Pascagoula Veneer Co.

1136 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pascagoula Veneer Company and District 50, United Mine Work- ers of America. Case No. 15-CA-2380. November 30, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On July 28, 1964, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and the Respondent filed 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 Fanning and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, con- clusions, and recommendations.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts, as its Order, the Order recom- mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 1 Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent was aware of Nettles' union activities The record, however, amply supports this finding Thus, Nettles' testimony, credited by the Trial Examiner, revealed that lie had attended four union meetings before his discharge , solicited union authorizations both at the plant and at union meetings, and that he was one of a number of employees who carried their union cards "openly in our shirt pocket so everyone could see them." Respondent also excepts to the Trial Examiner 's reliance on an admission purportedly made to Foreman White by Foreman Bardwell to the effect that Bardwell had attempted to di'.co' ei which employees attended a union meeting Foreman White, however, testified only that Foreman Walton admitted that Walton and "some of the other supervisors went by the hall to see whose car they could see there " Employee Terry testified that he saw Bardwell drive slowly past the hall during the union meeting In affirming the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Nettles was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3), we do not rely on any illegal surveillance undertaken by Bardwell. In affirming the conclusion that Roberson was discharged in violation of Section 8(a) (3), we rely on White' s testi- mony that Walton-not Bardwell as stated by the Trial Examiner-told White that Walton and other supervisors had engaged in surveillance of a union meeting attended by Roberson, and Roberson 's credited testimony that Bardwell asked him if it was true that lie was with the Union, as establishing Respondent 's knowledge of Roberson 's union activities. 149 NLRB No. 113. PASCAGOULA VENEER COMPANY 1137 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an original and five amended charges filed by the above named labor organi- zation on various dates between October 31 , 1963, and March 5, 1964, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on April 6, 1964, issued his complaint and notice of hearing . Thereafter the above -named Respondent filed an answer dated April 9, 1964. The complaint alleges and the answer denies that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Pascagoula, Mississippi , on June 2 and 3, 1964, before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore. At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues , to argue orally, and to file briefs Briefs have been received from General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon the record thus made , and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Pascagoula Veneer Company is a Delaware corporation with principal office and place of business in Pascagoula, Mississippi , where it is engaged in the manufacture of wood veneers and plywood. During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint, it purchased raw materials consisting of logs, glue, paper, and parts valued at more than $ 100,000 which were shipped directly to the Respondent's plant from points outside the State of Mississippi . During the same period it sold and shipped products valued at more than $100,000 directly to points outside the State of Mississippi. The complaint alleges and it is here found that the Respondent is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE CHARGING UNION District 50, United Mine Workers of America, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Setting and major issues The chief issues in this case arise from the sudden discharge of seven employees within a 2-week period beginning October 29 , 1963, shortly after the beginning of an organizational campaign at the plant. General Counsel contends that these dismissals were unlawful and for the purpose of discouraging union membership and activity. This contention the Respondent denies and , affirmatively, claims that such action was for good cause. That the Respondent's top management quickly became aware of the movement among its employees and took vigorous measures to prevent its continuation is well established, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner , by the following text of a speech admittedly made by the Respondent's president, M. Pick, to all employees on Octo- ber 30: I want to talk to you about these cards, or pieces of paper, that you are being asked to sign by people trying to get hooked into a Union. I want to warn you about the people asking you to sign these cards. They tell you they can get you more money and are making other foolish promises. They can't guarantee to get you anything but a lot of trouble . These promises are just sales talk to get you hooked. We have had trouble in this plant with Unions before.. A number of years ago our employees were talked into voting for a union. After that Union was voted in, the Union pulled a strike and there was a lot of fighting , a lot of damage done to cars, and people were hurt. We wouldn't want to see that happen again, and I don't think you want to either. Even though they pulled that strike we never reached an agreement with that Union, and we never did sign a contract . The Union never did one thing for our employees, and it didn't fulfill a single promise it made. 770-076-65-vol. 149-73 1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD You don't have to sign these cards. There is no reason in the world for you to sign them. If the Union is going to do anything for you, let them do it first and you can see what they have done before signing. This is one of the pieces of paper they have been asking our people to sign. This is just the same as a blank check. It authorizes us to deduct your money from your paycheck and to pay it to the Union. It says here that you agree that all regulations and Edicts of the Union are binding on you. Do you know what an Edict is? It is an order from a Union Boss. You are agreeing to follow the orders of some Union Boss whether you want to or not and whether it is good for you or not. You don't even know who these Union bosses are. You don't know where their home office is, and I can tell you it is over a thousand miles from here. On top of this when you sign one of these papers you are committing yourself to pay out money that we will have to deduct from your paycheck whether you want it deducted or not. And, there is no limit on this. All the Union has to say is to deduct more, and we have to do it because you have signed allowing them to do this to you. Today several employees came to us and showed us these cards and told us these people were coming to their homes with these cards. This is the United Mine Workers. Do you work in a mine? What are these people doing in a wood plant? What do they know about your work, or your problems? One thing they do know is that your money is just as green as the money they get from the Mine Workers They don't care whether they can help you. All they care about is how much they can get out of your pockets. The proof of what I am telling you is this piece of paper they want you to sign. They make you promises they cannot keep and want you to put your name on this paper allowing them to take your money Just let me give you a good piece of advice and please listen carefully. This Union has paid people in this plant hard cash to sell out their fellow workers by getting them hooked with their name signed to these papers or cards like this. So when a stranger comes knocking on your door, or when someone working in this plant tries to talk you into signing one of these, or anything else, you tell them to go jump into the Log Pond! These people are being paid to sell you out. Just remember Union trouble in this plant has cost people their jobs before, and it could cost you your job. Signing your name to this little piece of paper could cost you a lot of money, a lot of trouble, and also your job. Don't be fooled and don't be trapped by all of the talk If you have any questions, or anything on your mind, please talk to your Supervisor, or to me. We don't want these Unions in this plant, and we are going to do every legal thing in our power to keep them out of here. Pick's blunt warning: "Just remember union trouble in this plant has cost people their jobs before, and it could cost you your job," may hardly be considered oral encouragement to employees to exercise their statutory right to select their own bar- gaining representative to deal with their employer. Pick, who made the above-quoted speech to the employees, was not called as a witness by the Respondent and, so far as this record shows, it was neither composed nor delivered to meet any derogatory union material, but only the union's membership authorization card. Also revelatory of top management's concern with implementing Pick's blunt antiunion warnings, is the credible testimony of Charles White, formerly a foreman for the Respondent but who resigned in March 1964. As a witness called by General Counsel, White testified that he was given instructions by W B. Hankins, the plant superintendent, to "listen and see if you can hear any discussions among the employees and question them, ask them if they know anything about the union activity in the plant." Hankins also told him, White said, "If we thought any of them were affiliated with the Union to fire them." About a week after giving such instructions, however, Hankins rescinded these instructions.' 1 As a witness, Hankins denied only that he had ever given instructions to "super- visors to fire employees if they thought the employees were for the Union " The denial is not credited. PASCAGOULA VENEER COMPANY 1139 And demonstrative of the fact that management did not limit its concern about union activities to the plant premises is White's undisputed testimony to the effect that his superior, First Shift Foreman Walton, told him that he and other supervisors had gone by a certain meeting hall, where union circulars had announced a meeting was to be held, to "see if they could see any of the employees' automobiles there." B. The discharges 1. James Evans Evans had been employed by the Respondent for more than 4 years when suddenly discharged on October 29 by Foreman Walton, although the employee was not at the time working on Walton's day shift. Walton has previously been identified as the su- pervisor so concerned by the organizing campaign that he told White, foreman of the second shift, that he had gone by the union meeting place to identify employees' cars. Evans was one of the most active employees seeking self-organization at the plant. The two earliest meetings, on October 17 and 24, were held at his home. And he obtained signatures to many union cards, copies of which had reached President Pick's hands, according to the claim in his speech delivered the day before (but on its face showing preparation on the day of) Evans' dismissal. About the time the first meeting was held in Evans' home, according to the credible testimony of former Foreman White, he was told by Walton and Superintendent Hankins that they believed Evans was active in the Union, and the superintendent said he wanted him fired. Thereafter Hankins told White, on whose shift Evans was work- ing, that if he did not dismiss the employee Pick himself would come out and do so.2 A few days before the discharge Foreman White told Evans that someone had told Walton and Hankins about the meetings at his home, and warned him that if he was engaged in such union activity he had better be careful. While working his shift during the evening of October 28 Evans was called aside by White, who told him that: (1) Walton had directed him to lay him off, but that he had declined to do so for no reason at all, and (2) Walton had finally instructed him to have Evans report to him at the beginning of the day shift the next morning. As thus instructed, Evans came in the next morning. While waiting for Walton to show up, some three or four fellow employees approached Evans to inquire what was happening, apparently since he was known as a second-shift employee. Walton came in, saw him talking to the employees, took him to the office, and gave him his final pay, which had already been made up for him. According to Walton, he fired Evans because he "was not doing his work and bothering other employees and keeping other employees from doing their work." It also appears, from his testimony, that he would have it believed that the immediate cause for his action was his having seen Evans, the evening before his discharge, talk- ing to "four or five men" and that upon this he "turned to White" and ordered him to have Evans report to him the next morning. Walton's account is implausible on its face. If, as he claimed, he observed Evans not performing his work the evening before the discharge, and since his own testimony makes it plain that he was White's superior, then there is no explanation in the record as to why, being on the spot, he did not immediately fire Evans, or at least tell him to get to work. It would appear that he was either inefficient as a foreman or untrust- worthy as a witness. The Trial Examiner places no reliance upon purported "warning slips" from which he or the Respondent's counsel read during his examination, tending to show that in the past 4 weeks he had warned Evans for talking to others. These slips are not in evidence, nor were they offered, and the question of their validity rests solely upon Walton's testimony, which in other respects the Trial Examiner has found unreliable. In short, the Trial Examiner finds no merit in the Respondent' s claim as to the reason for Evans' discharge. It is concluded and found that this employee was fired to discourage union member- ship and activity, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2 Having observed Hankins and Walton during their testimony, the Trial Examiner cannot accept their contradictions of White's testimony on this point. Pick's vigorous and vitriolic speech against the Union and those "people asking you to sign these cards" provided a plausible setting for implementation by his subordinates. 1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. J. B. Terry Terry had been employed for about 10 months as a forklift operator when summar- ily dismissed by H. T. Bardwell, foreman of the drying department, on November 2. Both Terry and Nettles, whose discharge the same day is discussed in the next subsection, were active in the union organizing campaign, visiting employees at their homes on Sundays to get cards signed. It is reasonably inferred that such activity, and the identity of those involved, became known to management, since as quoted above President Pick in his speech of October 30 referred to "these people (who) were coming to their homes with these cards." And a day or two before the discharge Terry carried openly in his shirt pocket a yellow union card, similar to the one Pick had displayed to employees during his speech. Contrary to Bardwell's denial, the Trial Examiner specifically finds that this foreman had observed the open display of the union card and was fully aware of Terry's union activity. Terry was fired during the afternoon of November 2, Bardwell claiming that he had failed to place a separating piece of lumber between successive loads of veneer placed by his forklift. Terry disclaimed that the load in question had been placed there by him, and pointed to the attached ticket which upon its face showed that it had been "run" by the second, or preceding, shift. According to Terry's credible testimony, Bardwell was shown the ticket, whereupon he, in effect, agreed with the employee, but said it "was his job or mine," and that he had been instructed by Hankins to let him go. The Trial Examiner can believe no part of Bardwell's testimony where not supported by credible evidence. Bardwell is no longer a foreman for the Respondent, but operates his own business near the plant-a business which relies upon the Respondent for plywood supplies. Bardwell claimed that Terry had been "guilty" of "putting loads down improperly . . . continuously, the whole time he was there," for nearly a year. So extravagant a claim is implausible on its face As to the specific load at the time of the discharge, Bardwell at first flatly denied that Terry had disclaimed the "stack" as his own. Later in his testimony, however, he admitted that he did check the ticket when Terry asked him to, which would have been wholly unnecessary had he actually, as he insisted, stood there and watched the employee "setting it down." In short, the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that Terry was not responsible for the "load" in question, but that he was unjustifiably accused of it, in an attempt to provide a pretext for discharging him. It is concluded and found that the real reason for the dismissal was the Respondent's design, openly expressed in Pick's speech, to discourage union membership and activity, and that such unlawful discrimination interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act. 3. W. O. Nettles Nettles had been continuously employed by the Respondent for about 11/2 years when Bardwell suddenly discharged him the same day he fired Terry. As noted, Terry and Nettles actively participated in the union campaign. For reasons already set forth, in the subsection above, the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that management became aware of such campaign participation. On November 2 Bardwell came to Nettles, according to the latter's credible testi- mony, told him he had "bad news" for him, and that Hankins had instructed him to "let him go" because his "loads are not being checked right." When the employee protested that he had only been following the foreman's instructions, Bardwell admitted to him that his work suited him, and "he was hard to please," but added that "it is either you or me" and that he "didn't know what in hell is wrong with the." As in the case of his claims against Terry, Bardwell's contentions concerning Nettles were so general and so obviously exaggerated as to defy belief. His testimony to the effect that for a month and a half the employee had failed to measure loads correctly is incredible on its face. His claim that the second-shift foreman, Rogers, "complained just about the whole time he (Nettles) was on the job" has-no support from Rogers himself. And it appears that in May 1964, after issuance of the com- plaint, Nettles and others were given an opportunity to return to work. Nettles accepted the offer, and so far as the record shows he has been working under Rogers ever since then without complaint. The Trial Examiner finds no merit in Bardwell's claimed reason for dismissing the employee. On the contrary, the preponderance of credible evidence supports the PASCAGOULA VENEER COMPANY 1141 conclusion, here made, that Nettles, like Terry, was discharged to discourage union membership and activity, and that by such discrimination the Respondent has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their lawful rights.3 4. Douglas Sellers On November 4, 2 days after Terry and Nettles were unlawfully discharged, Bard- well also dismissed two other employees: Sellers and Patterson. Sellers had been working more than 3 years for the Respondent when fired, appar- ently with a clear record of dependability as an employee. At least the Respondent brought forward no credible evidence of past derelictions, and at the time of the hear- ing he was working for Bardwell, at the latter's plant, and it seems hardly likely that this former foreman would have hired an employee known to him to be undependable. Sellers, before his summary dismissal, had been an active participant in the union campaign, getting cards signed both at the plant and at employees' homes. During the last few days of his employment, he carried his union card visibly in his pocket. For reasons previously set forth, the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that management was well aware of his union activities. He was fired Monday morning, November 4, by Bardwell, who told him the action was taken because he had failed to clean a certain machine the preceding morning, a Sunday, and had falsified his timecard that day. The circumstances, briefly described, are as follows. While the plant was down on Sunday, and as had been the custom, Sellers was assigned the task of coming in to clearn certain machines. There is no dispute as to the fact that he did come to the plant as usual. There is dispute, however, as to whether he actually performed his assigned task, and as to how long he remained at the plant that morning. Having found both Hankins and Bardwell to be untrustworthy as witnesses, the Trial Exam- iner does not believe their claim that the employee failed to perform his task. Nor does he credit the testimony of another foreman, Golson, who also said Sellers did not clean certain machines. As a witness Bardwell also claimed that at 7:30 that Sunday morning Sellers came by his home and reported having finished his work, and that on Monday morning he found Sellers' card marked as indicating that he worked from 7 to 8 30 on Sunday. Sellers admitted that he had marked his own card-since the electric timeclock was not operating-a fact as to which there is no dispute-but he insisted that he had worked the full hour and a half shown on the card. The Trial Examiner has serious doubt that an employee with a long and clear record would be so naive as to go to his foreman's home and report his work finished during the period he had just put on his timecard as being at work. Nor would Bardwell reasonably have hired a man whom he knew would so falsify his card. As previously noted, Bardwell's willingness to color his testimony to benefit the Respondent finds plausible explanation in the fact that the Respondent now supplies materials necessary for the success of his present business. In summary, the Trial Examiner finds no merit in the Respondent's claim as to the reasons for Sellers' discharge. It is concluded and found that this employee, as in the cases of others previously described, was discharged to discourage union memberhip and activities, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. 5. Austeen Patterson Patterson was also an employee of long service with the Respondent, having worked there since 1958, when discharged on November 4 He attended a union meeting a few days before his dismissal, and sought signatures to union cards. In view of management's efforts to discover the identity of union adherents, as previously described, the Trial Examiner infers that it became aware of Patterson's activities. The incident upon which Bardwell seized as a pretext to discharge Patterson is minor. It is undisputed that on Saturday Patterson was approached by his foreman and told "they" were "going to ask me or Douglas (Sellers) to transfer" from the day to 3 Supporting this conclusion is the credible testimony of former Foreman White, to the effect that the day Terry and Nettles were discharged Bardwell told him that he had just fired "two today for associating with the Union " As previously noted, Bardwell did not deny telling the same foreman that he had tried to ascertain which employees were attending a union meeting. 1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the night shift. There is no credible evidence that he was either definitely assigned to the night shift, then or at any other time. He reported for work the following Monday morning and was met by Bardwell who told him he was being "let go" because "you didn't want to take the night shift." Despite his protest that while he did not want to change shifts he had no refused Bardwell discharged him. Sellers also, it has been found, was discharged by Bardwell the same morning, upon a similarly unfounded pretext. It thus appears reasonable to believe that management was less concerned with transferring either Sellers or Patterson to another shift, or of retaining employees of long and satisfactory service on any shift, that it was in ridding the plant of known union adherents. The preponderance of credible evidence, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, sustains the complaint's allegation that Patterson was discharged on November 4 to discourage union membership and activity, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. 6. D. L. Roberson Roberson was hired in August 1963 and until shortly before his discharge on November 12 worked on the second shift under Foreman Rogers. He attended the union meeting at the hall where, as previously found, Bardwell told White he had gone to identify employees' cars, and solicited signatures to union cards. It is found that management was well aware of, or at least suspected, his union adherence and activity. It is undisputed that Foreman Rogers asked him if he had been "contacted" by the Union and warned him to "let them alone." According to the employee's credible testimony, a few days after he had asked Bardwell to transfer him to the first shift, that foreman came to him, asked if it was true he was with the Union, and warned him that if so he would lay him off.4 After some delay, following his request, Roberson was transferred to the first shift shortly before his discharge. And it appears that just before November 12 a new machine was installed. Roberson was dismissed. Bardwell's claim that he laid Roberson off in a reduction of force because he was the "junior" or "newest" man, is nullified by his later testimony. He not only finally admitted that the Company had no seniority policy, but also that an employee with less seniority than Roberson was kept. In short, the Trial Examiner finds no merit in the Respondent's claim as to the reason for the layoff of Roberson. It is concluded and found that this employee was discharged to discourage union membership and activity, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. 7. Calvin McNeil This employee had worked for the Respondent 31/2 years when discharged on October 31 by Foreman Pitts. McNeil was active in the union campaign, attending union meetings and soliciting signatures upon union cards at the plant during the lunch hour. In view of earlier findings concerning management's efforts to identify union adherents, the Trial Examier is convinced and finds that it became aware of McNeil's participation. Credible testimony establishes that McNeil became ill on Sunday night, October 27, and that the following morning his wife called the foreman and reported his illness-a fact admitted by Pitts. McNeil remained under his doctor's care for 3 days and came to work Thursday morning, October 31, but was summarily fired. According to Pitts, McNeil's wife assured him on Monday that her husband would be at work on Tuesday, and that when he did not show up that day he "pulled" his card. The Trial Examiner does not believe that McNeil's wife promised that her husband would report Tuesday, since he was then under a doctor's care. Pitts' claim that he fired McNeil for "not keeping up his work" and because "over a period of time he laid out regularly" is unsupported by any company records, and is implausible in the context of his long service with the Company. Pitts' admission that on "Tuesday afternoon . . . I pulled his card and turned it over into the office to pay in full" leads to the conclusion that he had no intention of giving the employee an opportunity to explain the necessity for his absence, but had resolved to use it as a pretext for ridding the plant of a known union adherent. It is therefore concluded and found that McNeil was discharged to discourage union membership and activity, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. is not credited 4 For reasons previously noted, Bardwell's denial as to this incident ^ PASCAGOULA VENEER COMPANY 1143 C. Delay in rehiring W. E. Todd Todd and another employee were discharged on November 11 for fighting. Todd had been an active union worker and his name, but not that of his opponent in the fight, was included among others in a union charge filed on November 18 and duly served upon the Respondent. General Counsel does not contend that the discharge was unlawful. On December 3, according to Todd's credible testimony which in the main is cor- roborated by Foreman Pitts, the employee returned to the plant and asked for his job back, pointing out that the employee fired along with him for fighting had been returned to work. It is uncontradicted that Pitts declined to put him back to work then because of the charges filed with the Board on his behalf. He was eventually reemployed on December 16. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Todd was refused reinstatement from December 3 to 15 because charges on his behalf had been filed under the Act in viola- tion of Section 8 (a) (1) and (4) of the Act. D. Other interference, restraint, and coercion It has been found that each of the eight instances of unlawful discrimination also constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights. It is now found that the following management conduct, described more fully heretofore and relating to the same employees, was also violative of the Act- (1) Foreman White's warning to employee Evans because his superiors believed him active in the Union. (2) Foreman Rogers' interrogation of employee Roberson and his warning to "let them alone." (3) Bardwell's interrogation of the same employee and his warning that he would lay him off if his suspicion was verified. It is also concluded and found, in this context of serious violations of the Act, that the Respondent further interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees by the following: (1) The speech of President Pick on October 30 the entire gist of which was plainly calculated to instill fear of loss of employment, a conclusion finding ample support in the summary and unlawful discharges shortly after the speech. (2) Bardwell's surveillance of a union meeting place, as described by the undis- puted testimony of employees. (3) The Respondent's showing to the assembled employees, in December, a motion picture entitled "A Question of Law and Order," found by the Board in Ideal Baking Company of Tennessee, Inc., 143 NLRB 546, in a context containing no unlawful discharges, as here, to be violative of Section 8(a) (1). (4) Interrogation by Foreman Boyd of employee Hurst as to his knowledge of "union cards going on around here," and as to whether or not he had paid his union fee. (5) Bardwell's interrogation of employee McDonald, shortly after this foreman had unlawfully discharged employees Terry and Sellers, as to whether these two had been "hitting him up" regarding the Union. (6) Foreman Pitts statement to a new employee, Crockett, when hired in Novem- ber, that he would have a job there as long as he did not "fool" with the Union.5 (7) Foreman Golson's warning to employee Wiggins that if he were "with" the boys in the Union he would be fired.s (8) Foreman Walton's interrogation of employees Reeves and Gary, shortly after employee Evans was unlawfully fired, if they were "mixed up" in this. (9) Interrogation by Foreman Boyd of employee Nash as to whether or not he was "for" the Union. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- tion with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, a close, intimate, and substantial relations to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 5 Pitts' denial is not credited. 6 Golson's denial is not credited. As found above in the case of Sellers , Golson was in- volved in giving untrustworthy testimony. 1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. At the ,hearing the parties stipulated that all seven discharged employees had been offered reemployment , some by letter of April 24 and others by letter of May 1, 1964. Since General Counsel appears to make no claim that such offers of reemployment were not made in good faith , backpay ordered herein will be tolled as of the date each of such employees were informed he could return to work, the text of such letters of recall having been read into the records . It will be recommended, however, that each of the seven employees and employee Todd be made whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money he normally would have earned during the period of the discrimina- tion against him, less his net earnings during said period. Such backpay shall be computed in accordance with the Board formula set out in F. W. Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289, and with interest thereon as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Since the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent were of,a nature which violate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating against employees as to tenure of employment to discourage membership in and activity on behalf of the above -named labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 3. By discriminating against an employee as to his rehire because charges under the Act were filed on his behalf, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by 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. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Pascagoula Veneer Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in District 50, United Mine Workers of America, or in any other labor organization of its employees , by discharging, refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Discharging or refusing to rehire or otherwise discriminating against employees because they give testimony or file charges under the Act. (c) Threatening employees with adverse consequences , including job loss, to dis- courage membership in the above -named or any other labor organization. (d) Engaging in surveillance of union meeting places , or interrogating employees as to their union sympathies in a manner violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole the eight employees found herein to have been unlawfully discrim- inated against in the manner set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy." (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- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records , necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under terms of this Recommended Order. ARIEL OFFSET CO., INC. 1145 (c) Post at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 15, shall, alter being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representa- tive, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps it has taken to comply therewith.8 7In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order 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." 8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the 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 Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to conduct our labor relations in compliance with the National Labor Relations Act, we notify you that: WE WILL NOT unlawfully discourage you from being members of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, or any other union. WE WILL NOT in any way discriminate against you because you file charges or give testimony under the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights you have under the National Labor Relations Act to join a union of your own choice or not to engage in union activities. WE WILL give backpay, due them because of our discrimination against them, to the following: James Evans J. B. Terry David Roberson Calvin McNeil Douglas Sellers Willie Todd W. O. Nettles Austeen Patterson PASCAGOULA VENEER COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone No. 529-2411, Extension 6396, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Ariel Offset Co., Inc. and Local 1, Amalgamated Lithographers of America. Case No. 2-CA-9600. November 30, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On September 9, 1964, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 149 NLRB No. 121.