Franklin Lumber and Basket Co.

1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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, as amended, we notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership of our employees in Petroleum, Tire, Automotive Service and Parts Drivers, Warehousemen, Service Station Attend- ants, Helpers, Bulk Plant, Parking Lot and Ramp Employees , Local Union No. 977, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor organization or in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form, join, or assist said labor organization, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning the identity of members or supporters of the above-named union or any other labor organization in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Sec- tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL offer Robert Crouse, Charles Jacobson , Larry L. Sumner, and Zeno Tomala, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. WE WILL make each of said employees whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. And further, we will make whole Arthur Moen for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the dis- crimination against him. TRUMBULL ASPHALT COMPANY OF DELAWARE, 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Room 316, Federal Building, 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Telephone Number, 339-0112, Extension 2601 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Franklin Lumber and Basket Co. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Case No. 12-CA-2248. November 23, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On July 11, 1962, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter- mediate Report. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of the complaint as to them. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General 139 NLRB No. 96. FRANKLIN LUMBER AND BASKET CO. 1239 Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the find- ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner? 1Interest on backpay shall be computed In the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716. For the reasons set forth in the dissent in that case, Diem- bers Rodgers and Leedom are convinced that the award of Interest in this case exceeds the Board 's remedial authority While adhering to such view for the purposes of this decision they accept the majority Board policy of granting interest on moneys due. 2Insert the following in the notice immediately below the signature: NOTE -We will notify any of the above -named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica- tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces Change the penultimate paragraph beginning with the words "This notice must remain posted . . ." to read "This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting . . ." instead of stating "60 days from the date hereof" INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed on January 15, 1962, by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , herein called the Union, and an amended charge filed on February 26, 1962, by said Union, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board for the Twelfth Region on March 2, 1962, issued a complaint against Franklin Lumber and Basket Co., herein referred to as Respondent , alleging viola- tions of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8 (a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer, Respondent admitted certain allega- tions of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practice. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James T. Barker at Gainesville, Florida, on April 16 and 17, 1962. All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. The parties waived oral argu- ment and in lieu thereof filed briefs. Upon consideration of the entire record and briefs of the parties , and upon my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is and has been at all times material herein a Florida corporation maintaining its principal office and place of business in the city of Micanopy, Florida, where it is and has been at times pertinent continually engaged in the manufacture and sale of fruit and vegetable veneer crates, hampers, and wire-bound crates. During the calendar year immediately preceding the hearing herein Respond- ent in the course and conduct of its business operations sold goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 to customers located outside the State of Florida , and during the same period purchased goods and materials from sources outside the State of 1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Florida valued at $50,000. Upon these admitted facts I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America is admitted by Re- spondent to be a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and I so find. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Prefatory facts 1. Respondent's operations Micanopy, Florida, where Respondent's mill is located , is a small town of some 650 population, and Respondent's operation comprises the town's only industry.' At times pertinent, Respondent employed approximately 150 individuals in the Mill .2 President of Respondent is Ben O. Franklin and William Raughley is plant superin- tendent. Chalmers "Boy" Bellflower is foreman of the employees in the Respondent's wire-bound department where were, or are, employed those individuals who the General Counsel asserts were the objects and victims of Respondent's alleged unfair labor practices. The supervisory status of Franklin, Raughley, and Bellflower is admitted. The manufacturing season commences at the plant each year in September. he volume of production increases from September until mid-November or early De- cember. From this point until May, depending upon weather conditions, production levels remain quite constant. In early May, production diminishes and virtually ceases by mid-June .3 2. The organizational activities Early interest in unionization centered mainly with the employees of the wire- bound department and received its original impetus from them. The initial em- ployee efforts to organize took place on December 5, 1961, at the home of employees Allison and Mary McQuinney when Union Representative Carlton met with Allison (also known as "Yank") and Mary McQuinney, their son Alpha, Walter "Buddy" Johnson, and his wife Dorothy. At the meeting the employees signed union au- thorization cards. The following day, December 6, the 5 aforementioned employees and 15 others met at the McQuinney home with Union Representatives Carlton and Underwood and authorization cards were signed? B Interference, restraint, and coercion The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that Respondent (a) on or about December 5 and 6, through Foreman Bellflower, conducted surveillance of employee meeting places and other employee activity; (b) thereafter, through Bell- flower, created the impression of surveillance of employee meeting places and union activity; (a) through Foreman Bellflower solicited employee withdrawals from union membership and activities; (d) through President Franklin offered benefits to em- ployees for not joining the Union or engaging in union activity, and threatened em- ployees with loss of existing or promised benefits for signing authorization cards or engaging in other union activity; (e) through President Franklin, Superintendent Raughley and Foreman Bellflower interrogated employees concerning their union activities; (f) through the same officers and agents threatened employees with loss of benefits or discharge because of union membership or activities; and (g) on April 14, 1962, through Superintendent Raughley attempted to persuade Allison McQuinney not to honor a National Labor Relations Board subpena and to with- draw from the prosecution of his legal rights guaranteed by the Act. 1. Surveillance and impression of surveillance On December 7, the day following the second employee organizational meeting held at the home of Allison McQuinney, Foreman Bellflower asked employee Walter 1 The undisputed and credited testimony of Allison McQuinney See General Counsel's Exhibit No 2 The uncontradicted and credited testimony of President Franklin ' The credited testimony of Allison McQuinney. FRANKLIN LUMBER AND BASKET CO. 1241 Johnson (who had attended both meetings at the McQuinney home) if he "had been over there at Yank's house" the night before. Johnson replied that he had.5 Dur- ing the same period Foreman Bellflower in conversing about the Union with em- ployee Roland Martin at the plant observed employees Wilkerson and Harris. Bell- flower commented to Martin "there was two that was over there last night." 6 Thereafter, on December 22, Foreman Bellflower conversed by telephone with em- ployee Mabel Markham concerning her return to work after a brief layoff. Dur- ing the conversation Bellflower mentioned the Union, asking Mabel Markham what she "had to say to the man that was down to [her] house the other night." Employee Markham replied that she had told him "she had to set neutral for the time being" as she had to discuss the matter of the Union with her children.? 2. Solicitations to withdraw from the Union On December 9 or 10, Foreman Bellflower called employee Walter Johnson from his place of work and asked him if he had signed a union card. Johnson said that he had, whereupon Bellflower asked if he "could get out of it " On this occasion Bellflower conferred further with Johnson as discussed below and at the conclusion of the conversation asked Johnson to "think about getting the card back." Johnson said he would and returned to work. Also during a discussion with Bell- flower on or about December 20, Johnson was again asked by Bellflower to seek withdrawal of his union authorization card.8 3. Interrogation, threats, and promises (a) The profit-sharing plan On December 15, President Franklin made a series of informal speeches to his employees. At separate times during the day he assembled employees on a de- partmental basis and addressed them. The employees of the wire-bound depart- ment were addressed by Franklin in the plant. He first told them of his plan for observing the Christmas holidays by shutting down operations at noon on Decem- ber 23, and resuming operations on the morning of December 27. He then traced the history of the plant and its predecessor operation under his (Franklin's) father, and related his own lifelong association with the Company both as an employee and as a manager and owner. He recalled the program of modernization successfully pursued after 1940 to render the Company competitive and to assure "better and more secure jobs for the employees." He told the assembled employees "[n]either you nor I would care to go back to the way the plant used to be. There have been three significant things that have been developed in the last few years that I feel worthy of mentioning." He went on to review the safety program and spoke of the employee health insurance program pointing out that "[O]ur regular employees are given this insurance, both Blue Cross and Blue Shield at the expense of the Com- pany " Finally, he spoke of the profit-sharing plan. He advised the employees that the plan was becoming important to everyone . . . inasmuch as it has been in existence for 56 months." 9 Franklin referred to a disabled employee who had received benefits under the plan and stressed that the plan was important to the employees and "would mean a great deal to them as the years go by." 10 Franklin ended his talk by saying "I understand there is somebody going around here signing 5 The credited testimony of Walter Johnson. 8 The credited testimony of Roland Martin Martin's recollection of precisely when this incident occurred was hazy but I am convinced he testified accurately concerning the sub- stance of Bellflower's remarks. 7 The credited testimony of Mabel Markham 8 The foregoing is predicated on the credited testimony of Walter Johnson 9 By this reference President Franklin meant to consey to the employees the fact that the important, initial 5-year phase of the plan had been fulfilled In the calculation of this initial 5-year period, 1 fiscal year of 9 months appears to have been treated as a full year for the purpose of the plan. The plan is a 10-year plan For the first 5 years an employee acquires no equity in the deposited funds unless he becomes disabled or dies Each year after the fifth year, the individual employee equity in the fund accrues at the rate of 20 percent per annum, until at the end of the 10-year period the employee achieves a 100 percent equity in h,s aliquot share of the total If, for any reason, an individual's employment ceases after 10 years, that employee would receive the full amount of his equity 11 The credited testimony of President Franklin. 1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cards [but] I want to say that you had better think and think carefully before you sign a card." II The first 5-year period, after which employee equities in the profit-sharing fund began accruing had ended on September 30, 1961, which likewise marked the close of Respondent's fiscal year. In October, after the close of Respondent's fiscal year, President Franklin was advised by his accountant of the total sum accrued in the profit-sharing fund. He was also advised by his accountant to apprise each em- ployee by letter of the amount of his accrued interest in the fund.12 Accordingly, the accountant prepared letters on Respondent's stationery. The letters were dated December 21, 1961, and were signed by President Franklin. Letters identical ex- cept for the name of the addressee and the sum representing the employee "interest" in the fund, were sent to each employee of Respondent.13 (b) The Allison McQuinney incident On Monday, December 18, Allison McQuinney was told to report to the office of President Franklin. Initially only Superintendent Raughley and Foreman Bell- flower were present, but they were soon joined by President Franklin and the con- ference commenced. First, Bellflower discussed McQuinney's "attitude" in refusing to take orders from him and in fomenting "confusion" among the employees by, in effect, interposing himself between the employees and their supervision. McQuin- ney denied doing so. Bellflower observed that McQuinney had been "going around with the men in the doolebug getting cards signed" and Superintendent Raughley asked if this were true.14 McQuinney admitted that he had been "going around with the Union men." President Franklin, took "a paper" out of his desk and said "that he was looking at the profit-sharing plan." He went on to tell McQuinney, "that he had over eight hundred dollars in the fund" and that he "[stood] to lose it if [he] continued on that way." While still sitting at his desk, Franklin said "we don't need them bastards to run our business," and getting up from his desk said, further, "[n]o bastard is going to interfere with our business." During the meeting Franklin told McQuinney he could "quit if he didn't like what was going on." But at the close of the episode Franklin told McQuinney he could "go back to work." After leaving President Franklin's office McQuinney asked Foreman Bellflower if he should indeed go back to work and Bellflower directed him to do so.15 (c) The Walter Johnson incidents Walter Johnson credibly testified that during a conversation 4 or 5 days after the employee meeting at the McQuinney home, Bellflower told him that 11 The credited testimony of Mabel Markham and Lucille Martin. I do not credit the testimony of Dorothy Johnson, not otherwise corroborated, that President Franklin ad- vised the employees to "be prayerful" about signing authorization cards. 12 The record is equivocal as to when President Franklin was advised to do this. 18 The credited testimony of President Franklin. The text of the letter ( General Coun- sel's Exhibit No. 2) is as follows: Re: Franklin Lumber and Basket Company Profit Sharing and Retirement Plan ------------------------------ [Name of employee] At September 30, 1961. our Profit Sharing and Retirement Plan had been in effect for 57 months. At that date the assets of the plan held by the Trustee (the Barnett National Bank, Jacksonville , Florida ) had a value of $94 ,306.55. These funds are invested by the Trustee in common and preferred stocks, bonds and Federal savings and loan associations At September 30, 1961, we had 153 employee participants in the plan. Your interest in the plan at September 300, 1961, was [Total] This amount is to your credit and Is building up for your retirement . In case you should die, this amount would be paid to your named beneficiary We are pleased to report to you on the progress of our Profit Sharing and Retire- ment Plan (S) BEN A. FRANKLIN For the Administrative Committee. 14 The "doolebug" reference was to the small automobile driven by Union Representative Carlton in which Bellflower had ridden in soliciting signatures 15 The credited testimony of Allison McQuinney. Upon my observation of his demeanor as he testified to this incident he impressed me as a credible witness. I do not credit the testimony of Franklin and Raughley concerning this incident. FRANKLIN LUMBER AND BASKET CO. 1243 Mr. Franklin didn't have to let that union come in down there, he said all he would have to do was shut the door and he asked me who did I think would live the longer, me or Mr. Franklin and I told him I reckon Mr. Franklin could and he said that he knew Mr. Carlton and he said he didn't think he was pretty enough to be on one of those cards and I told him I didn't know about that either. In the latter instance Bellflower appears to have been referring to an identification card used by Union Representative Carlton bearing his picture. On December 20 or 21 while Johnson was passing through the plant Bellflower called Johnson over to him. Having been informed that Johnson had (to use the colorful vernacular of the locale) "been cussing [him]" and "raising sand," Bell- flower discussed the matter with Johnson. Foreman Bellflower credibly testified as follows: I said, "Walter, what have I ever done to you or wanted to do to you to deserve this cussing." He said, "I didn't cuss you." He said, "I never have." He said, "Those boys said that you had it in for me ever since I told them that I was working for the union." He also said, "I have given out some cards," and I told him right there and then, "If I was to catch you giving out one on the job, I would have to discharge you." Q. Was anything else said? A. No, sir, not that I recollect. He told me that he hadn't been cussing me and then everything was all right and then we went on inside and went back to work.16 The full scope of this incident is further manifested by Johnson's credible testimony as follows: He asked me had I ever-had he ever done anything to me to cause me to dislike him or something like that and I told him I didn't reckon he did. He said that he had heard that four people heard me cuss him for a SB and I told him I didn't cuss him for nothing like that. He got kind of mad and I reckon I did too and we argued around out there a little bit and he tried to get me to get my card back again and he told me that-not to get smart with him or all he would have to do was send me home. I told him if he wanted to do that, it was up to him, he was the bossman, and he said if he ever sent me home he would send my wife home and I told him that I had heard that he was just about that kind of bossman over there. So I just got up and walked on into the building. (d) New Year's Day threats and inducements The employees in the wire-bound department worked on New Year's Day. Be- fore the day's work began, Superintendent Raughley assembled them and addressed them, initially on the subject of safety. During the talk he discussed the profit- sharing plan and said that if an employee was "laid off or quit or was fired for the period of six months he would lose his rights" under the plan.17 4. Interference with rights of subpenaed witness On April 14, Allison McQuinney while at work at the mill told Foreman Bell- flower that he and his wife, Mary, had been subpenaed to appear in the instant proceeding on the following Monday, and consequently would not be at work on that day. At this point Superintendent Raughley approached and was informed by Bellflower of McQuinney's advisory. McQuinney asked if there were any way he could "get out of appearing and from answering the subpena." Raughley said he "believed ... it were possible to do so," that he was not sure but would try to find out. Raughley left McQuinney and went to the office of President Franklin. He asked Franklin "if it were possible for Yank to fail to appear at the hearing." Franklin answered that if McQuinney "didn't want to appear he didn't have to but if he wanted to that he should be permitted to do so." Raughley returned to the mill and told McQuinney that he "thought it would be perfectly all right if he didn't show up at the hearing." McQuinney stated that "as it is a package deal" he 16 There is fragmentary record testimony relating to a notice posted on the mill bulletin board regarding solicitation in the plant, but no issue was raised concerning it and the evidence is insufficient to support a finding concerning its substance 17 The credited testimony of Allison McQuinney and Lucille Martin. 1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAY IONS BOARD thought "he should appear as he might get some of the others in trouble." Raughley made no threat to McQuinney nor did he otherwise seek to induce him to refrain from appearing at the hearing.'8 Conclusions On the basis of the foregoing, I conclude and find that upon learning of employee union efforts on or about December 7, Respondent undertook through a series of coordinated moves to undermine the employee organizational campaign and to defeat the Union. The December 6 meeting of some 20 employees came quickly to the attention of management and employees were soon apprised of Respondent's awareness of their concerted efforts to organize by Foreman Bellflower's separate remarks to employees Walter Johnson, Roland Martin, and Mabel Markham by which he created and fostered the impression that the employee union meetings and other organizational activities were under surveillance of Respondent. Bell- flower thus engaged in conduct which the Board has consistently held interfered with rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.19 Although alleged, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of actual surveillance.20 Also violative of the employees' Section 7 rights was Foreman Bellflower's ques- tioning of Walter Johnson as to whether he had signed a union authorization card; his urging of Johnson to withdraw from union membership; and Bellflower's virtually simultaneous threat to Johnson that President Franklin could "shut the doors" and "didn't have to let the Union come in," coupled with his rhetorical query "who ... would live longer, [Johnson] or Mr Franklin " 21 A further effort to combat the Union is manifest in the December 18 interroga- tion of employee Allison McQuinney by President Franklin, Superintendent Raughley and Foreman Bellflower in Franklin's office McQuinney at whose home was held the organizational meeting of December 6 (known to Respondent) was questioned concerning his card signing activities and told of Franklin's emphatic opposition to union interference in the operation of his business. Additionally, McQuinney was reminded of the extent of his (McQuinney) interest in the profit-sharing fund and told that he stood "to loose" it if he "continued on that way." This last quoted reference, I am convinced from an evaluation of its context, was to his union ac- tivities and not to his "attitude" as an employee While McQuinney's "attitude" of interposition between employees and their supervision was undoubtedly one factor motivating the assemblage in President Franklin's office, the credited testimony demonstrates that employee resort to the Union was a matter of greater concern to Respondent than the discipline of this one rank-and-file employee The conduct of President Franklin, Supervisor Raughley, and Foreman Bellflower on this occasion was coercive and violated McQuinney's Section 7 rights I do not find violative of the Act President Franklin's December 15 remarks to the assembled employees of the wire-bound department Although an integral part of Respondent's efforts to defeat the Union, the speech was protected under Section 8(c) of the Act. The speech itself was a factual summation of the benefits presently available to the employees, and was free from threats and promises of benefits ex- pressed or implied 22 The juxtaposition of Franklin's summation of employee benefits and his advice to employees to "think carefully" before signing a union card does not remove the protection of Section 8(c). Similarly, for the same reasons I find in sending to each employee the December 21 letter (General Coin- sel's Exhibit No. 2) specifying the extent of the employee monetary interest in the profit-sharing fund, the Respondent did not violate the Act "The credited testimony of Superintendent Raughley I do not credit McQuinney's version of the incident for as I observed him as he testified concerning it he appeared con- fused and uncertain Although the event occurred only 2 days before, he testified, his testimony was internally contradictory and lie admitted that he could not recount pre- cisely what was said '°R L Ziegler Ine, 129 NLRB 1211, 1222, enfd 298 F 2d 671 (C A 5) , citizen's Hotel Company, d/b/a Texas Hotel, 131 NLRB 834, 841; F W IVoolu orth Co, 101 NLRB 1457 29 See Donald L Trettencso, et al . d/b/a Trettcnei o Sand d Crai cl Co , 129 NLRB 610 ; A Alf IfaragTen.sian, Inc , 120 NLRB 104, 111 See B F Edwards d/b/a Edwards Trucking Company, 129 NLRB 385 In this con- text, I find Bellflower's remark on or about Decembei 20 to Walter Johnson that lie would send Walter and his wife home was predicated on Johnson's attitude of disrespect and not due to his avowed union activity 11 See N L B B v. Cleveland Trust Co., 214 F. 2d 95, 98-99 (C.A 6) FRANKLIN LUMBER AND BASKET CO. 1245 However, Respondent did violate the Act when, using the speech and the sub- sequent letter as inferential but clearly discernible points of reference, Superintendent Raughley on January 1, and in context of coercive conduct above found and the dis- crimination hereinafter found, emphasized to employees that realization and enjoy- ment of their profit-sharing interest could be defeated by their layoff and discharge, as well as by their own voluntary termination. Likewise, on December 18, Presi- dent Franklin's similarly coupled his threat to Allison McQuinney with loss of his profit-sharing interest. On these occasions the Respondent sought in veiled terms to convey to employees that continued and future union adherence might well result in loss of employment and benefits under the profit-sharing plan. Finally, I conclude and find that the General Counsel failed to establish by the preponderance of the credible evidence that the April 14 subpena incident violated the Act. Totally absent here, in either overt or veiled form, are the elements of inducement, threat, or persuasion present in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.,23 relied upon by the General Counsel, and in other controlling Board cases 24 Although Superin- tendent Raughley was not indifferent to McQuinney's pending appearance as a wit- ness, and his solicited lay advice concerning a legal issue was inaccurate, he made no effort to interfere with McQuinney's freedom of choice in the matter. In all the circumstances I shall recommend dismissal of the allegation added through amendment at the hearing.25 C. The alleged discriminatory layoffs and discharges 1. The contentions of the parties The General Counsel asserts that Respondent laid off, and for a period of approxi- mately 2 weeks failed to recall, Allison and Mary McQuinney because of their known union activities, and for the same reason terminated the employment of Alpha McQuinney and Walter and Dorothy Johnson. The Respondent contends that (1) Allison, Mary, and Alpha McQuinney were temporarily laid off as a result of cur- tailed production rendered necessary by a sufficiency of inventory; (2) Allison and Mary McQuinney were recalled when full production was resumed; (3) Alpha McQuinney was offered but failed to accept a recall communicated to him on Janu- ary 5, the day after his layoff; (4) Walter Johnson was discharged for insubordina- tion, and (5) Dorothy Johnson voluntarily terminated her employment as an incident to her husband Walter's legitimate discharge. The General Counsel appears to contend that only the designation of the five alleged discriminatees for layoff or ter- mination was tainted with antiunion animus and not the decision to curtail produc- tion per se. In his brief, the General Counsel strenuously asserts that special significance attaches to the fact that the alleged discrimination transpired in "a small southern one-industry town in which a labor organization or `outsider' dared to seek to organize the employees ." and to the fact that the discrimination was directed only against the two families who were the leaders in the unionization effort. 2. The wire-bound department In the wire-bound department are four production machines used in the manu- facture of boxes and crates There is a similar machine in the hamper department. Eight to ten employees are assigned to each machine depending upon the size of the box or crate being produced.26 3. Curtailed production On Wednesday, January 3, machine No. 4 to which Allison McQuinney was then assigned was ordered shut down by President Franklin and Allison McQuinney was laid off 27 The following day, January 4. Mary McQuinney and other employees assigned to machine No. 2 were laid off. Also laid off on the same day were Alpha 23128 NLRB 574 21 See Duralite Co , Inc , 128 NLRB 648, 651, and cases cited therein ^ The credible evidence does not warrant a conclusion that either Raughly or Franklin consulted counsel on this matter Moreover unavailing to the Geneial Counsel in support of this allegation are instances of conduct similar to that alleged, but extraneous and external to the instant proceeding The undisputed, credited testimony of Allison McQuinney zr The testimony of Allison McQuinney, President Franklin, and Foreman Bellflower 1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD McQuinney and other employees assigned to machine No. 3.28 The January 4 shut- down of machines Nos. 2 and 3 did not entail the layoff of all employees comprising of two crews. Some were otherwise reassigned.29 Machine No. 1 continued to operate during the 15-day period between Allison McQuinney's layoff on January 3 and his January 18 recall, and that of Mary McQuinney. Machine No. 2 was re- turned to production on Monday, January 8, and operated during the balance of the pertinent layoff period. Two employees who, on January 3, had worked with Allison McQuinney on machine No. 4 were, on January 8, assigned to machine No. 2. Machines Nos. 3 and 4 again resumed production during the week of January 18.30 On January 3 the supply of boxes and crates was sufficient to fill Respondent's warehouse, a situation caused, in part at least, by weather conditions affecting agricultural demand and a post-Christmas embargo on shipments of fruit.31 Pro- duction season layoffs of several days and extending to as much as 2 weeks have been experienced by Respondent's employee-s. 32 In the event of layoffs necessitated by cessation of operations of a machine or machines, it has been Respondent's practice to layoff the machines' entire crew and, similarly, to recall the crew as an entity when the machine is returned to production.33 4. Company knowledge Evidence above discussed demonstrates Respondent's managerial and supervisory officials had, prior to January 3, general knowledge of its employees efforts to unionize. Moreover I find that Respondent's supervisory officials had specific knowledge of the union activities of Allison McQuinney and Walter Johnson, and were convinced to a point of certitude of the union affinity of the other alleged discriminatees, Mary and Alpha McQuinney and Dorothy Johnson. Thus Foreman Bellflower on December 7 was aware of the December 6 organizational meeting held at the home of Allison McQuinney, and knew its situs. On that day he specifically asked Walter Johnson if he had attended the meeting at "Yanks house" and was told by Johnson that he had. Indeed, Bellflower concedes that he knew of Walter Johnson's union affinity. Thereafter, Allison McQuinney was interro- gated and warned concerning his organizational activities which he admitted. Credited evidence reveals a remarkable awareness on the part of Foreman Bellflower of the identity of those employees attending the December 6 organizational meeting In these circumstances, and in view of the husband and wife status of Allison and Mary McQuinney on the one hand and of Walter and Dorothy Johnson on the other, and Alpha's blood relationship of the former two, I find Respondent's supervisors knew, or were strongly convinced of the union of allegience of each of the five alleged discriminatees.34 5. Allison McQuinney's layoff Allison McQuinney who had been in Respondent's employ for over 8 years is employed as a "header" in the wire-bound department. In addition to this regularly assigned task, until his layoff on January 3, McQuinney spent 11/a or 2 hours after regular working hours Monday through Thursday performing maintenance and cleanup work. In addition, before his January 3 layoff McQuinney had devoted 3 to 5 hours on Saturdays to cleanup tasks. McQuinney was laid off on January 3 when Foreman Bellflower approached him at his place of work at machine No. 4 and informed him that the machine was going to be "shut down " McQuinney indicated "that would be all right" because he had 21 The credited testimony of Mary McQuinney, Mabel Markham, Alpha McQuinney, and Lucille Martin -" The credited testimony of Foreman Bellflower , Mabel Markham, and Lucille Martin. 3O The foregoing is a synthesis of the fragmentary testimony related to this matter. Inconsistencies and contradictions have been weighed and resolved . The testimony of Foreman Bellflower has been carefully considered and compared with the testimony of employees assigned to various machines affected 31 A composite of the undisputed testimony of President Franklin and Allison McQuinney. 82A composite of the undisputed testimony of several witnesses Allison McQuinney testi- fled other post-Christmas production layoffs have lasted "only a period of a couple of weeks." "The credited testimony of Allison McQuinney, Mary McQuinney , and Foreman Bellflower N See Product Engineering and Manufacturing Corp , 133 NLRB 1375. FRANKLIN LUMBER AND BASKET CO. 1247 work to do at home.35 He further inquired as to the duration of the layoff. Bell- flower replied he did not know, it might be for 3 or 4 months or might last until fall. He suggested McQuinney seek other employment. McQuinney returned to the mill on January 8 and there observed working at machine No. 2 which that day had resumed production two employees who on January 3 were working with him on machine No. 4. McQuinney, however, was not recalled to work until January 18. Oral notification to return was given to him 15 or 20 minutes before starting time on January 18. Since his return to work, McQuinney has not, as before, performed overtime cleanup and maintenance tasks on weekdays (this assignment having been given to the nephew of Foreman Bell- flower). However, since March 3, as preceding his layoff, he has performed those tasks on Saturday.36 6. Mary McQuinney's layoff Mary McQuinney has been employed by Respondent for over 7 years. Her principal duty is that of machine operator, but she has performed various duties as a member of machine crews. When she was laid off on January 4, she was assigned to machine No. 2. On January 4, Foreman Bellflower informed the crew members of machine No. 2 he was "going to lay the machine down," and added, "For how long I don't know." Mary McQuinney did not thereafter work until the afternoon of January 18 when she was notified at noon to return. Upon her return on January 18 at 1 p.m. she was assigned to a machine in the hamper department 37 Conclusions Credible record evidence establishes to my satisfaction economic justification for Respondent's decision to curtail production of boxes and crates on January 3 and 4 by shutting down certain of its machines, laying off a portion of its employee comple- ment and reassigning the remaining to other tasks and machines. The question to be resolved is whether in the selection of employees for layoff Respondent was guided by antiunion considerations. I am convinced that insofar as the layoff of Allison and Mary McQuinney are concerned, Respondent was so motivated. Allison McQuinney is an employee of some 8 years standing who before his layoff had been favored with supplemental, overtime work and who during previous prolonged plant layoffs had been assigned to miscellaneous mill tasks until pro- duction again resumed. Commencing on January 3 and thereafter until January 18 he was retained in layoff status, while other employees similarly affected were within a day or two returned to work. Respondent's past practices designed pri- marily, it would seem, to supplement McQuinney's income and alleviate the hard- ships attendant to prolonged layoff bespeak regard for and satisfaction with his services. But, in contradistinction, on January 3 Foreman Bellflower sought obliquely to sever McQuinney's employment permanently and thereafter relegated Allison McQuinney to the group virtually last recalled. Moreover, for a period following his recall. Respondent continued to withhold from him all of his previously assigned overtime tasks and still continues to deny him a part thereof. Of course, absent discriminatory motivation, Respondent was not required to accord McQuinney favored treatment, but occurring against a background of hostility to the Union, and of threats to and admonishment of McQuinney personally for his union activities, the inescapable conclusion is that management's changed attitude toward McQuinney was the byproduct of his prominence in endeavoring to unionize the mill. It was for the dual purpose of visiting retribution upon Allison McQuinney for his union activities and warning its employees of the consequences of unionization that Re- spondent acted. By laying off Allison McQuinney and failing and refusing to recall him for a period of 15 days, Respondent discriminated against him in violation of the Act. In laying off May McQuinney, Respondent departed from past practices in that it did not simultaneously layoff all members of her crew. Nor on January 8 when it reactivated machine No. 2 to which Mary McQuinney had previously been assigned did it conform to past practice by recalling the former crew as an entity. Instead, Bellflower on January 4 fragmentized the crew, and, subsequently, created 85 That McQuinney conveyed to Foreman Bellflower the work "at home" was of an interim and short-term nature is clear from the testimony of both individuals. 30 The credited testimony of Allison McQuinney. 37 The credited testimony of Mary McQuinney. 1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a new one melding it from employees previously assigned to different crews. Thus, the previous operator of machine No. 4 was assigned on January 8 to machine No. 2 in Mary McQuinney's stead. The inference is strong that Bellflower's staffing decisions were tailored to a preconceived plan designed to punish and make an exam- ple of Mary McQuinney as well as her husband Allison at whose home the union advocates had parleyed. On this record the General Counsel established prima facie that the layoff of Mary McQuinney was discriminatory. Respondent's evidence in rebuttal relating merely to a general curtailment of production, lacks specificity, and does not answer why, when many of her coworkers continued to work, Mary McQuinney was singled out for layoff on January 4, and, further, why she was not recalled to serve as operator of machine No. 2 on Monday, January 8 when the machine resumed production. In the circumstances, I conclude and find that Re- spondent's motive was an illegal one, and I further find that the General Counsel has shown by the preponderance of the credible evidence that the January 4 layoff -of Mary McQuinney was discriminatorily motivated and in violation of the Act. 7. The termination of Alpha McQuinney Alpha McQuinney was initially employed by the Respondent late in 1959. During the term of his employment with Respondent which ended on January 4, McQuinney had been laid off on several occasions and had been employed for a period of some 4 or 5 months by another company. On January 4, Foreman Bellflower informed Alpha McQuinney that machine No. 3 to which he was assigned was being shut down. Bellflower informed the crew members that they "would be laid off" until they were needed, at which time they would be called back.38 The following day, January 5, Alpha McQuinney accompanied by employee John Herbert Wilkerson who on January 4 had also been laid off returned to the main office to pick up their paychecks. In the office were Foreman Bellflower and John Barr, Respondent's secretary and treasurer who handed the two employees their checks. Bellflower at this point said "You all be in Monday because we are going to start up a machine . at that time." Secretary John Barr interjected a comment and Bellflower said "I was talking to John Herbert." 39 Alpha McQuinney has n- t been recalled by Respondent. On January 8 the Monday following his layoff Alpha as well as John Herbert Wilkerson were working for a firm that had previously employed Alpha for a 4- or 5-month period. Alpha did not report to work with Respondent on January 8 nor has Respondent since contacted Alpha offering him employment.40 Conclusions I am unable to conclude that the General Counsel established by the requisite preponderance of the evidence that the January 4 layoff and subsequent failure to recall Alpha McQuinney was discriminatory. Rather, I am convinced that Alpha saw fit to disregard Bellflower's instruction to return to work on January 8 and took other work with a company that had previously employed him. Alpha, a young man of 21 years, impressed me as an individual not particularly concerned with his plight. His layoff on January 4 was not his first, and it was intended by Bellflower to be of short duration. Thus Alpha, as well as John Wilkerson were told within a day of their respective layoffs to report to work on Monday, January 8. While there is some conflict as to the interpretation and scope to be given Bellflower's remarks, Wilkerson credibly testified Bellflower's instructions were not directed to him alone, and I am convinced that this is so and that Alpha understood this. For reasons of his own he chose to disregard Bellflower's instruction. Concomitantly, Respondent, for its part, did not repeat instructions once issued but ignored. Having so soon after laying off Alpha McQuinney solicited his return to work, strained indeed would be the conclusion that Bellflower had initially acted with animus toward him. The record evidence does not preponderate in favor of the complaint' s allega- tion on this issue and I shall recommend that the allegation be dismissed. 39 The undisputed, credited testimony of Alpha McQuinney 20 The testimony of John Herbert Wilkerson which I credit Wilkerson. In addition to being a disinterested witness, impressed me as a truthful and candid one whose recollec- tion of the events was more keen and accurate than that of the other participants His testimony corroborates in essential respects credible testimony of Foreman Bellflower. I do not credit the conflicting testimony of Alpha McQuinney or John Barr. 40 The undisputed, credited testimony of Alpha McQuinney and John Wilkerson. FRANKLIN LUMBER AND BASKET CO. 1249 8. The alleged discharge of Walter and Dorothy Johnson Walter Johnson was initially employed by Respondent in November 1958. On January 3, the day of his alleged discharge, he was assigned to the task of repairing "cull" boxes in the wire-bound department. Dorothy Johnson, his wife, had been in Respondent's employ since the summer of 1958. She was assigned to machine No. 3 on January 3, the day of her alleged discriminatory discharge. In addition to attending both union meetings at the McQuinney home, Walter Johnson on two other occasions rode with Union Representative Carlton in the latter's automobile and solicited employee signatures41 On the morning of January 3, as the day's production was commencing, Foreman Bellflower approached Walter Johnson at his repair bench in the wire-bound depart- ment and asked Johnson if his wile, Dorothy, were at work. Johnson answered "Well, hell yes, she is right back yonder." The incident was further described by Johnson as follows- "He told me right quick not to get smart with him, he would send me home and I told him if he wanted to do that to go ahead, it was up to him." That the exchange which ensued at Johnson's workbench was animated, angered, and of greater duration than would be inferred from the testimony of the only two participants (Johnson and Bellflower) is apparent from credited testimony of Dorothy Johnson and Lucille Martin, the wife and mother-in-law, respectively, of Walter Johnson, who observed the incident from a distance but were unable over the din of the machinery to hear what was said. From Johnson's workbench, Bellflower and Johnson traversed some distance out- side of the mill arguing as they walked.42 At this juncture, Lucille Martin, who had left her work station at the mill caught up with Bellflower and Johnson and after asking them what was wrong the following occurred as credibly described by Lucille Martin: Boy [Bellflower] said, "Well, Buddy's been raising and cussing at me and l got tired of it and I want to send him home." And I said, "That is not anything, I heard you cuss and raise sand before," and he said, "Well, you go with him then." I said, "All right, I will go with him," and I told Buddy to go to my husband and get the car keys and to get Dorothy and that we would go home. Boy said, "No, I didn't mean it that way, I was just mad and just wasn't thinking what I said." I said-he said, "I didn't mean for you to quit," I said, "Well, what did you tell me to go for?" He said, "Well, I was just upset," he said, "Let's go back up there and talk to Roland." He said, "I think he can help us straighten it out." Bellflower, Walter Johnson, and Lucille Martin went back to a point in front of the mill where they met Ronald Martin, husband of Lucille and father-in-law of Walter Johnson Ronald Martin inquired "what the trouble was " Some manner of explanation was given him although the testimony of the participants shed no light on the substance. Bellflower, at this point, disavowed any intention of dis- charging either Walter Johnson or Lucille Martin and Ronald Martin instructed his wife, Lucille, to "Go back in there and go to work and behave yourself." Lucille Martin did so but Walter Johnson asserted "hell, no, I have something to do about that" and went into the mill to where his wife, Dorothy, was working 43 Walter Johnson told Dorothy that Bellflower had told him to get her and for them to get their "money at the office and go home " 44 Bellflower, Walter and Dorothy John- son went to the office where Walter and Dorothy were paid for 1 hour's work 45 The following day, January 4, Walter Johnson returned to Respondent's premises with Allison McQuinney. They met Superintendent Raughley and Johnson asked 91 The credited testimony of Walter and Dorothy Johnson, respectively "Walter Johnson could not recall the substance of this phase of the argument and Foreman Bellflower was not interrogated concerning it. The distance was variously described as from 20 to 70 feet The credited testimony of Foreman Bellflower. Lucille Martin testified she did not recall what transpired at this juncture and Walter Johnson likewise disclaimed a det^iled recollection of this phase of the incident. In any event his testimony about this crit.cal aspect of the episode impressed me as being purposely sketchy. 11 The uncontradicted testimony of Dorothy Johnson. 15 The credited testimony of Foreman Bellflower. 1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Raughley "about his job at the mill." Raughley expressed the opinion that he had quit and Johnson denied that he had. At this point Bellflower approached and Raughley asked Bellflower if Johnson had "quit his job." Bellflower said that he had and upon being disputed by Johnson said further, "Well, let's go over to the wire bound building where we will have to have a witness to prove what went on." They went over to the mill building where Bellflower asked Roland and Lucille Martin "didn't I tell Dorothy and Buddy to behave themselves and go back to work." Lucille Martin answered, "I'm not sure, I didn't hear him"; Ronald Martin answered, "Something like that." 46 Johnson thereupon left the company premises and has not since been employed by Respondent. Conclusions The testimony concerning events essentially contemporaneous to the alleged dis- charge of Walter and Dorothy Johnson is sharply conflicting, a condition finding explanation in the emotion and anger that accompanied the events. But spontaneous anger and emotion appear to have been the precursor of both terminations; pre- meditation was not a factor. Thus employee Walter Johnson sensing a trace of irritability or anger in the tone of Foreman Bellflower's inquiry concerning the presence of his wife, responded sharply to his supervisor in a manner bordering on insubordination. Foreman Bellflower, had for some 2 weeks or more been sensitive to the undertones of opposition and beratement directed against him in his official supervisory capacity as manifest by his conversation on this subject with Walter Johnson and John Wilkerson, as well as by the incident with Allison McQuinney in the office of President Franklin. In reaction to Johnson's sharp retort to his wholly proper inquiry, Bellflower was moved to issue a stern warning to Johnson concerning the consequences of his improper attitude. Unrepentant, Walter John- son, participated in a verbal exchange with his superior for a considerable distance outside the mill. Interception by Lucille Martin ultimately caused Foreman Bell- flower to reflect and to proffer employee Johnson an opportunity to return to his post. Johnson a young man, chose, impulsively I am convinced, rather, to assert his independence by leaving his job, and directing his wife to do likewise. I conclude and find that Foreman Bellflower did not intentionally foment an incident to serve as a cloak for the discriminatory discharge of Walter Johnson. Rather, I am convinced that Bellflower's initial inquiry of Johnson was proper and well intentioned and that Walter Johnson's own recalcitrant behavior and not his union activities led to his own termination and that of his wife. Nor is the evidence sufficient to establish that either Foreman Bellflower or Super- intendent Raughley were motivated by union animus in refusing to rehire Walter Johnson and his wife Dorothy on January 4. Bellflower felt strongly that Walter and Dorothy Johnson's termination had been voluntary and sought, significantly, to support his view to Raughley through Dorothy Johnson's parents, Lucille and Ronald Martin. This willingness demonstrates Bellflower's firm belief in the cor- rectness of his interpretation of the previous day's incident. Moreover, in the attendant circumstances, including Johnson's defiant, insubordinate attitude and his anger-inspired voluntary termination, Bellflower's reasons for not offering the Johnsons reinstatement were, I am convinced and find, based solely on nondis- criminatory grounds. Superintendent Raughley's understandable reluctance to dilute his foremen's prerogatives in this matter is patent. That Walter Johnson had twice voluntarily terminated his employment and had twice been rehired is not persuasive in the instant context to show disparity of action for there is no similarity of cir- cumstances. I conclude and find that the General Counsel had failed to establish by the pre- ponderance of the credible evidence that the termination of Walter and Dorothy Johnson was discriminatory. Accordingly, I shall recommend those allegations of the complaint be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the 4° The credited testimony of Superintendent Raughley. I do not credit Walter Johnson's version. FRANKLIN LUMBER AND BASKET CO. 1251 several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, 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 the Respondent on January 3 and 4, 1962, discriminated in regard to the tenure of employment of Allison McQuinney and Mary McQuinney, respectively, it will be recommended that these employees be made whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent 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 is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discriminatorily laying off Allison McQuinney and Mary McQuinney on January 3 and 4, 1962, respectively, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by terminating the employment of Alpha McQuinney, Walter Johnson, and Dorothy Johnson. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recom- mend that Franklin Lumber and Basket Co., Micanopy, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, or in any other labor organization of its employees by laying off or in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership or activities. (c) Threatening employees with discharge or loss of employment benefits for signing union cards or engaging in union activities. (d) Creating the impression of surveillance of union meetings and other employee organizational activity. (e) Soliciting withdrawal of union membership. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative actions: (a) Make Allison and Mary McQuinney whole for any loss of pay they suffered as a result of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy." 47 (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- 47 The General Counsel urges that the backpay award provide for the payment of Interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum I make no recommendation to this effect as this Is a policy consideration for the Board alone to determine. 672010-03-vol. 139-80 1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its plant at Micanopy, Florida, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 48 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and thereafter continuously maintained by it until said notice shall have been posted for 60 consecutive days while Respondent's business is in full operation. Said notices shall be posted 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. (d) Notify the said Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.49 93 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De- cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order " 41 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 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 Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, or any other labor organization of our employees, by laying off or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT threaten or interrogate our employees concerning their union activities or other concerted activities, or solicit withdrawal from union membership. WE WILL NOT create the impression of surveillance of union meetings or other concerted activity in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL make Allison McQuinney and Mary McQuinney whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of their discharge or layoff All of our employees are free to become or remain, and to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. FRANKLIN LUMBER AND BASKET CO, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Twelfth Region, Ross Building, 112 East Cass Street, Tampa 2, Florida, Telephone Number, 223-4623 if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.