously, and I so find, Gordon acts as an agent for Western Skagit on these occasions, as President Coon of Western Skagit ad- mitted. In addition, it is noteworthy that Western Skagit has no warehousing facilities in the State of Washington and that the freight agent at Olympia for Union Pacific is not acquainted with any Western Skagit official or personnel; indeed, Western Skagit at no time prior to shipment of the lumber out of the State acquires physical custody of its purchases from Respondent. However, although these facts tend to support the alternative theory on jurisdiction advanced by the General Counsel that Respondent is the shipper of the goods, I deem it sufficient herein to rely solely on the theory of jurisdiction heretofore found to be applicable. See American Rice Growers Cooperative Association, 115 NLRB 275; Safrit Lumber Company, Inc., 111 NLRB 657; Crenshaw's, Inc., 115 NLRB 1374; V. Paturzo Bro. & Son, Inc., 114 NLRB 1161; and Texas Construction Material Company, 114 NLRB 378. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The discharges 1. The issue; introduction This case involves only Respondent's plywood mill at Elma, Washington, where, at the time material herein, Respondent employed eight employees on a single day shift. The gravamen of - the complaint is the discharge by Vice President Russell Gordon on the morning of March 22, 1956, of the entire complement of personnel en masse .2 The General Counsel claims that the men were discharged because of 2 The complaint also named a ninth employee, John Rhodes. The evidence is undis- puted that he voluntarily left the employ of Respondent some weeks prior to March 22. Accordingly, it will be recommended that his case be dismissed. Having previously recom- mended that the case of Michalak be dismissed, this reduces to seven the number of complainants whose cases are under consideration herein. 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their concerted activities in presenting grievances concerning working conditions to, management. Respondent claims that the men were discharged because each of them, independently , was an unsatisfactory worker; various reasons are assigned including poor production , destruction of equipment, insubordination, destruction of *material, and theft . This mass termination of the entire crew perforce required the closing of the mill, but Respondent reopened the mill some weeks later with a complement of newly hired personnel. Initially, it may be noted that there is no evidence of formal union organization, in the customary sense of the term , among these employees all of whom with one exception, Ted Moe, were stockholders in a small way . When the operation in its. present form was established several years ago, the complainants were solicited by President Rollin Gordon and by his son , Vice President Russell Gordon , to purchase. stock in the Company with the promise of employment if they did so. The record indicates that, save for the one exception , Moe, the complainants were required to purchase this stock as a condition of employment and that they did so for that. reason ; why an exception was made in the case of Moe is not disclosed . In most. cases, if not all, the men purchased 10 shares each but the large stock interest remained in the hands of the Gordons. Subsequent to the stock purchase , the complainants, residents of the Elma area,. were duly employed at the Elma operation which is under the full-time supervision of Vice President Russell Gordon. His father, Rollin Gordon, devotes his time: primarily to the Olympia plant, although he is in Elma on weekends . I find that Russell Gordon was the sole representative of management at Elma during the workweek; that he directed the operation , although apparently pursuant to policies laid down by his father ; and that the employees at Elma looked to Russell Gordon for instructions and directions . In fact, as President Rollin Gordon testified, he at one point informed Employee Lamphiear that his son , Russell, was running, things at 'Elma and that the men were to take orders from the latter . The record clearly demonstrates that none of the complainants possessed any voice in the es- tablishment of company policy and that they held no executive or supervisory posi- tions. I find, therefore, that they are employees subject to the protection of Section 7 of the Act. See Coastal Plywood & Timber Company, 102 NLRB 300. 2. Sequence of events There has been a long period of difficulties and strained feelings between Re - spondent and its employees. Although Respondent contends that these difficulties, arose solely between Respondent and the employees as stockholders, the record will not support such a finding. To the contrary, and I so find , these difficulties arose between the employees and Respondent in two respects , viz, (1) These em- ployee-stockholders had grievances with their employer over the working conditions established by their employer which affected them as employees; and (2) these employee-stockholders were concerned as stockholders with alleged mismanagement of the Company by the Gordons and the resulting diminution of their investment. These grievances will be set forth below in more detail. All of the complainants, with one exception, had been in Respondent's employ for approximately 21 to 3 years or longer at the time of their discharge on March 22 , 1956. The one exception was Theodore Hultman who entered the employ of Respondent in June of 1955. Turning to the history of relations between Respondent and its employees, the record does not disclose just when the discontent first arose among these employees over working conditions. It is clear that by August of 1955 their dissatisfaction had increased to the point where substantially all the employees at Elma saw fit to take concerted action in their own behalf. Their chief gripe was the fact that their paychecks, due on the 5th and 20th of the month , were, in a majority of instances, not ready on time and were at least several days late. As a result the men held a meeting on August 28, 1955 , which was attended by most of the crew and one other, Hensler, a large stockholder in the Company. They signed a document pledging themselves as stockholder-employees to "work together as a unit to help better conditions " for the Company . As reflected in minutes of the meeting, the men proceeded to discuss why the Company was not operating profitably and the consensus was that poor management was the cause. They voted to obtain a copy of the State law on corporations from a local attorney and they also voted to ask the two Gordons to attend a meeting in the near future. A motion to send a committee to Russell Gordon with the demand that he honor certain back paychecks outstanding in favor of several of the group was tabled; it appears that these were checks that had either not been honored or had not been given the men when due, for reasons not disclosed herein. GORDON-LADLEY PLYWOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY 7 On or about September 2, a second meeting was held by substantially the same group and it was attended by a local attorney who had been consulted by the group .3 The men elected Hultman as their chairman and Watkins as secretary . The dis- satisfaction of the men with management, both as employees and as stockholders, was the topic of discussion. They discussed the habitually tardy paychecks and other grievances such as the fact that Hultman during a portion of the workday was required to work in an area where moisture dripped on him from the eaves of the building. They complained that the quality of logs being processed was poor and that insufficient logs were being received with the result that the men were losing working time. They also complained about the fact that their pay was approximately $2 an hour whereas other plants in the area were paying their employees $3.50. A motion was passed that a committee contact the Gordons in an effort to obtain their paychecks on time in the future as well as the wages still owed to some of the men. The men thereafter adopted a policy that if their paychecks were not furnished them when due they would not work until they received them. On or about Friday, September 9, Hultman, as he testified, asked Russell Gordon for the checks due on September 5. They were not ready and Hultman informed Gordon that if they were not paid by the following day the men would not work on Monday, September 12. Soon thereafter, Rollin Gordon appeared on the scene, accused Hultman of trying to create a disturbance and stated that the men would be fired if they did not work on Monday. On Monday, September 12, Hultman, as spokesman for the men, asked Russell Gordon if the paychecks due on September 5 had been received. They were not forthcoming and Hultman replied, as Watkins testified, "no pay no work." There- upon the entire day crew left the plant, milled around in the road outside the plant for a short period and then went to their respective homes? On each of the three following mornings, September 13, 14, and 15, the crew appeared for work, but, on discovering that the checks were still not forthcoming, they promptly left the plant. On or about Thursday evening, September 15, President Rollin Gordon telephoned one of the complainants, Olin Watkins, and told him that his check was ready; apparently the rest of the men were notified to the same effect in one manner or another. On Friday morning, September 16, the entire day shift appeared at the plant ready for work. The checks were produced, but before turning the checks. over to the men, President Gordon asked each employee to sign a separate release, identical in language but differing in amount, whereby the signer acknowledged receipt of the indicated sum in full settlement of all claims against Respondent. It is not clear whether these sums represented the last overdue checks alone or also additional pay owed some of them. The men refused to sign these releases as a prerequisite to receiving their checks and they were not given the checks. Presi- dent Gordon then suggested that they retain counsel. The men left the plant, duly contacted their attorney, and suit was instituted in the State courts for the unpaid wages and back pay.5 Ultimately, the case was settled out of court and a stipulation was filed in the action in October 1955, providing inter alia that the men would be paid what was due them, that the releases would be signed, and that the men "will go back to work at their. same pay." Contrary to the testimony of Russell Gordon, the settlement stipulation did not provide that the men would be reinstated only until such time as their stock was purchased by the Gordons. In January of 1956 an agreement for the purchase of their stock by Rollin Gordon was entered into and it was silent on the subject of the future employment of the men. This agreement pro- 3 Findings as to this meeting are based upon the uncontroverted testimony of Olin Watkins and Theodore Hultman. Their testimony was clear and forthright and is credited here as elsewhere. No findings have been based upon certain purported min- utes of the meeting, it appearing that they are a copy of the original minutes of the occasion. 'Rollin Gordon admitted on cross-examination that on one occasion Hultman, in es- sence, had made the statement set forth above. Russell Gordon admitted that the men had acted together in an effort to get their paychecks when due and had threatened to walk off the job. He also conceded that there were occasions when the entire shift did not report for work because they had not been paid on time. Consequently, I do not credit the testimony of the Gordons that employees never complained to them about working conditions and I further reject Respondent's contention to that effect. 5 Hultman v. Gordon-Ladley Plywood Products Company, Case 47, 403 in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, S DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD vided that the stock would be purchased by March 27, 1956; the transaction had not been completed on March 22, 1956. Around the latter part of November, the monies due the men for back wages and salaries were paid. The men were returned to work by Respondent and they remained in its employ until March 22, 1956. As Watkins and Hultman credibly testified, and I so find, the men received their first paycheck on time but on a majority of the successive paydays from then until March 22, 1956, the checks were not ready on the 5th and 20th of the month when due. On those occasions, the men waited several days and then walked off the job until they were paid what was due them, at which time they returned to work. In essence, they adopted and followed a no pay no work policy until they were discharged on March 22, 1956, as set forth below.6 It is clear and I find that the problem of late paychecks was a continuing one and a cause of much unrest during the ensuing months. The testimony of Russell Gordon also discloses that it caused him much displeasure. His father, President Rollin Gordon, was fully aware of the situation for, as he admitted, approximately 30 days prior to March 22, Hultman, the chosen spokesman for the men, came to him on an occasion when the checks were late and stated that the men would not work if their checks were not paid when due on the 5th (presumably March 5th); on this occasion, Gordon claimed that adverse business conditions had pre- vented him paying the men on time. Also demonstrating that the dispute was prolonged and a current one at the time material herein is the admission by Vice President Russell Gordon that on or about February 23, 1956, Watkins came to him and informed him that the men would not work if they were not paid on time. I find therefore that this was an area of disagreement which was current between management and its employees at the time of their discharge on March 22, 1956, as set forth below. Hultman and Watkins testified, and I find, that from November through March, on at least several occasions if not more often, they brought other aspects of working conditions, which were a constant source of discontent among the men, to the attention of Russell Gordon. These included inadequate heat in the em- ployees' lunchroom; loss of pay through machinery repeatedly breaking down; loss of pay because the supply of logs was inadequate to give them steady work; and the unsatisfactory condition of electrical appliances in the plant, apparently their lack of adequate insulation. On March 22, 1956, the entire crew at the Elma plant was discharged by Re- spondent, shortly after some words were exchanged between Russell Gordon and employee Olin Watkins. Watkins had received permission to be absent during that week from Tuesday on for medical treatment in Seattle; the day of his return was indefinite and Watkins had agreed to notify Russell Gordon thereof. The treat- ment took less time than anticipated and Watkins returned to Elma on Wednesday evening, March 21. He promptly telephoned Gordon's home and, Gordon being absent, informed the latter's wife that he would report for work in the morning; Gordon's wife relayed this information to him. On Thursday morning, March 22, Watkins reported for work at the regular starting hour of 8 a. m. He commenced his regular duties as offbearer on the green chain, this involving the removing of veneer from the chain and piling it on pallets; no one else was performing his work at that time. About 15 minutes later, according to Watkins, Gordon approached him and asked, "Why the hell didn't you let me know you were going to be to work this morning?" Watkins replied that he had so informed Gordon's wife the previous evening. Gordon left the plant, but, before leaving told employee Hultman that he was shutting down the plant; he also informed employee Gruhn that he would no longer operate the plant the way it had been operated and that he was leaving to make a telephone call. He returned in about 15 minutes and told Watkins that if he expected to work that day he would work on another job. Watkins replied, "You can go to hell. This is my job here and this is what I am going to do." Gordon said nothing further to Watkins, walked away, and in 2 or 3 minutes pulled the main switch which perforce stopped all the equipment in the plant. He instructed several em- ployees to take their personal belongings with them, saying "I got my belly full of it and this is going to be it." G As indicated, Russell Gordon conceded that there were occasions when the crew would not report for work because they had not been paid on time, but claimed that the checks were late approximately twice between late November 1955 and March 22, 1956. I find that this happened on 5 or 6 of the approximately 8 paydays during this period, as Watkins and Hultman testified. GORDON-LADLEY PLYWOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY 9 Gordon testified that someone else had been brought in for Watkins' job. The testimony of Watkins is that on March 22 the new man, Moulton, was not working at Watkins' job, but was performing a different job, namely, helping the lathe operator. This was a job that Russell Gordon sometimes handled, according to Complainant Gruhn, the lathe operator. Moreover, the testimony of Gruhn further discloses that Watkins' temporary replacement had handled Watkins' duties earlier that week and there is no evidence that anyone else was on Watkins' job on March 22, despite Gordon's testimony to the contrary. Gordon admitted, and I find, that he intended to discharge and did discharge the entire crew on this occasion. Several weeks later, the plant reopened with a new crew and, contrary to past practice, none of the complainants were called in to work. At an unemployment compensation hearing held in June, on the com- plainants' claim for benefits, Russell Gordon testified that he had shut the plant down because he "had his belly full" of all the employees. B. Contentions and conclusions On the basis of the foregoing, it is clear and I find that the complainants herein were engaging in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection. They held several meetings in which they voiced their dissatisfaction with conditions. of em- ployment affecting them as employees and signed an informal agreement to "stick together." Their spokesmen protested to management on a number of occasions over the late paychecks and, in the months from September 1955 on, the men engaged in a number of work stoppages when their paychecks were several days late in order to demonstrate their protest over such working conditions and to bring pressure to bear upon Respondent to pay them their overdue earnings as well as to remedy this situation in the future. Moreover, their dissatisfaction with certain plant conditions was voiced to Russell Gordon and particularly so with respect to heat in the lunchroom and defective equipment which cost the men working time. While it may be that in some respects their concern was with matters which affected their interests as stockholders, here as well their interests as employees were affected because the evidence is uncontroverted that these employees were required to buy their stock in order to become employees. As a result, it was an aspect of the employer-employee relationship. In sum, these employees had regularly complained about unsatisfactory working conditions and the delayed payment of their wages and had engaged in concerted activities by walking off the job because of the latter condition. This state of affairs had gone on for some months and, as found above, the paychecks in the great majority of instances were still late through March 22, 1956. Both Gordons, as found, admitted that Watkins and Hultman had separately informed them ap- proximately 30 days prior to March 22 that the men would walk out again if they were not paid on time. Thus, this aspect of the dispute was indeed current. Respondent's basic contention is that it discharged these men because each of them was an unsatisfactory employee, that these were separate unrelated cases, and that the decision was not influenced in any way by any joint action on their part. As will appear, this claim will not withstand close scrutiny. (1) Initially, it must be borne in mind that with the exception of Hultman all of the seven complainants discharged on March 22, 1956, had been in Respondent's employ for 21/2 to 3 years with Gruhn's tenure dating back to 1951; even Hultman had worked there since Jpne of 1955. Surely these numerous faults, described more particularly below, would have soon manifested themselves during so long a tenure of employment. Indeed, if Respondent's claims with respect to these employees were credited in full or even in large part, it is difficult to conceive of this plant operating for 1 week without complete bedlam resulting. (2) An immediate inconsistency in Respondent's accounts of circumstances lead- ing up to the discharges is apparent. Russell Gordon, who carried out the actual discharges, testified that he personally arrived at the decision to discharge the entire crew about 8:15 a. in. on March 22, because they did not do their work properly. He claimed that it was something he knew nothing of "until it happened" and that he made up his mind with respect to all seven at the same time on March 22. It would seem that this decision came after his exchange of words with Watkins that morning, but significantly (a) he did not assign this language by Watkins as a cause for selecting Watkins for discharge, and (b) he decided to fire the entire crew at the same time. However, the testimony of President Rollin Gordon, who as this record indicates actually dictates policy for Respondent, was that he had consulted with his son by telephone several days before March 22 and that he, Rollin Gordon, had made the decision during a period of several days prior to March 22 that the entire crew was 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to be discharged. While it would appear that Rollin Gordon 's knowledge of what took place at the plant was in large measure based upon information from his son, he insisted that he had personal knowledge of the work of the complainants , although his own testimony discloses that he works 16 hours a day in Olympia 'and Seattle and would be in Elma only on weekends , at which time he also assisted his wife in a different business venture. The testimony of the employees indicates, and I find, that Rollin Gordon was rarely at the plant during working hours, and that he had no opportunity to observe their work. (3) Russell Gordon testified that Respondent had agreed to put the men back to work, after the September stoppage , until such time as Respondent bought their stock, that Respondent's hands were tied until that time, and as a result it could not discharge the men until then. However, as indicated, the document setting forth the transaction is silent in this respect and the stipulation in the court action for wages contains only a promise without qualification to return the men to work; moreover, the transaction involving the sale of the stock was not complete at the time of the discharge of the men on March 22.7 (4) Taking up the individual cases and turning initially to the case of Watkins, he entered Respondent's employ in November 1953 as a bookkeeper and, in Sep- tember 1955, was transferred to the job of offbearer on the green chain where he worked until his discharge on March 22, 1956. Respondent has not raised the episode of the exchange of language on March 22 between Watkins and Russell Gordon as a cause for the discharge and it is therefore not treated herein. It has claimed that a number of other reasons were the cause for his discharge. and these are considered below. According to Russell Gordon, Watkins knew how to sort and separate the veneers as they came off of the green chain but he nevertheless mixed them up. Gordon testified that this condition had existed from November 1955 up through the time of Watkins' discharge and that he had warned Watkins on several occasions that he would be fired if things did not improve. He later admitted however that he had not so warned Watkins and I credit the testimony of the latter that Russell Gordon never warned him that he might be. discharged because of this or any other reason. As is apparent, this purported condition, was tolerated for a number of months without any warning of discharge therefor. Rollin Gordon listed approximately nine complaints about Watkins including poor work as a bookkeeper, unsatisfactory work in the plant, back trouble which limited the jobs that he might perform, unwillingness to do his work , that he was an agitator who told people Gordon was stealing plywood from the mill, that Watkins told a logger to sell his logs to another mill rather than Respondent because the price was higher, that Watkins was divulging information from the company books, that Watkins was checking on the volume of sales to customers , and that he suspected Watkins of stealing papers from the office because he saw charred remnants of company documents in the office stove. Treating with these seriatim it is readily apparent that these claims are unsub- stantiated, unimpressive, ancient, or incredible. As to Watkins being an unsatis- factory bookkeeper , the fact is that Respondent retained him in that post for almost 2 years and , moreover, transferred him to a plant job approximately 6 months before his discharge . Obviously he was not discharged because he was an unsatisfactory bookkeeper. As to the claims that he was unsatisfactory in the plant , would not do his work, and had back trouble , there is no concrete evidence of this, of warnings to him, and even in the face of Respondent's testimony these were conditions of long standing. These same. criteria attach to the claim that Watkins was an agitator who told people that Rollin Gordon was stealing plywood , the alleged advice to the logger to sell his logs elsewhere at a better price, and the claim that Watkins was divulging information from the company books. In fact , with respect to the claim that Watkins told the logger to sell his . logs elsewhere at a better price, Gordon's testi- mony was not clear and it appears that he may have had Lamphiear in mind. And, with respect to the allegation that Watkins was checking on sales to customers, Watkins credibly testified that he inquired of one customer as to the whereabouts of a missing .invoice; obviously, this was over 6 months prior to his discharge when he was still a bookkeeper and was manifestly a proper inquiry. Perhaps the most serious allegation with respect to Watkins is the claim by President Rollin Gordon that he discharged Watkins because he suspected him of 7 Rollin Gordon testified that the employee-stockholders purchased their stock because they could not obtain employment elsewhere . As noted, both Gordons solicited these pur- chases of stock which were a prerequisite to employment by Respondent. GORDON-LADLEY PLYWOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY 11 theft, Gordon claiming that he considered theft a serious matter and that he would not normally retain a suspected thief in his employ. Gordon relied , in his accusation, upon his observation of charred invoices in the office stove. Not only did Watkins deny engaging in any such conduct but significantly, Gordon placed this as occurring while Watkins was still a bookkeeper ; as noted, this was at least 6 months prior to his discharge . I find it difficult to believe that an employer who quite logically would consider theft to be a most serious offense would retain a key employee for 6 months and not even mention the incident to him, particularly in this plant where there were but two management representatives and the employer- employee relationship was not marked by reticence on either side. Accordingly, I do not credit the reasons assigned by Respondent for the termination of Olin Watkins and find that they were not the true reasons for his termination. (5) Lester Virtue's position was that of clipperman, and Respondent raised two reasons for his discharge . The first was that he was not performing his job correctly, according to Russell Gordon, in that Virtue was allegedly mixing the three types of veneer produced by Respondent . However, Gordon admitted that he had dis- covered this situation back in the previous November and, as is apparent on his own testimony, it was a matter of long standing which he did nothing about until March 22. He did testify that he spoke to Virtue about this at the time of the "yow-yow" with all the men, apparently a reference to a dispute between the men and Respondent; it would seem that this was a reference to the prolonged dispute from September through November of 1955 described above. Rollin Gordon testified that Virtue was an unsatisfactory employee who could not do anything other than run the clipper because he was not physically able and could not lift things. On the other hand, Watkins uncontrovertedly testified that Virtue was felling timber at the time of the present hearing (September 1956) and had been for at least 1 month before . Moreover, there is no evidence that there was any change in Virtue's physical condition between March and September. Accordingly, I find Respondent's reasons for selecting Virtue for discharge to be unimpressive. (6) Walter Gruhn was a keyman in the plant who ran the lathe. He was en- trusted with the keys to the plant and customarily opened up early each morning in order to get the equipment ready. He had been in Respondent's employ either in its present business venture or an earlier one since 1951. Russell Gordon testified that he decided to discharge Gruhn on the morning of March 22, but elsewhere admitted that Gruhn had slowed down on the lathe from November 1955 on. Here, too, it is clear on Gordon's own testimony that this was a matter of some months' standing, but nevertheless no action was taken until March 22. In addition , Russell Gordon's testimony that he decided to discharge Gruhn on the morning of March 22 is contrary to the testimony of his father, who claimed that his son wanted, on many occasions , to discharge Gruhn but that he, Rollin Gordon , overruled him because Gruhn's father-in-law was a stockholder in the Company , that as a result they put up with Gruhn, and that he, Rollin Gordon, ordered the discharge. Rollin Gordon testified that Gruhn was a slow workman, albeit a steady honest fellow, and that the night-shift man on the lathe produced as much in 4 hours as Gruhn did in 8. This was denied by Gruhn who testified that as part of his job, and unlike the nightman, he had additional duties involving the setting up of machinery for the other men. Not only were no production records of any sort introduced herein, but it is also significant that Respondent had not operated a night shift in, 1956; that is, Rollin Gordon's claim herein was based upon an alleged and un- substantiated condition in 1955. While Gruhn conceded that Rollin Gordon once told him to speed up the lathe and on several occasions said that more production was needed, Gruhn testified that Gordon's remarks were made to him right after he entered Respondent 's employ, late in 1951, and also that they were made long before the dissension between Re- spondent and its employees arose . Obviously, this must have been many months if not years before March of 1956. 1 credit the testimony of Gruhn , a straightforward witness, over that of Gordon whose testimony has heretofore not been accepted. As in the case of the previous complainants, Respondent's contentions can only be viewed as unsubstantiated and unimpressive. (7) Ted Moe's position was that of scaler and dumper and he worked together with Milton Lamphiear in bringing logs from the pond for sawing and barking. Russell Gordon testified that he decided to discharge Moe on March 22 because he was not doing his work correctly or was incompetent from November 1955 on. He testified further that Moe had admitted to him shortly after the men returned to work in November 1955 that he, Moe, had instructed his coworker, Lamphiear, on several occasions, to slow down lest they run out of work and presumably be laid 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD off. However, Rollin Gordon described Moe as a "pretty good worker" and claimed that he selected Moe for discharge after conferring with his son at the same time that they decided to discharge the other men during the "last few days they worked there. We were having a lot of trouble with them there at that time." He further testified that Moe was elderly, deaf, wore a hearipg aid and was in poor physical condition, and that he feared Moe might incur an injury at work. Obviously, the versions of the two Gordons are inconsistent; according to Rollin Gordon and contrary to his son, there was no trouble with Moe's work. Even in the face of Russell Gordon's testimony, the conduct complained of, viz, the slow- down, was a matter that arose some months earlier, and there is no evidence that he considered it serious enough to warn Moe about it, although it is advanced as a basis for deciding on March 22 to discharge him. In view of the foregoing, I find that the reasons advanced for the discharge of Moe were not the true reasons, and that the true reason appears in the testimony of Rollin Gordon that Respondent was having a lot of trouble with its employees at that time, as will appear below in more detail. (8) Milton Lamphiear entered Respondent's employ in November of 1953 as a scaler and dumper. He and Ted Moe worked together in the hauling of logs from the pond for sawing and barking. Russell Gordon complained that Lamphiear was too talkative in that he "mouthed off" to a logger who supplied logs to Respondent; Gordon allegedly told him that this conduct was not to be tolerated. Here, too, is another incident of ancient vintage for-Gordon admitted that this took place in 1953. He also testified that he had trouble with Lamphiear from the first day he started until his discharge; this would be a period in excess of 2 years and would seem to warrant some further explanation. However, when Russell Gordon was asked,why he kept Lamphiear in his employ so long in view of the foregoing, he replied that Lamphiear's attitude had changed. I would assume that this meant a change for the better, but Gordon went on to testify that Lamphiear's attitude "changed for the worse from the first day he went to work." Gordon further testified that on one occasion Lamphiear operated a power saw too rapidly and as a result, certain bolts broke loose; that he reprimanded Lamphiear therefor; and that Lamphiear became angry and threatened to hit him over the head with a bar. The threat was not carried out and no disciplinary action was taken against Lamphiear. Significantly, according to Russell Gordon, this took place "several months" prior to March 22 and this, as well, may be characterized as an old matter. Rollin Gordon complained that Lamphiear had a bad temper and that one day, when angry, he processed an unduly large block of wood with the result that the machinery was damaged to the extent of $500 or $600, and production was shut down for 1 week. He admitted, however, that this took place 11/2 years prior to March 1956, again another ancient matter. He also testified that Lamphiear broke the crane and slammed the cables, and alleged that this had been going on for 11/2 or 2 years. Here again, on Respondent's testimony, this was a matter of long. standing. Noteworthy here as well, is the fact that Rollin Gordon was not in the plant when any of these alleged matters took place, and based his testimony on an inspection of the equipment and his drawing of conclusions therefrom as to the cause of the incidents. Moreover, Lamphiear uncontrovertedly testified that the. wiring on the crane was defective, that its operator was regularly receiving shocks therefrom, and that he regularly complained to Russell Gordon about this condi- tion. I find it difficult to believe that had Lamphiear been as destructive as claimed,. Respondent would have retained him in its employ for years despite its claim that it did so because he was a stockholder; his holding, it will be recalled, was a very minor one of some 10 shares. (9) Everett Sund worked on the green chain with Olin Watkins as offbearer; this involved the pulling of veneers from the clipper. He was an employee whose tenure was described by Russell Gordon as 1 year longer than that of the others; this would be somewhere in excess of 3 years. Here as well, Russell Gordon testified that he decided to discharge Sund on the morning of March 22. The reason assigned was that Sund allegedly mixed up the grades of lumber, as did Watkins, although they both knew how to grade lumber. As in the other cases, Gordon alleged that this condition was one of long standing, having existed since the previous November but, as in the other cases, there is no evidence of any warning to Sund concerning the performance of his duties. More significantly, Gordon was contradicted by his father as to the cause of Sund's discharge. Rollin Gordon's testimony was silent as to any derelictions of duty on the part of Sund. He stressed rather the claim that Sund was along in years and heavy, could not move around, and just could not do the job. Quite apart from GORDON-LADLEY PLYWOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY 13 the conflict of reasons , the picture is still one of an employee with a tenure of several years who received no warnings, and was suddenly discharged for a reason allegedly of long standing, a picture which does not ring true. .(10) The last of the group is Theodore .Hultman , the machinist and millwright, whose job it was to repair equipment breakdowns in the plant . Contrary to the other employees whose tenure was measured in years, he had entered the employ of the Respondent, as he testified, in June of 1955. Here, too, a goodly number of transgressions were alleged by Respondent as the cause for Hultman 's discharge. Both Gordons testified that Hultman broke the chain on the burner and that it took 3 or 4 men to fix it; according to Russell Gordon , this took place around Feb- ruary 1956 . He also testified that on one occasion Hultman threw a faulty fuse on the floor, thereby shattering it; the record does not indicate when this took place. He further testified that one day Hultman disconnected a motor and informed him that it was not operating properly; as a result , Respondent allegedly had to install a new motor but there is nothing to indicate that Hultman 's judgment in the last in- cident was in error. Gordon claimed that on one occasion Hultman performed some welding operations in an area where gasoline was stored , contrary to instructions. This took place, according to Russell Gordon, soon after Hultman entered Respond- ent's employ , obviously in mid-1955 . In none of these instances is there any evidence that Hultman was warned about his alleged derelictions . I deem it noteworthy that throughout this period, as Hultman testified , he had spoken to Russell Gordon concerning the poor condition of the machinery and the resulting breakdowns, and nothing was said about Hultman's alleged derelictions , all of which were sometime before March 22. Here as well, Respondent 's assigned reasons can only be character- ized as ancient or trivial. In sum, the complainants were discharged suddenly without any advance notice of termination or warnings concerning the performance of their duties, after an in- cident involving only Olin Watkins on March 22 ; significantly, this incident was not raised by Respondent as a cause for the discharge of Watkins , let alone the six others. The explanations by Respondent for the individual discharges have been demon- strated to be weak and unconvincing and impel the conclusion that they were after- thoughts . While both Gordons attempted to portray these as unrelated discharges which were separately determined , both of them in their testimony , on several occa- sions, displayed their appreciation of. the fact that the men had taken joint and concerted action which they, the Gordons , believed to be contrary to the interests of Respondent. Thus, Russell Gordon admitted that the men had taken joint action for some time in such matters as attempting to receive their pay when due, and referred to the men as being "pretty hot about that time." His testimony at the subsequent unem- ployment compensation hearing in June disclosed that he considered the men to be acting together in an effort to embarrass or "break" Respondent and that as a result he was "fed up" with them . President Rollin Gordon repeatedly accused the men herein of taking joint action in an effort to embarrass Respondent financially. He accused Hultman and Watkins of conspiring against him while they were em- ployees and it is significant that these two were the designated heads of the em- ployees' committee . He also admitted that Respondent was having "a lot of trouble" with the men the last few days they worked there. But this all reduces itself to the fact that the men for some months had been en- gaged upon acourse of joint action and walkouts when not paid in order to protect their legitimate interests as employees. While in some areas their parallel interests as stockholders were affected, it must be borne in mind that as employees they were required to be stockholders ; this, too, was then an aspect of the employer- employee relationship. The action they took in concert was one which Respondent was certainly well aware of. The men, in a majority of instances, did not receive their pay on time and as a result they, in concert , refused to work or, on a number of occasions, sent their spokesman to protest to management . That concerted action of this nature to collect wages admittedly past due is protected activity for their mutual aid or pro- tection under the Act is hardly open to question . This major grievance had been of many months' duration , had resulted in work stoppages, and was still unresolved on March 22, 1956. As recently as I month before, both 'Gordons had been sepa- rately approached , one by Hultman and the other: by Watkins, and had been ad- vised again that the men would not work when their paychecks were tardy. Needless to say, an employer is wholly within the law when he discharges an em- ployee for a dereliction in the performance of his duties , fancied or real, when no other considerations enter the picture. But when an employer chooses to discharge his entire complement of personnel , all of whom have considerable tenure and ex- 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD perience in the conduct of the business, and further chooses to suffer the losses in- evitably attendant upon a shutdown of operations, let alone the recruitment and training of new personnel, one would perforce assume that the provocation was great and the circumstances compelling. However, when one considers the reasons as- signed herein for the discharge of the complainants and realizes that they disclose an intrinsic conflict in the testimony of Respondent's representatives, a lack of substance in the assigned reasons, the fact that these reasons were relatively ancient and in some cases nonexistent, and throughout the marked exaggerations on the part of Re- spondent's representatives concerning these purported derelictions, in view of all of this, I am unable to accept Respondent's contentions concerning these complainants as the true reasons for shutting down the plant and starting anew with newly hired employees unfamiliar with Respondent's operations. I do believe that the provocation was great, but on this record the evidence preponderates in favor of a conclusion that the provocation was other than that advanced by Respondent. These complainants were stockholders who had a financial investment in the company. Acceptance of Respondent's contentions would place them in the position of trying to lessen the value of their investment, a conclusion that does not logically follow. Indeed, the outside course of conduct of these complainants in obtaining counsel would indicate rather a course of conduct calculated to protect their investment. What is clear here is that the complainants were trying to protect their interests as employees through joint action, within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act, that this action brought them into conflict with Respondent, and that they were dis- charged for that reason. The record, on a preponderance of the evidence, warrants the conclusion that Respondent, and more particularly President Rollin Gordon, became incensed over their conduct, covering a period of months, in taking concerted action in their own behalf, primarily because of tardy wages, and discharged them in one fell swoop for so doing. Any other conclusion cannot, in logic, be reconciled with the record in this case. In view of the foregoing, I find that Respondent discharged the seven com- plainants on March 22, 1956, because they had engaged in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection. Contrary to the contention of Respondent, "con- certed activities for the purpose of . mutual aid or protection" are not limited to union activities. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, an Arizona Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 206 F. 2d 325 (C. A. 9). I further find that by the foregoing conduct, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and has thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) thereof. N. L. R. B. v. Nemec Combustion Engineers, 207 F. 2d 655 (C. A. 9) cert. denied 347 U. S. 917; N. L. R. B. v. Cowles Publishing Co., 214 F. 2d 708 (C. A. 9) cert. denied 348 U. S. 876; N. L. R. B. v. Buzza-Cardozo, 205 F. 2d 889 (C. A. 9) cert. denied 346 U. S. 923; N. L. R. B. v. Rugcrofters of Puerto Rico, Inc., 213 F. 2d 537 (C. A. 1) enfg. 107 NLRB 256; N. L. R. B. v. Kennametal Inc., 182 F. 2d 817 (C. A. 3); N. L. R. B. v. Nu-Car Carriers, Inc., 189 F. 2d 756 (C. A. 3) cert. denied 342 U. S. 919; N. L. R. B. v. Tex-Togs, Inc., 231 F. 2d 310 (C. A. 5); N. L. R. B. v. Mac Smith Garment Co., Inc., 219 F. 2d 469 (C. A. 5); N. L. R. B. v. Hymie Schwartz, 146 F. 2d 773 (C. A. 5); Modern Motors, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 198 F. 2d 925 (C. A. 8) and Brookville Glove Company, 116 NLRB 1282.8 III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connec- tion with its operations set forth 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 thereof. 8 Although by their conduct the employees involved herein have come close to the formation of an independent labor organization, it becomes unnecessary, in view of the foregoing conclusions, to reach this issue. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the alleged violations of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act be dismissed. See N. L. R. B. v. Buzza-Cardozo, supra. Respondent has cited the case of N. L. R. B. v. Shen-Valley Meat P¢ckurs, Inc., 211 F. 2d 289 (C. A. 4) in support of its position herein. That case stands for the proposition that knowledge by an employer of the union activity of its employees is a prerequisite to a finding of a discharge for that reason. Obviously that case Is not in point because in the present case it has been found that the employees were discharged for their concerted activities of which Respondent was admittedly aware. SUPERIOR TYPESETTING CO. IV. THE REMEDY 15 Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced the seven employees named in Appendix A attached hereto in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent offer to each immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges. See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827. It will further be recommended that Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them. Said loss of pay, based upon earnings which each would normally have earned from the date of the discrimination, March 22, 1956, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, shall be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. See N. L. R. B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U. S. 344. It is also recommended, in order to satisfy the remedial objectives of the Act, that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon its employees' 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. Respondent, Gordon-Ladley Plywood Products Company, is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing the seven employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the,Act. 3. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Respondent has not committed unfair labor practices in the cases of Vincent Michalak and John Rhodes. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Superior Typesetting Co. and Miscellaneous Drivers & Helpers Union, Local 610, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Superior Typesetting Co. and St. Louis Helpers & Assistants Local 168, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 14-RC-3159 and 14-RC-3166. June 5, 1957 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS . Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Joseph H. Solien, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of- Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in'connection with 118 NLRB No. 3.