East Tennessee Undergarment Co.

EAST TENNESSEE UNDERGARMENT COMPANY 1129 on a similar occasion,17 we deem it more prudent administrative prac- tice to apply our new 3-year rule at once to the proceedings now before us for decision. Turning now to the instant case and applying the above policy to facts herein, we find that the petition is untimely as it was filed more than 90 days preceding the terminal date of the existing 3-year contract. Accordingly, we find that the contract is a, bar to the instant petition and we shall order the petition dismissed. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 1711. . . in establishing revisions of precedent there is always the likelihood that such revisions will bring about a different result in some pending proceeding than would have obtained under a prior policy or procedure . This is true not only of the case in which such revisions are first announced and applied , but also with respect to any other case which has not yet been decided , because it has not reached the Board 's level or is at one of the other stages of the administrative process such as the hearing . Thus, to adopt these revisions of contract-bar policy and then allow the instant proceeding as an exception without permitting a similar exception to all pending cases would be inequitable . To estab- lish an in futuro rule for all pending cases would create an administrative monstrosity. The judicial practice of applying each pronouncement of a rule or law to the case in which the issue arises and to all pending cases in whatever stage is traditional and, we believe , the wiser course to follow." Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995, 1000-1007 ( 1958 ). See also Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 121 NLRB 990, 994. East Tennessee Undergarment Company 1 and United Textile Workers of America East Tennessee Undergarment Company and District 50, United Mine Workers of America. Cases Nos. 10-CA-1865 and 10-CA- 4915. November 20, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On July 9, 1962, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent 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 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. 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 Inter- 1 The name of the Respondent appears as amended at the hearing . The Recommended !Order and the Notice to All Employees are corrected accordingly. 139 NLRB No. 98. 1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as its own with the following modification : 1. Section 2(a) of the Order shall be supplemented as follows: Backpay to said discriminatees, including payment of interest at 6 percent per annum, shall be computed in accordance with the Board's usual practice and our decision in Isis Pbumbing & Heating Co., 137 NLRB 716.2 2. The penultimate sentence in the "Notice to All Employees" to be changed to read as follows : "This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting ..." instead of stating' "60 days from the date hereof." For the reasons set forth in his dissent in that case, Member Rodgers would not award interest. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by United Textile Workers of America, and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued his consolidated complaints dated March 16, 1962, against East Tennessee Undergarment Co, Inc. (herein called the Respondent). In substance the com- plaints allege that Respondent had engaged in, and was engaging in conduct pro- scribed by Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act (herein called the Act), and that such conduct affected and was affecting commerce as set forth in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent's answer admits many of the facts pleaded in the complaints, but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to appropriate notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner John C. Fischer at Johnson City, Tennessee, on March 26, 1962. All parties were represented at and participated in the hearing, and were afforded the right to present evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to offer oral argument, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and Respondent. Upon the entire record in this case, including the admissions in the answer and the stipulations of the parties, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a Tennessee corporation, with its principal place of business in Elizabethton, Tennessee, is engaged in the manufacture of ladies' underwear. Dur- ing the preceding 12-month period, a typical year, it sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 to its customers outside the State of Tennessee. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Textile Workers of America and District 50, United Mine Workers of America are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. EAST TENNESSEE UNDERGARMENT COMPANY 1131 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Questions The Company, in these two cases, 10-CA-4865 and 10-CA-4915, is, in effect, in the middle of a representation struggle between two unions, the Textile Workers and the Mine Workers. However, the Company is not in the posture of an "innocent bystander." In the first case (4865) the question is whether two letters written by Respondent on November 18 and 27, 1961, to all employees contained a threat to close the plant in the event that both unions were not rejected in the forthcoming representation election. The question in the second case (4915) is whether the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act by penalizing three alleged discriminatees because they responded to a valid Board subpena ad testificandum. Background United Textile Workers of America became the collective-bargaining representa- tive of Respondent's employees in 1956 with a contract through 1959. This con- tract was succeeded by a contract between Respondent and Local 313 and its parent international, United Textile Workers, which ran from March 1, 1959, through February 28, 1962. in the interim, on August 8, 1961, a representation petition in Case No. 10-RC-5044 was filed by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, which petition sought representation of Respondent's production and maintenance workers. A duly conducted Board hearing was held on September 6, 1961, and United Textile Workers intervened in that proceeding. A decision and direction of election was forthcoming from the Regional Director for the Tenth Region dated November 3, 1961, scheduling an election for November 30, 1961. However, on November 27, 1961, the Textile Workers filed an unfair labor practice charge in Case No. 4865 which resulted in blocking the election. Obviously, from the Miners' advent into the case in August and the Regional Director's decision of November 3, friction developed and out of this friction grew the alleged unfair labor practices. Recriminatory communications were sent by both the Mine Workers and Textile Workers to the members. Each communication derogated its opposing union and expatiated its own merits. The record is clear that a bitter struggle resulted between the unions for the prize of representing Respondent's employees. Respondent did not remain aloof as required by the Act, but, as alleged in the Miners case (4915), penalized employees Louise Shatley, Frank Perry, and Carrie DeLoach because they responded to the Board's subpena after being denied per- mission by management to attend such hearing; and, as alleged in Textile Workers case (4865) sent the two letters to the employees containing threats to close the plant. Doubtless in sending the letters, the Respondent was only expressing its views of both unions, Miners and Textile, "a plague on both of your houses," in language used by former President Roosevelt. The Letters The following two letters are the burden of General Counsel's complaint in Case No. 4865. To Our Fellow Employees: Several of you have asked me how I feel about the two unions which are claiming to represent the workers in this plant. Since it is impossible to sit down and discuss this with each of you, I am writing you this letter. I also want you to have the straight answers to some of the rumors that are apparently the work of these unions. We do not think you need a Union of any kind-because 1. UNIONS CAUSE STRIKES AND VIOLENCE-Whenever you have a Union, you can expect strikes and violence. The records prove this-you can see this constantly in newspapers. 2. UNIONS MAKE WORKERS UNHAPPY ABOUT THEIR JOBS- Unions must stir up trouble and make a big show or they can't get members to pay dues. They do this by setting one worker against the other and by trying to get workers to distrust management. Here we have two unions turning worker against worker-and both of them trying to out do the other in prom- ises-and we understand some unions pay "hush" money secretly to officers- or leaders-to get them to talk for them and to spread their propaganda. When workers in a plant are not working together as a team-quality goes bad and costs get out of line. When this happens to a business it either has to close down-and everyone loses their job-or you have to get rid of the cause 1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the trouble-If we can't run our plant profitably , it means no jobs for all of us. 3. UNIONS COST YOU MONEY-Union costs you money in dues-fines and assessments-and lost wages during strikes . That is money out of your pocket that you don't have to pay-you can do as well for yourself-or better- without any Union. Why pay your money for something you can get without paying for it-and even more than a Union can get for you. My door is always open to you-if you have a problem , about your job, or a personal problem. Here is your chance to tell both Unions to leave you alone. If you get rid of both of these Unions , I am sure that we can work together on a personal basis, and with our fellow workers in the plant on any problems that you have concerning your job, production and quality, and you will have a better job and better conditions. This may be our last opportunity to straighten out things in Elizabethton. There are many other towns which are anxious to have our plant where we will not have this Union trouble. We had enough problems with one Union-Now we have two of them. This means double trouble and turmoil . We do not have to stay in business and be worried to death. Let's work together for job security-and get rid of both Unions. Your job is dependent upon this company operating. We are going to make up our minds soon to operate without interference- or close up. There are many other towns which would be pleased to have us open a plant there-and where we could operate without Union trouble. Stick with the Company-and you will do better for yourself. Let's go on to bigger and better things for all of us. Sincerely yours, EAST TENNESSEE UNDERGARMENT COMPANY, INC. (S) AL SILBER, Manager. On or about November 27, 1961 , Respondent mailed the following letter to its employees To Our Fellow Employees: We are delighted with the response to our letter concerning the forthcoming secret labor board election at the East Tennessee Undergarment Company, Inc. A number of you have raised questions which concern all of us, and we believe are vital enough for us to answer . Here are some of the questions you ask, and here are our answers: DO YOU NEED UNION? No, you can get as much in dealing with this Company on a personal basis as you can through some outsider-who knows nothing about the undergarment business . You can do more for yourself on your problems by our working together in an atmosphere of co-operation and friendship. This is the way to build a good job that will mean work for you, and a product which we shall be able to sell. DO I KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE MINERS UNION ? I have never heard of the Miners Union representing workers in an undergarment plant. They had strikes in the coal mines for years, and there was so much trouble and turmoil that today about half of the coal mines are closed down, and thousands of miners are without jobs . We do not believe you want that kind of Union which will make such demands on us that we shall have to close down too when we cannot meet them . We don't believe that you want a Union that knows nothing about a sewing plant and its problems. DO YOU NEED THE TEXTILE UNION? You have tried this Union for some time and it has not satisfied you. Why continue with any Union? While this Union knows more about our industry, it has not been able to organize all the plants like ours, and it continues to insist on money and working con- ditions which make it almost impossible for us to operate at a profit. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF ONE OF THE UNIONS WINS-AND ASKS FOR THINGS IN A CONTRACT WHICH WE CANNOT GIVE? Both Unions are making fantastic promises . If their demands are impossible, we will not be able to agree on a contract . If we cannot agree on a contract, what usually happens is that we shall either have to close the plant or have a strike. If we close the plant, your job will be gone. If we have a strike and cannot produce our goods , then we shall have to go out of business. If we have a strike , and enough of you want to work, then we shall operate without a Union . But we will have had all this trouble to arrive at this result. WHAT SHOULD YOU DO? GIVE THE COMPANY A CHANCE-Vote "Neither" in the Labor Board election . Give us the opportunity to work with EAST TENNESSEE UNDERGARMENT COMPANY 1133 you on a personal basis. Save the money the Mine Workers and Textile Work- ers charge you-put that in your own pocket-We want to run a good plant- you have to have a good job. Vote "Neither" and let's work together without unions for a year. If you are not satisfied, then you can try the Union business again. But, we are sure that once you work without a Union, you will not want to go back to the arguments-fighting-bickering and trouble that the Union means. Let's work together-and you will do better for yourself. Sincerely yours, EAST TENNESSEE UNDERGARMENT COMPANY, INC. (S) Al Silber, AL SILBER. The 8 (a) (1) violations are predicated on the two letters set forth above. Textile Workers Counsel Jacobs made clear that his union considered the Miners Union a raiding union. The internecine warfare between these two unions to get repre- sentation of Respondent's employees as hitherto stated is well documented by the communications introduced in evidence as Respondent 's exhibits. Textile charges Miners as being a "raiding union." Miners answered in kind. The Company was indeed "in the middle," but in its attempt to state its position to its employees it went too far in what it said in the letters-particularly in paragraph 3 of the first letter. After reciting that Silber's door was open to employees to discuss their problems, Respondent importuned employees to get rid of both unions and in effect promised, "You will have a better job and better working conditions." In context with the rest of the letter the Trial Examiner finds this to be a promise of a benefit and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The last three subparagraphs of paragraph 3, taken together, constitute a threat to close up the plant or move to another town where the Company could operate without union trouble. The Trial Examiner finds this letter to be an implicit violation of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act. The second letter, although ameliorative, and legal standing alone, does not undo the damage done by the first. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (4) The complaint, based on the Mine Workers charge (Case No. 10-CA-4915), alleged that Respondent laid off and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate its employees Carrie DeLoach, Frank Perry, and Louise Shatley because of their mem- bership and activities on behalf of the Mine Workers and because they appeared at a Board-conducted representation hearing to give testimony under the Act in response to Board-issued subpenas ad testificandum. As previously indicated, the Mine Workers' efforts to get recognition resulted in a representation hearing being held on September 6, 1961, in Case No. 10-RC-5044 at the city hall in Johnson City, Tennessee. Mine Workers Regional Director Her- man B. Adkins requested of Respondent's Counsel Hampton that three of Respond- ent's employees, Shatley, ?erry, and DeLoach, be excused from work on Septem- ber 6 to attend such hearing. Respondent Counsel Hampton advised Adkins that he wished to consult with Respondent Manager Silber about the request but Adkins heard nothing further. Accordingly, Adkins sent a telegram to Regional Director Rains requesting subpenas for these three employees. The subpenas were received by the Mine Workers on the evening of September 5, and they were immediately served on these persons. About 6:45 a.m. on September 6, Shatley, Perry, and DeLoach presented them- selves to Respondent's Personnel Manager Kramer and asked to get off from work to attend the representation hearing scheduled in Johnson City that day. Upon reading the subpenas which had been handed to him, Supervisor Kramer stated that they could not be let off from work. Nevertheless Shatley, Perry, and DeLoach forthwith left the plant and attended the hearing in Johnson City. Only DeLoach was called to testify, and , even then, Respondent's Counsel Hampton objected to proceeding with the hearing because the three employees had left the plant contrary to express orders not to attend the hearing. Immediately after the close of the hearing Respondent's Supervisor Fondren informed the three employees that they should not report for work until September 11. She told them that they were sus, pended for 2 days, and that the reason for the suspension was that they came to the hearing and did not report to work. Shatley's accepted testimony in this con- nection is: "'Lou, Carrie, Frank,' she says, `You are not to report to work on Thursday and Friday,' and I asked her why, and she said, 'Because you all came over here and didn't work today."' 1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent's Counsel Hampton argued to the Trial Examiner: In connection with the United Mine Workers case, we have also denied this charge in the pleadings, and we wish to point out by way of an opening statement that we certainly had nor have any desire to interfere in any way with the processes of the Board . That this was a matter of the fact that the company was involved in a production schedule. Probably the largest that it had ever had in its history. The employees were necessary and that their request was not made in time in order for the company to make preparations. Production is a continuous line of work and if one person is absent , it disrupts the flow of the work. There was no attempt made to make any arrangements . We certainly would have been happy to have let the employees come singly or at other times. It was simply in the Company 's opinion, absolute disregard for the Company's rules , by coming to the hearing and not coming to work. Those are the matters which we hope to show to Your Honor. To show the context and show the matters surrounding that event. We do admit that the three employees were disciplined two days. They were disciplined Thursday and Friday and they returned to work on Monday. We think that this action in no way discriminated against these employees. They were right back on their jobs, and whatever they had on their nunds before, they still had it on at the time after. The next day, September 7, Respondent sent the following letter to each of the discriminatees: You refused to work your regular scheduled shift on September 6, 1961 so that you could attend to business for the District 50, United Mine Workers of America. Your request for time off was denied by the Company because the Company needed you to perform your regular duties to meet pressing production re- quirements. You are hereby penalized two (2 ) days (September 7 and 8, 1961 ) without pay. You will report back to work on Monday, September 11th, 1961. Rationale The argument of counsel for the General Counsel, Hise, in his comprehensive brief to the Trial Examiner and sustained by the evidence of record , contains the rationale in this phase of the case which is in accord with the Trial Examiner's concept. The Trial Examiner knows of no instance in Board or court cases in which mere production schedules are valid grounds for refusing to allow em- ployees to appear and answer valid Board subpenas which have been duly served upon them directing them to appear at the hearing . This case is no exception. The following language of General Counsel represents the Trial Examiner 's concept of the rationale and is concurred in by him. The evidence reveals that the Respondent was fully aware that the three discriminatees, Louise Shatley, Frank Perry and Carrie DeLoach had been served with Board subpenas ad testificandum directing that they attend the repre- sentation case hearing before a hearing officer for the purpose of giving testi- mony as a witness for the United Mine Workers Union. First, District 50 Regional Director Adkins had asked attorney Peter Hampton to release the three employees from work. Secondly, Production and Personnel Manager Kramer was handed the subpenas which on their face show that the request for the subpenas was made by District 50 UMWA. Furthermore , in this regard, attorney Hampton admitted at the representation case hearing and at the hear- ing in this case that the three discriminatees did bring papers "described as a subpena" to the Personnel Manager that day, and the Respondent would not allow them permission to attend the hearing . In addition , at the representation case hearing attorney Hampton was shown copies of the subpenas by Union Representative Johnson. Specifically, this incident is referred to in the Decision and Direction of Election issued November 3 , 1961 , footnote 3 in the second paragraph on page 2. Even with the aforesaid knowledge , the Respondent still penalized the three discriminatees. The General Counsel contends that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) and (4) by penalizing the employees served with Board sub- penas and who honored the subpenas by appearing at the Board hearing. Thomas J. Aycock, Jr., an individual d/bla Vita Food, 135 NLRB 1357. EAST TENNESSEE UNDERGARMENT COMPANY 1135 The fact that the three discriminatees were under Board subpenas and, there- fore, were obligated to appear at the hearing as scheduled is controlling. This issue was considered by the Board in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., etc., 128 NLRB 574, 579, including footnotes 4, 5, 6, and 7, wherein the Board held that "the Act and the Rules and Regulations of the Board provide clearly that a person served with a subpena is required to appear and to give testimony pursuant to such subpena. Section 11(1) of the Act empowers the Board or its agent to issue subpenas `requiring the attendance and testimony of a witness."' In the Winn- Dixie Stores, Inc. case, supra, at page 577, footnote 2 therein, it is noted, as in this case, that the subpenas were issued in connection with a Board hearing on a representation petition. Certainly the Respondent's employees have the right to appear and testify at a Board proceeding of any type without fear of being penalized by the Respondent. In Duralite Co., Inc., 128 NLRB 648, 651, the Trial Examiner in his report that was adopted by the Board, states: It is well established that the right of employees to appear and to testify in Board proceedings is a right which is guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. Inherent in the employees' statutory rights is the right to seek their vindication in Board proceedings, and conduct on the part of an employer which interferes with this right constitutes a violation of Section 8 (a) (1). In Case No. 10-CA-4865, Plant Manager Silber admitted that both letters in- volved herein were sent to all employees, but contends that neither letter exceeds the permissible area of free speech. The General Counsel contends that the letter of November 18, 1961, contains a threat to close the plant in the event that both unions were not rejected in the coming election by stating that the present situation may provide the last opportunity to "straighten things out in Elizabethton," that other locations are "anxious" to provide a location for Respondent's plant, that "unions must stir up trouble," two unions "mean double trouble and turmoil," and that Respondent does not "have to stay in business and be worried to death." The Pulaski Rubber Company, 131 NLRB 347, 35'1, 352. The General Counsel also views the statement of the November 18 letter that ". . . if you get rid of both of these unions . . . you will have a better job and better conditions" as a promise of benefit conditioned upon an election loss by both unions. "M" System, Inc., Mobile Homes Division, Mid States Corp., 118 NLRB 502, 503, 510, and 513. With these rationales, under the facts of this case, the Trial Examiner is in ac- cord, and finds that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent East Tennessee Undergarment Company, set forth above, occurring in connection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative and remedial action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that, in accordance with the Board's usual policies, the Respondent Company make Louise Shatley, Frank Perry, and Carrie DeLoach whole for any wage losses incurred as a result of the discrimination against them and reinstate them without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Textile Workers of America and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Louise Shatley, Frank Perry, and Carrie DeLoach , thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By discriminating against Louise Shatley, Frank Perry, and Carrie DeLoach because they appeared at a Board-conducted representation hearing to give testi- mony under the Act in response to Board-issued subpenas ad testificandum, the Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (4) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the record as a whole, it is recommended that East Tennessee Undergarment Company, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discriminating against employees because they appeared at a Board-conducted hearing in response to Board-issued subpenas , to give testimony under the Act. (b) Interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or refrain from join- ing United Textile Workers of America and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa- tives 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 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 employ- ment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to compensate Louise Shatley, Frank Perry, and Carrie DeLoach and reinstate them in their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges , in the manner set forth in section V, "The Remedy," above. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records , social security payment records, timecards , personnel records and reports, and other data necessary to analyze and compute backpay and reinstatement rights required by the Recommended Order. (c) Post at its plant in Elizabethton , Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." i Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia ), shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent Company or its representative, be posted by the Respondent Com- pany immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Company to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region , in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent Company has taken to comply herewith 2 It is further recommended that unless the Respondent Company shall within 20 days from receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order notify said Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply herewith , the Board issue an order requiring the Respondent Company to take the action aforesaid. 1 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 "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " 2In 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 " GULICK DRILLING COMPANY 1137 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 Rela- tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Textile Workers of America and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discharging employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT discriminate against employees because they have filed charges or igiven testimony under the Act. WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or refrain from joining United Textile Workers of America and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac- tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion; or to refrain from any and all such activities, except that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to compensate Louise Shatley, Frank Perry, and Carrie De- Loach fully for 2 days lost while suspended and immediately reinstate them to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and will make them whole for any loss of pay incurred as a result of their suspension. All our employees are free to become, or refrain from becoming, members of the above-named Unions or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. EAST TENNESSEE UNDERGARMENT COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive 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, 528 Peach- tree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta 23, Georgia, Telephone Num- ber, Trinity 6-3311, Extension 53517, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Gulick Drilling Company and Millwrights and Machinery Erec- tors Local Union No. 2834, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.' Case No. 27-RC-2294. November 20, 1962 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before J. Donald Meyer, hearing ' The name of the Petitioner appears as corrected at the hearing. 139 NLRB No. 100.