Unijax Corp.

6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Jacksonville Paper Company , A Division of Unijax Corpo- ration and Warehouse , Laundry, Janitor, Meat Packers, Food and Factory ' Motel Union Local 589, affiliated with National Council Distributive Workers of America. Case 12-CA-4583 April 16, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On January 13, 1970, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and ' was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom- mending 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 con- nection with this case to a three-member panel. `The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam- iner 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 and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ' In finding thai employee Flood had been discharged in violation of Section 8(a) (3), the Trial Examiner credited Flood's testimony that, at his termination interview, Office Manager Warren had accused him of having passed out union cards , Office Manager Warren and Foreman Passmore denied this allegation, but gave varying accounts of what Warren had actually said to Flood The Trial Examiner concluded that Warren's version of that interview "differs materially" from that testified to by Passmore, and he stressed this discrepancy in his rationale for accepting Flood's testimony Passmore testified that Warren had told Flood that he was, being discharged for having a "bad driving record-something of that nature " Warren's testimony was that the reason for discharge given Flood was "falsification of his application " There obviously is a discrepancy between these accounts, on the other hand, Passmore did qualify his version and, arguably, may not have been listening attentively at the time of the interview We do note, however, that Warren and Passmore also differed on a fact seemingly more susceptible of recall- the number of times that Flood returned to the office after being discharged Aside from this dispute, however, we believe that the record sustains the Trial Examiner's finding of an 8(a) (3) violation for the following reasons (1) Flood and another employee had, just prior to Flood's discharge , engaged in solicitation for the Union (2) General Manager Purser and Foreman Passmore admitted that they had heard some reports about union activity but no firm information While such admissions might indicate testimonial candor, it also 'seems likely that any reports about union activity would have included some details about the nature of the activity and the participants in it (3) Purser testified that he had received all of the adverse information against Flood, relating to his driving record and work history, by Friday, but wanted to think about it over the weekend On Monday, Purser called long-distance to Jacksonville from Miami, where he had gone to a manager's meeting, and ordered that Flood be discharged at the end of the workday This unusual course of conduct seems to us more consistent with the discharge of an employee for union activity than for any or all of the unambiguous nonunion- ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Jacksonville Paper Company, Jacksonville, Florida, its officer, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order. related reasons known on Friday (4) Purser's testimony at the hearing was that he ordered the discharge because of Flood's past employment history, his driving record, and his tardiness After saying this, the following exchange took place between Respondent's counsel and Purser Q And, was there any other reason9 A (Pause) These were the primary. Q Did you compare the driving record with his application) A Well, of course, the fact that he had falsified his record certainly had a bearing on it, in addition The nature of Purser's testimony stands in marked contrast to that of Warren, who said that the only reason he gave Flood for the discharge was Flood's falsification of his application. And, as to the alleged tardiness, the evidence shows only that Flood had been a capable employee with an "above average" attendance and punctuality record (5) The retention of employee Lewis, who had concealed a recent traffic violation on his application for employment with Respon- dent, which falsification had thereafter become known by Purser, who had, to Respondent's knowledge, falsified an application with a previous employer, and who was known to have possibly had a heart attack in 1964, cannot be satisfactorily reconciled with the discharge of employee Flood For these reasons, and other circumstances more fully spelled out in the Trial Examiner s Decision, we affirm his finding that the discharge of Flood violated Section 8(a)(3) TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: This matter, a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was heard at Jacksonville, Florida, on November 12, 1969,' with all parties participating pursuant to due notice upon a complaint 2 issued by the General Counsel on September 29. The complaint, in substance, alleges that on or about July 21, Jacksonville Paper Company, a division of Unijax Corporation, hereafter referred to as Respondent or Company, discharged employee Willie Frank Flood and thereafter refused to reinstate him because he joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other union or concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and mutual aid or protection in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act. In its duly filed answer Respondent denied engaging in any unfair labor practices. All parties were represented and were afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to file briefs. A brief was received from Respondent and has been carefully consid- ered. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: All dates hereafter refer to the year 1969 unless otherwise noted s Based upon a charge filed on July 22 by Warehouse, Laundry, Janitor, Meat Packers, Food and Factory Motel Union Local 589, affiliated with National Council Distributive Workers of America, here- after referred to as the Union' 182 NLRB No. 2 JACKSONVILLE PAPER COMPANY 7 FINDINGS OF FACT I COMMERCE Respondent has a place of business located in Jackson- ville, Florida , where it is engaged in the business of wholesale distribution of paper products In the course and conduct of its business operations , Respondent, within the past 12 months , received goods , supplies and materials at its Jacksonville , Florida , location direct- ly from points outside the State of Florida in an amount valued in excess of $50 ,000 I find, and Respondent admits, that at all times material herein it has been engaged as an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admitted at the hearing and I find at all times material herein , that the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On June 3, Willie Frank Flood applied for a truckdriv- er's job at Respondent 's place of business where he filled out an employment application which, inter aha asked for a list of all traffic violations and accidents during the preceding 5 years In answer to this request, Flood stated "None " At the hearing he readily admitted that his answer was untrue , that his driving license had been suspended for 30 days in 1966 after having been charged with 12 points for running a red light and speeding,' and that he deliberately falsified his appli- cation because he needed the job to support his wife and children He began working on the job on June 4 with the understanding that he would be a temporary employee for about 2 weeks during which his application would be checked He became a permanent employee on June 23 Not long after he began working, Flood learned that a fellow employee , Otis Madison , was earning only $2 18 an hour after working 27 years for the Company He decided that they were in need of a union and discussed it with employee Larry Williams " who between July 10 and 17 obtained authorization cards from the Union , which he and Flood signed, and they then solicited several employees to sign such cards Apparently , only Herman Johnson signed I out of the 9 or 10 employees working in the warehouse On the morning of Thursday , July 17, the employees and management attended a routinely held periodic meet- ing at which safety measures , company practices, and fringe benefits were discussed Flood proposed extending the one-half hour lunch period to an hour and making up the half hour by starting work at 8 a in instead ' All his violations occurred while he was driving his own car " Foreman Thomas Passmore impressed by Flood s work asked him to recommend a prospective employee Flood referred his friend Larry Williams who filed an application on June 19 and started working on June 23 of 8 30 a in General Manager Robert Purser rejected the proposal because traffic would be too heavy at 8 a in Flood also suggested that fringe pension benefits be paid currently rather than when the employee attained retirement age of 65, but Purser brusquely refused to consider it Flood then inquired whether employee Otis Madison could discontinue driving a truck and work in the warehouse When Purser replied that he could but his pay would be cut from $2 18 an hour to $1 90, Flood commented adversely on the appreciation shown by the Company to a man who had worked for 27 years When the meeting disbanded , three of the employ- ees remained behind to discuss with management a deep-sea fishing trip in lieu of the usual annual employee picnic Following the filing of Flood's employment applica tion, Office Manager Warren routinely and pursuant to company practice ordered a personnel selection Ives Ligation by the Retail Credit Company, which (G C Exh 5(a)) was prepared and sent directly to the home office of Unijax , also located in Jacksonville A summary of this report by way of an interoffice communication (dated July 14) was sent by the home office to Respondent and received by Purser on July 17 after the employee meeting This communication showed that in 1965 and 1966, Flood had performed satisfactory work for Alter- man Transportation Lines, but quit after an accident and was not eligible for rehire because of excessive absenteeism , that in 1968 and 1969 he had worked as a foreman for Mullis Poultry, and had been dismissed because of a conflict with the plant superintendent and was not eligible for rehire , and that during 1969 he had performed satisfactory work as a truckdriver for Dixie Egg Co , had failed to report for work one morning and was never seen thereafter , and was not eligible for rehire Purser was disturbed by what he considered adverse data in the interoffice communication and after reviewing Flood's file with Office Manager Warren decided he would consider the matter further The following morning, Friday July 18, Purser heard "hearsay report" about union activity in the Company I He then visited the home office of Unijax on routine business matters and talked about Flood to Mr Kelley the director of industrial relations Kelley showed Purser the home office file on Flood containing the personnel selection investigation and also a report from Retail Credit Company on Flood's motor vehicle record, which had routinely been ordered by the home office and had not, as yet, been sent to Respondent This report showed that Flood had several traffic violations and that his driver s license had been suspended in 1966 (G C Exh 5(b)) Purser then telephoned Warren, revealed the information on Flood disclosed in the home office file and stated that he was leaving for Miami on company business and would call him on the following Monday from Miami to advise him of his disposition of the matter On Monday , Purser called Warren, told him he had decided to terminate Flood, and instructed He however denied having any knowledge of Flood s p irticip ikon in these activities 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD him to prepare Flood's check and discharge him at the end of the day.' Purser asserted his decision to terminate Flood was based primarily on Flood's negative report on his work history and his tardiness,' and also on his driving record and the falsification of his employ- ment application. Purser also stated that it was company policy to terminate an employee who was involved in three truck accidents or to give him an opportunity to work in the warehouse. The above-related findings are essentially undisputed However, the testimony concerning the actual termina- tion of Flood is very much in conflict. Thus, Flood testified that upon his return from a truck delivery shortly before 5 p.m., on Monday, July 21, he was told by Foreman Passmore to see Office Manager Warren in the latter's office. Flood thereupon went to that office where Warren told him, "I heard that you been givin' out union cards, and I can't use you no more " He then asked Flood to wait while he left the office and quickly returned with Passmore to whom he stated that he was terminating Flood and handed him a paycheck. Neither Passmore nor Flood made any reply and Flood left. He returned momentarily and asked Warren for a statement as to why he was being terminated. Warren replied that they did not give such statements and Flood left again. Warren's version of his meeting with Flood is as follows- After receiving a telephone call from Purser on July 21, he told Passmore to have Flood punch out at 5 o'clock and to bring him to his office. Passmore and Flood appeared in his office about,5 p.m., where he told Flood that the information on his application was incorrect, that he was being discharged for falsifica- tion on his record, and that he had his check prepared for the work which Flood had done through that day. Flood replied that he wasn't as dumb as they thought he was, that it was not the reason he was being dis- charged, and that it was probably due to his color" or maybe because he was trying to organize a union in the warehouse, to which he, Warren, just shook his head and said nothing. Flood then left but returned momentarily and asked for a slip showing why he was terminated. Warren replied that the check he had was the only slip they give and Flood left again stating that that was not the end of it and they would hear from him again.9 Passmore testified that he was present during Warren's entire conversation with Flood, that Warren told Flood they had to let him go because of his bad driving record and handed him a check, that Flood said nothing and walked out, that he then returned and asserted that he had a perfect driving record, and that he was being let go because he was trying to organize a union. Flood then left but returned ` Flood had been paid on the preceding Friday for work performed during that week Flood's termination record (G C Exh 8), however, indicates his service and punctuality were above average Flood is a Negro " Warren also stated that he had no knowledge of Flood's union activity, and had only heard general rumors of a union drive after working hours on July 18 almost immediately and asked for a slip as to why he was being terminated and Warren replied that his check was his slip Passmore also testified that he heard about union activity in the Company from an employee but he refused to identify the employee or relate any other information concerning the matter I find that Warren's testimony differs materially from that of Passmore as to the cause of Flood's termination- the falsification of his employment application as con- trasted with his bad driving record. I find further that management was fully aware of the union activities on or before July 18, and that although Purser, Warren, and Passmore each denied knowledge of Flood's partici- pation in these activities, it appears that he and Williams were the only two employees actively engaged in solicit- ing authorization cards from most of the other employees of the warehouse unit. Considering the smallness of the warehouse unit-9 or 10 members including Flood and Williams-there is also a likelihood that management observed their union activities or were informed about them. 10 Based on the discrepancy between Warren's and Pas's- more's testimony concerning Flood's discharge, the plau- sibility of Flood's testimony, and on the record as a whole, I credit Flood's testimony that he was told by Warren that his union activity was the cause of his discharge In an attempt to prove that Flood was accorded disparate treatment when discharged, the General Coun- sel introduced evidence concerning three other employ- ees, who, despite either, the revocation of a driving license because of traffic violations,or the falsification of employment applications, were nevertheless retained in the employ of the Company I Thus, Judge Clark, a truckdriver for the past 4 years, testified that in May 1968 he hit a utility pole while driving his own car and left the scene of the accident. The following week he was arrested and, at his trial, paid a fine and his driver's license was revoked for 1 year. However, the police failed to pick up his license until December 4, 1968. He then told Purser about it and asked to be put to work in the warehouse until his driver's license was reinstated, which was done. He worked in the warehouse until the beginning of January 1969 when both he and Purser wrote to the Department of Safety at Tallahassee, Florida, explaining that he needed his license to continue on his-job. Purser also advised the Department of Safety of Clark's fine record with the Company. As a result, his driver's, license was reinstated and he resumed driving a truck for the Company The General Counsel also submitted the employment application, the personnel selection investigation, and an abstract of the motor vehicle report of employee Herbert Lee Lewis and an interoffice communication covering his employment. His application for employ- ment shows that he had answered "none" in connection with traffic violations or accidents, and his motor vehicle I" See N L R B v Joseph Antell. 358 F 2d 880 (C A I), N L R B v Dorn's Transportation Co 405 F 2d 706, 713 (C A 2) ' JACKSONVILLE PAPER COMPANY report states that on March 3, 1967, he had been involved in a traffic accident and a traffic violation (following too close). The interoffice communication refers to a heart condition and the falsification of an earlier employ- ment application for a job at Sears Roebuck, and advises extreme caution. Despite the fact that Lewis also gave an incorrect answer in his application when applying for a job with Respondent,'he nevertheless was retained in the employ of the Company. Purser stated that Lewis' driving record was not considered a problem. Documentary evidence was also submitted in connec- tion with the employment of Theodore Peterson. His employment application indicates that he had traffic viola- tions for parking in a wrong zone and a "red light crossing." However, the information from the Depart- ment of Safety indicates that he was also involved in a traffic accident. Despite the inconsistency between his employment application and the information from the Department of Safety, he, nevertheless, also was retained in the employ of the Company. Purser explained that Peterson's driving record was inadvertently kept at the home office of Unijax and had never been seen by him. CONCLUSIONS The General Counsel has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Flood was dis- charged for his union activities or membership and that but for these activities he would not have been dis- charged." However, "[r]arely, if ever, does an employer admit that an employee has been discharged for participa- tion in union activities. Discrimination must, therefore, usually be proved by circumstantial evidence, and prop- erly so." Betts Baking Co. v. N.L.R.B., 380 F.2d 199, 204 (C.A. 8). In reaching such a decision reasonable inferences may be drawn,'and a choice made between fairly conflicting views of the evidence. Thus, the key issue to be resolved herein is one'of motivation, and "[t]he rule is well established that although ample valid grounds may exist for the discharge of an employee, that discharge will violate § 8(a) (3) if it was in fact motivated, even partially, by the employee's union activi- ty [citations omitted]. Thus, where there are' legitimate reasons . . . the question is whether those were in fact the only grounds for the dismissal, or whether they were `put forth as a mere pretext to justify an impermissible discharge.' " N.L.R.B. v. Pembeck Oil Corp., 404 F. 2d 105, 107 (C. A. 2).t2 Purser asserted that Flood was discharged because of a bad work record, tardiness, and his driving record,. and that the falsification of his employment application also had some bearing on it. Were these the only consid- erations affecting his discharge, then regardless of their merit, the complaint should be dismissed, for an employ- er can dismiss an employee for a bad reason or` no reason, provided the dismissal is not tainted with antiun- ion considerations - J N L R B v Kay Electronics , Inc , 410 F 2d 499 (C A 8) 2 See also Wonder State Manufacturing Co v N L R B , 331 F 2d 737 (C A 6) and N L R B v Whitin Machine Works 204 F 2d 883. 885 (C A 1) 9 I' find that by his proposals and comments at the employee meeting on July 17, Flood aroused the ire of Respondent. The disclosure of the falsification of his employment application and the record of his employ- ment history further displeased Respondent. Ordinarily, these considerations, whether or not meritorious, would have constituted reasonable justification to discharge him, if Respondent so desired, in the absence of any union involvement. However, his work performance impressed Passmore and he was retained on the job. Other employees had also falsified their employment applications and had comparable driving records, but were, nevertheless, retained in the employ of the Compa- ny. I find that , Flood's discharge "is left unexplained unless it is found rooted in discriminatory considerations, the only apparent explanation that is fairly inferable from the evidence adverted to above." Miller Redwood Company, 164 NLRB 389. This inference is bolstered by the timing of Flood's discharge, a highly significant factor in ascertaining the true motive for his dismissal," shortly after Respondent' was apprised of the existence of the union activity. The disclosure by Warren to Flood that his soliciting of union cards made his-contin- ued employment untenable clearly establishes that he was discharged wholly or at least partially because of his union activities." Viewing the record as a whole, I find that the prepon- derance of evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom establish that the discharge of Flood was, in fact, motivated by Respondent's opposition to his union activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described, in section I, above,,have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and' constitute unfair labor practices which tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing, commerce and the free flow of commerce. Upon the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. At all times material herein the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. '1 See N L R B v Mira-Pak, 354 F 2d 525, 527 (C A 5), enfg 147 NLRB 1075, and Texas Industries, 156 NLRB 423, 425 " Nor under the circumstances herein, can it be urged that the retention of Williams, the only other active union proponent, as an employee, precludes an inference that the discharge of Flood was unlawfully motivated Williams' termination was not litigated and it does not conclusively appear whether, in fact, he quit or was terminated If the latter, it would significantly indicate that the only two union solicitors were ousted from the Company's employ because of their union activities 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 At all times material herein Respondent has been engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 3 By discharging Flood on July 21 and thereafter refusing to reinstate him in order to discourage union activities, Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of his employment , in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act 4 By engaging in the aforedescribed acts, Respondent has interfered with , restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a) (1) 5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY The Recommended Order will contain the convention- al provisions entered in cases involving findings of dis- criminatory discharges in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act These will require Respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, to offer reinstatement with backpay to the employees discriminated against, and to post a notice to that effect In accordance with usual requirements, reinstatement shall be to the discriminatee's former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges He shall be made whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reasons of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum equal to that which he normally would have earned from his date of discharge to the date of offer of reinstatement, less net earnings during such period, to be computed in the manner prescribed in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716 It is also recommended, in view of the nature of the unfair labor practices Respondent has engaged in, that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that Respondent, Jacksonville Paper Company, a division of Unijax Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall I Cease a desist from (a) Discouraging membership and activities in Ware- house, Laundry, Janitor, Meat Packers, Food and Facto- ry Motel Union Local 589, affiliated with National Coun- cil Distributive Workers of America, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to any term or condition of their employment (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action, which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer Willie Frank Flood immediate and full rein- statement to his former or substantially equivalent posi- tion without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as the result of his discharge, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy (b) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Uni- versal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order (d) Post at its warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "i, Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after being duly signed by its representative, shall be posted by Respondent immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith 16 ' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board 'h 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LAIIOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge or discriminate against our employees because they have joined or support- JACKSONVILLE PAPER COMPANY ed or will support Warehouse, Laundry, Janitor, Meat Packers, Food and Factory Motel Union Local 589, affiliated with National Council Distributive Workers of America, or any other union, or in any other manner interfere with restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act Since the Board found that we did so when we discharged Willie Frank Flood, WE WILL offer him full reinstatement to his old job and will pay him for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as the result of his discharge WE WILL notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon applica- tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces Dated By JACKSONVILLE PAPER COMPANY, A DIVISION OF UNIJAX CORPORATION (Employer) (Representative) (Title) 11 This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone 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 Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Second Floor, Federal Building, 400 Bay Street, Jackson- ville, Florida 32202, Telephone 904-791-2168