Kanawha Valley Memorial Vault Co., Inc.

KANAWHA VALLEY MEMORIAL VAULT CO . 289 Kanawha Valley Memorial Vault Co., Inc. and Thomas G. Kinser Kanawha Valley Memorial Vault Co., Inc. and Donald G. Reed. Cases 9-CA-3732-1 and 3732-2. October 21, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On July 15, 1966, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria]. 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 Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed on October 25 and 28, 1965, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 9 (Cincin- nati, Ohio), issued his complaint , dated February 28, 1966, and an amendment dated March 22, 1966, against Kanawha Valley Memorial Vault Co., Inc., herein called the Respondent. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended alleges, in substances , that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging three named employees because of their union sym- pathies and activities. In its duly filed answer, Respondent entered a general denial to all unfair labor practice allegations. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Louis Libbin at Charleston, West Virginia, on April 21, 1966. All parties appeared at the hear- ing, and were given full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to file briefs. Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint, made before the close of the hearing, is hereby denied in accordance with the findings and conclusions hereinafter set forth. The General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs, which I have fully con- sidered. For the reasons hereinafter indicated, I find that Respondent violated Sec- tion 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint. 161 NLRB No. 27. 264-188-67-vol. 161-20 290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record 1 in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, Kanawha Valley Memorial Vault Co., Inc., a West Virginia corpo- ration, maintains a plant in Charleston , West Virginia, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of concrete burial vaults. During the year preceding the issu- ance of the instant complaint , a representative period, Respondent purchased prod- ucts, valued in excess of $50 ,000, which were shipped to Respondent's Charleston plant directly from points outside the State of West Virginia. Upon the above-admitted facts, I find, as Respondent admits in its answer, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find, that Construction and Gen- eral Laborers Local No. 1353, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction; the issues As previously noted, Respondent manufactures concrete burial vaults. Donald Reed, Thomas Kinser, and Franklin Frame were employed by Respondent as labor- ers. Reed and Kinser had been employed continuously since March 1963, and worked mainly inside, making the concrete vaults. Frame had been employed since 1957, the last 5 years continuously, and worked mainly on the outside in connec- tion with funerals and the placement of the vaults in the cemetery. During the first 6 months of 1965, there was considerable discussion among Respondent's employees about organizing a union . After working hours on Friday, July 9 , 1965, Reed and Kinser went to the union hall where they each signed a union application card and were given additional cards to solicit their fellow employees. That evening, they visited employee Frame at his home and successfully solicited him to sign a card. The next day Reed and Frame unsuccessfully solicited other employees at the plant. On the morning of the next workday, Monday, July 12, all three were summoned to the office and summarily discharged. The sole issue litigated in this proceeding is whether the discharge of employees Reed, Kinser, and Frame was discriminatorily motivated in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act? B. The dischargees' union activities Due to dissatisfaction with their wage rate, there was considerable discussion among Respondent's employees about organizing a union during the first 6 months of 1965. Respondent had only 11 employees during that period. Frame had com- plained several times about his wage to Plant Manager Charles Strain and to Robert Withrow, who was in charge of the outside work and was also one of Respondent's stockholders. His requests for a wage increase were denied. On one occasion, he accompanied another employee to ask Strain for a raise for that employee, but that also was denied. Reed, Kinser, and Frame talked to the 1 The word "morally" on line 6, page 192 of the typewritten transcript of testimony is corrected to read "motivated." 2 The factual findings hereinafter set forth are based on credited testimony which for the most part is either undisputed or admitted. In those few Instances where there is a conflict between the testimony of the dischargees and Plant Manager Charles Strain, I have credited the dischargees who impressed me as being candid, straightforward, and trustworthy witnesses worthy of full belief. I did not receive the same Impression from Strain's demeanor on the witness stand. He testified In a very unconvincing manner and impressed me as being more concerned with giving testimony which he regarded as favor- able to Respondent than with relating the facts as he knew them. KANAWHA VALLEY MEMORIAL VAULT CO. 291 men during that period about the possibilities of organizing a union to improve their wages. At one time during that period, one of the employees offered to get some union cards but never made good his offer. About 4 p.m. on Friday, June 9, which was after their regular workday, Reed and Kinser went to the office of the Union where they spoke to a union repre- sentative about organizing Respondent's employees. They then both signed union application cards and took about a dozen others with them. They returned to the plant where they saw one employee in the garage and successfully solicited him to sign a union card. They then visited Frame's home; told Frame what they had done in connection with the Union; and asked Frame if he would like to sign a card. Frame thereupon signed a union application card. Reed and Kinser then visited the home of Daniel Childress, an employer with 18 years' service at Respond- ent's plant. Childress refused to sign a union application card, stating that "Mr. White [Respondent's president] would pull the doors down if you get a union in here." The next day, Saturday, July 10, was a workday. Reed, Kinser, and Frame reported to the plant as usual about 7 30 or 8 a.m. That morning, Frame was upstairs loading vaults. While there, he talked to employees Tyree, Dye, and Dunn for about 15 minutes about the Union. He told them that he had signed a union application card and tried to get get them to sign also. They were reluctant to sign at that time, voicing a preference to wait and see who else was going to sign . During this discussion, Richard Van Natter, who was Withrow's son-in-law, came up and down the elevator frequently. Plant Manager Strain was also at the plant that morning. C. The discharges About 9 or 9:30 a.m. on the very next workday, Monday, July 12, Reed, Kinser, and Frame were summoned to the office where Plant Manager Strain and President White were present. It is undisputed that White only told the three employees that he was sorry to do this but that business was slack and he had to let them go. The men were paid for Friday, Saturday, and Monday, which were the first 3 days of the pay period, and left the plant. They were never recalled; instead Respondent admittedly hired one new employee on July 23 and two addi- tional new employees on July 29.3 D. Respondent's contentions At the instant hearing, Respondent took the position that Reed, Kinser, and Frame were terminated because of their unsatisfactory work, attitude, and conduct and because of the need to cut down expenses due to a drop in business and in collections of outstanding accounts receivable. Respondent further contended that none of its representatives were at that time aware of their union interests and activities. I find no merit in these contentions for the reasons hereinafter indicated. 1. As to their work and conduct With respect to their work, attitude, and conduct, Plant Manager Strain testified that they had been abusive, insubordinate, incompetent, negligent, and were always "bitching" and complaining. He admitted that this situation had existed for a long period of time, anywhere from 7 to 8 months to over a year prior to the dis- charges. Indeed, he testified that he had received complaints about the vaults from undertakers since 1963. Yet, he admitted that at no time had he ever warned them that they might be discharged if they did not change or act differently. On the contrary, when Reed asked for a layoff slip if he could not be transferred to the outside work which he preferred, about 5 or 6 months before the discharges, Strain refused to transfer him or to lay him off. Robert Withrow, who was in charge of the outside work, had never complained to Frame about his work or conduct. And Daniel Childress, an employee of 18 years' standing who worked along with Reed and Kinser and was called as a friendly witness by Respondent, testified that "they'd take spells once in a while and complain. That's about the biggest fault I had with them. But as far as the work, they could do the work." As previously found, the chief basis for any complaints which they may have made 9I do not credit Strain's testimony that the dischargees had told him they did not want to return to work for Respondent. 292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was their dissatisfaction with the wages and a desire for an increase. Moreover, the undisputed evidence shows, as I find, that all the employees in the shop would joke, "cut-up," and tease Strain. Furthermore, shortly after their discharge, Strain offered Reed and Frame a reference if they should need it, thereby demonstrating that he did not regard their work and conduct as objectionable as he sought to portray at the hearing. Indeed, Strain admitted that he gave Frame a "good reference" when he asked for one, and that Reed had never asked for one. Friday morning was the regular payday for the week ending Thursday. Strain, who was in charge of the payroll and made out the checks, testified that when he paid the men on Friday morning, July 9, 1965, he already had the "idea" of dis- charging them and that "I'd just made up my mind all at once I was going to clean it up" because "[ was getting tired of the way" they worked and acted. Yet, it is- significant that he admittedly said, nothing to them nor gave. them- any kind of inkling or warning of an impending discharge when he paid them that Friday morning. Strain further testified that the final decision to discharge them was made at the home of his mother, Mrs. White, on Sunday night, July 11, after discussing the matter with Mr. and Mrs. White and receiving their concurrence. Mrs. White, Respondent's bookkeeper and also a stockholder, testified that that Sunday eve- ning "we talked about discharging the boys" and "we just came to the conclusion that day that we must do it right then" because„ for one reason, "Mr, Strain just got tired of hearing them complain and they weren't taking care of his equipment." Yet, there is no . evidence of any "complaints" by the dischargees about that time nor of any untoward incident in connection with their work or conduct which might be regarded in the. nature of the last straw so as to trigger the discharges. Moreover, Strain admitted that the only reason which President White gave the three employees at the time of the discharge was the need to cut down expenses because of a slack in business. It is significant that President White, who was called as a witness by Respondent, did not testify as to the reasons for the discharges although he was present at the Sunday conference and was the one who actually discharged these men. Furthermore, when Reed visited the plant later that month, Strain told him that "I hated to lay you off but I had to . . . I had someone over top of me." It is clear from all the foregoing, and I find, that Respondent grossly exaggerated the alleged work deficiencies and misconduct of the dischargees and that whatever pecadilloes they may have committed were tolerated until they began to solicit employees to sign union application cards, the only untoward incident which occurred immediately prior to their summary discharge in the middle of a pay period without any prior notice or warning. I reject as being without merit Respond- ent's contention that the discharge of these employees was in any part truly moti- vated by their work and conduct. 2. As to the slack in business and collections Strain and Mrs. White also testified that business had fallen off and that collec- tions of accounts receivable had fallen off to the point that there was only $157 in the bank account as of that Sunday, July 11. That this was not a motivating reason for the discharges is alone established by Strain's admission that regardless of the business and financial situation, he would in any event have dicharged them at that time because of alleged dissatisfaction with their work and conduct. In any event, an examination of Respondent's records in evidence discloses that Respond- ent's sales for each of the months of June and July in 1965, exceeded those for the same months in 1964, and that the July collections in 1965 exceeded those for July 1964. The record discloses no prior layoffs because of a drop in business or collections. Moreover, the retrenchment argument is directly contradicted by Respondent's conduct in hiring three new employees before the end of July and by retaining them despite the fact that sales for each of the next 2 months dropped below that of July. Nor may any significance be attached to the $157 bank balance in view of the fact that the payroll checks had just been issued the preceding Fri- day and Respondent had no way of knowing what its collections would be before the next payroll was due. In any event, no explanation has been offered as to how the discharge of these three employees would solve Respondent's problem of meet- ing the payroll for the remaining eight employees with $157. That Respondent's bank balance was not a motivating factor is demonstrated by the fact' that its KANAWHA VALLEY MEMORIAL VAULT CO . 293 bank balance had dwindled to $115.19 as of July 31, 1965, without Respondent showing any concern or taking any steps to reduce the work force which had already been restored to 11 by 3 recent new hires. For each and all of the foregoing reasons, I reject as being without merit Respondent's contention that the discharges were in any way truly motivated by any alleged drop in business or in collections. 3. As to knowledge of union activities In his brief, counsel for Respondent rests his whole case solely on the assertion that the General Counsel had failed to prove that Respondent' s representatives had knowledge of the dischargees' union activities. Strain and Mr. and Mrs. White denied having any knowledge of any union activities at the plant prior to the discharges. While there is no direct evidence of such knowledge, the circumstantial evidence is such as to warrant an inference to that effect. In the first place, this was a very small plant with a work force of only 11 employees. Plant Manager Strain admitted that the place of business is not too large, and that if there had been union activities it more than likely would have come to our attention. Yet, the evidence is undisputed that the men had engaged in considerable talk about a union while at the plant for about 6 months prior to the discharges. Indeed, Respondent's own friendly witness, Childress, testified that Reed and Kinser "talked union down there for so long that I got so at the last I didn't pay no attention to it," that "pretty - near all the 'boys there would talk about the union" and about "if they had a union there they might do better . . . more money," that this union talk had gone on for "maybe five or six months," and that " I thought they all 'knowed it because the way it went on down there about it." On one occasion while Reed and another employee were talking to Robert Withrow in the office, Withrow stated that he would shut the place down before a union ever went in. On another occasion when some of the employ- ees were in the office during that period, Strain stated that they would shut the doors before they would let anyone come in and run their business. In view of all the foregoing, it seems incredible to me that Strain, who admitted getting into all parts of the plant during the day, was unaware of the union talk at the plant. I do not credit his denial and find the contrary to be true. On cross-examination, employee Childress admitted that after the discharges he had asked employee Hobart Dye what Dye thought about Childress telling on the boys trying to organize us. He further admitted that Dye had replied that he (Dye) could not have done that to anyone working there. At first he testified that he did not remember to whom he had conveyed this information about the boys trying to organize us. After considerable prodding, he finally admitted that he had told Strain about it. He insisted, however, that this had occurred a few weeks after the discharges, although he admitted that prior to the discharges he had warned Strain that "these boys is going to cause you some trouble." He could not explain why he felt concerned and had asked what Dye thought about his actions if he had not in fact informed Strain until after the discharges. Childress had been employed by Respondent for 18 years at the time of the hearing. His testimony and demeanor clearly reveal his satisfaction with his work- ing conditions, his friendly attitude toward Respondent, and his reluctance to dis- close anything unfavorable to it. He testified that "the way I looked at it, it was a small place of business. I couldn't hardly see where a union would help." He admitted that he believed that "Mr. White would pull the doors down if you get a union in there," and that he had so stated to Reed and Kinser when they unsuccessfully solicited him to sign a union application card on Friday evening, July 10. Such a belief on his part is understandable in view of the above state- ments made by Strain and Withrow. He further admitted that he was at work on Saturday morning, July 10, and that he saw Strain at the plant that morning. Under all the circumstances, including the timing and precipitate nature of the discharges, I am convinced and find, contrary to their denials, that it was on Saturday morning, July 10, and not after the discharges, that Childress informed Strain about Reed and Kinser trying to organize the employees by soliciting them to sign union application cards. As for Frame, who had signed an application card Friday night, he was at the plant that morning loading vaults in the trucks. While so engaged, he was talking to three employees for about 15 minutes about the Union, telling them that he had 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD signed a union application card and trying to persuade them to sign one also, as previously found. During this discussion, Withrow's son-in-law, Richard Van Nat- ter, frequently came up and down the elevator. Frame had deliberately retrained from soliciting Van Natter about the Union because he felt that would be like telling President White about it. Plant Manager Strain was at the plant that morn- ing. Strain admitted that he is usually around "to see that my trucks get loaded up all right." Considering all the foregoing and the fact that the three solicitors for the Union were immediately and summarily discharged without any other untoward incident having occurred, I am convinced and find that Strain became aware that morning that Frame was also soliciting employees to sign union application cards, or at the very least suspected it in view of his frequent complaints about wages. E. Concluding findings For about 6 months prior to their discharge, Reed, Kinser, and Frame had dis- cussed with the other employees at the plant the desirability of forming a union to improve their wages. Robert Withrow and Plant Manager Strain were well aware of the union talk going on at that time. Employee Childress had informed Strain that "these boys are going to cause you some trouble." On one occasion, Strain stated that they would shut the plant down before a union would come in. On another occasion Strain stated they would shut the doors down before they would let anyone come in and run their business. However, union organizational activities did not go beyond the talking stage until Reed and Kinser took the initiative on Friday afternoon, July 9, 1965, to visit the union hall, sign and obtain application cards, and then commence to solicit other employees to sign cards . They and Frame were the only employees who were soliciting and trying to persuade other employees to sign union application cards. Thus, as Frame testified, Reed and Kinser "were the two that first started the ball rolling. And I, then after they started, why I tried to pitch in." On the very next morning, Saturday, July 10, Strain was at the plant where he became informed of their organizational activities, as previously found. I am convinced and find that he relayed this information to President White and Mrs. White when they met on Sunday evening and that they then decided upon the immediate discharge of these three employees. As Mrs. White testified, "we just came to the conclusion that day that we must do it right then." The next morning President White had Reed, Kinser, and Frame summoned to the office where, in the presence of Strain, he summarily discharged them without any prior warning or notice and in the middle of a pay period, on the sole asserted ground that business was slack. Shortly thereafter, Strain told Reed that "I hated to lay you off but I had to . .. I had someone over top of me." And before the end of the month, three new employees were hired. At the instant hearing, Respondent for the first time asserted as addi- tional grounds for their discharge their alleged work deficiencies and conduct, although this situation had long been tolei ated and no untoward incident had occurred other than their efforts to get employees to sign union application cards. Upon consideration of all the foregoing in light of the entire record as a whole, I am convinced and find that the reasons asserted for the discharges were advanced as pretexts to cloak a discriminatory motivation and that Respondent was truly motivated by its opposition to their organizational activities and a desire to dis- courage other employees from signing cards. By such conduct, Respondent dis- criminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Reed, Kinser, and Frame and thereby discouraged membeiship in the Union in violation of Section 8( a)(1) and (3) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set foith in section III, above , which occuried in connection 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 several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct- ing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. KANAWHA VALLEY -MEMORIAL VAULT CO. 295 Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by the discharge of Donald Reed, Thomas Kinser, and Franklin Frame on July 12, 1965, I-will recommend that Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him, by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which each nor- mally would have earned as wages from July 12, 1965, to the date of Respond- ent's offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during-such period, with backpay and interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Because of the character of the unfair labor practices herein found, I will recommend that, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their 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, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Construction and General Laborers Local Local No. 1353, Laborers' Inter- national Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Don- ald Reed, Thomas Kinser, and Franklin Frame, thereby discouraging membership in the above-named labor organization, the Respondent has engaged and is engag- ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 3. By the foregoing conduct, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights and thereby has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER The Respondent, Kanawha Valley Memorial Vault Co., Inc., Charleston, West Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a)Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of Construction and General Laborers Local No. 1353, Laborers' International Union of North Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate employees, or by discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) 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 which is necessary to effectuate the pol- icies of the Act: ' (a) Offer to Donald Reed, Thomas Kinser, and Franklin Frame immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings each may have suffered as a result of the discrimina- tion practiced against him, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and 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 determine the amount due as backpay. 4 N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg., Co., 120 r 2d 532 530 (C.A. 4). 296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accord- ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Serv- ice Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) Post at its place of business in Charleston, West Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by an authorized represen- tative of the Respondent, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted . Reason- able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.6 5In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 is 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." 6 In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 Recommended Order 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 hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Con- struction and General Laborers Local No. 1353, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discrimina- torily discharging , laying off, or refusing to reinstate employees, or by dis- criminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire and ten- ure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer to Donald Reed, Thomas Kinser, and Franklin Frame imme- diate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi- tion, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization KANAWHA VALLEY MEMORIAL VAULT CO., INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) NOTE.-Notify-the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post- ing, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 2407 Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 684-3686.