Philo Lumber Co.

PHILO LUMBER COMPANY Philo Lumber Company, Inc. and Local Union No. 3- 469, International Woodworkers of America, AFL- CIO. Case 20-CA 12080 May 31, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS PENELI.O. MURPHY. AND TRUITSDAI.F On December 2. 1977, Administrative Law Judge Henry S. Sahm issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed a brief in opposition to Respondent's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- 'Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made hi the Administrative l.aw Judge 1t is the Board, established rpollc not to i, er- rule an Administratisve I aw Judge's resolutlilns aith respect Io credibhillt unless the clear preponderance of all of the rele.anl eiidence conilrce, us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standird I)r, Hi/ll Produ,rlr Inc. 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd, 188 F2d 362 (('.A 3. 191 'AHe have carefuils examined the record and find ln. hasis for reversing hi, findings The Admnistratile L.ai Judge made the following inadl ertent err.r, which are herebs corrected lThre dministratie I au. Judge referred I. 3 conersation bet'ween Hetiz arind Respoident s president, Miorgan indicat- ing It occurred in elthet late September oorcaril ()ctobcr 197i [hI, retoil reveals that the comnersation occurred In late September or earl ()Irtlcti 1975. Ihe Admminstrratle 1.a, Judge .lso found Ihat the lellitiile,s .f former emipioiees Sutton and Ilellc and forlier Supertr Ilr Smlitrh coit,l f rated Underwood's testimon. rhe tecord hotescr. tidictale thli o,1] Sutton's testlinons is directls corroboialtie of I ndll .lood on a pirricltldl r point t[he testimnns of Hencz and Snith It, .in rorc,r . I rcle.it it, esti.h lishing Respondent's general tn1111i1 aninimu rathilr than olcrrohoraitn!i ( n- derwood ,n a p .rticular insldent Respondent has excepted particilalrl to the Administratixe I als JudcL crediting of, and reliance on. the terftmlmi of foritcr enmployIrec Stitt,tl he- cause his testimons on a collateral mailter, regrding Ithe clruni.stAicCs of his separation fr, nm Respondent's elliplo)s, al leged lIi t.onlr:adltced hi documentary evidence indicating that Stition did not resign bhit ia, i,- charged. Although the Administrativ e Law Judge dil not resolve the ceth bilil) conflict conrcrning the cirtllcustanices under hich Simnon left Rc- spondenl's emplo)t. we find thit his failure it) do so do,' ie a.ifle, I tihe rcsulil reached. No unfair labor practice finding Is predlcaited on Sutton's (lt cniIlit- icted testlimoll. Therefore. eien aIsuail;ng, rarg,,nd.i, that Sutton lied .ihitl the circumstances under whic h he left Resptrndtcnt' enlplo,. i natticer Mn.t inl issue herein. the Adrlnisnirstrtise L a Judge I'as ii 1 errror it crediting Sultton's testimirons on matters related to) !his prtceeding See, c . lg i 'I- (orporal;on, 22L NLRB 1349. fn. I I19701: -rtlis,,i ,r I umh, (,ipinl.t, 227 NLRB 123 1130( 19771 )(testtin t, if MIaIgII,m lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Philo Lumber Company, Inc., Laytonville, California, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HENRY S SAHM. Administrative Law Judge: This pro- ceeding was heard on May 11, 12, and 13, 1977, at Ukiah, California. The complaint which issued on December 6, 1976,' based on a charge dated October 28, alleges that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to "reemploy" James Under- wood on September 23 because he engaged in protected concerted activities. Briefs were filed by the parties on July 1. 1977. Upon the entire record and my observation of the testi- monial demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I J:RISDICTION: THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent, a California corporation, owns three lum- ber mills in northern California which are engaged in pro- cessing lumber, Its main office is in Ukiah, California. The Philo lumber mill, where the incidents occurred which gave rise to this proceeding, annually sells goods valued in ex- cess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside of California and has annual gross sales in excess of $500,000. It is found to be an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II THE L TNFAIR LI.BOR PRACTICES A. The Testimony James Underwood. the alleged discriminatee, was first employed by Respondent in August 1973 at its Laytonville lumber mill plant as a debarker. In the latter part of 1974, this sawmill ceased operations because of economic rea- sons. Underwood then obtained another job at the Har- wood Products Company lumber mill where he incurred a shoulder injury. In April 1975 Respondent Philo Lumber Company resumed operations whereupon Underwood re- turned to their employ on April 1., 1975, working principal- ly as a debarker and occasionally as a bucksaw operator, log loader, cleanup man, green chain operator. gangsaw man, and off-bearman. At other lumber mills where he "Ill A itets refei ;ti 1976 unless otherilse specified. 236 NLRB No. 72 647 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had worked in the past, he was a trim saw spotter and resaw man, chipper operator, hula trim saw man, tallyman, and carrier. After he had signed a union authorization card in Sep- tember 1975, he had a conversation at the mill the follow- ing month with Landis Morgan. owner of Respodent. Underwood's account of what happened is as follows: . . .[Morgan] came up to the barking shack where I was working and he was kind of upset because I wasn't keeping logs peeled and stacked back in the yard. So, I told him, "Well, when you are trying to break in a new debarker and you have got only small redwood to start with, it's hard to keep up with the work in the mill in the first place." Then I told him, "The only reason that I feel that you are picking on me is because I organized the plant here." Underwood concluded this phase of his testimony by stating that Morgan had never heretofore criticized the quality of his work. During the autumn of 1975. union organizational meet- ings were frequently held at the home of Underwood who was the most active employee-proponent of the Union. No- tices that these meetings were to be held at Underwood's home were posted on the plant's bulletin board. In addi- tion, testified Underwood, the approximately 35 employees in Respondent's plant were also notified orally of these union meetings at Underwood's home. Beginning in September 1975, when the union campaign commenced, and during the entire campaign up until the Board election, the following December, Underwood wore to work a union button on his hat every day which read: "International Woodworkers of America, AFL-('IO & CLC." In December 1975, the Board held an election at Re- spondent's plant to determine whether the employees de- sired the Union herein to represent them. Underwood was the Union's observer and also present at the polls on the day of the election was Morgan. owner of Respondent. On April 1. Underwood testified on behalf of the Charg- ing Party Uinion at a Board representation hearing. Also present during the time that Underwood was on the ssii- ness stand, testifying on behalf of the l.lnion, was Landis Morgan, owner of Respondent. After the Board's represen- tation hearing the Hearing Officer issued his report on June 16.2 At approximately the same time as the Board election was held, Underwood had a recurrence of his shoulder pain incurred while working at Harwood Products Com- pany, another lumber mill. See above. He was under the care of a physician for some months which eventuated in his being hospitalized for tests, and he finally underwent surgery. Darrell Buzzard, the plant superintendent, who is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, was kept informed of all these medical matters bh Underwood. 2G.C(. E xhs aind 4 are the ltcaring ()fiicer s rcport dated June 1( I lth respect to Rcspondenrit' oabectiins filed to the eie tlon. un.lciilu l t!nderwood's Ietion\ hitch is ineorporated h rIecrerc fnd iadic a 1pait of the tecord in this proceeding. On February 26, the last day that Underwood worked for Respondent, as his pain was such that he had to enter the hospital, he told Buzzard during working hours that: . . [I] had to take off to go have my surgery done and I asked him if I would have a job when I came back [from undergoing surgery] and he said I would. After Underwood underwent surgery on May 3 and was discharged from the hospital 3 or 4 days later, he was un- able to work. At the time he left the hospital, he was unable to move his right shoulder and arm which were swathed in bandages, a cast, and splints which rendered those parts of his body incapable of movement or use. lie spoke to Buzzard at the plant during the lunch hour in the presence of Jimmie Sutton. an employee, 3 weeks after he was discharged from the hospital. Underwood's testimony is as follows: [Buzzard] asked me how I was doing and when I ex- pected to be back at work. I told him I was doing pretty good and as soon as I got my arm out of the strap they had it in ... . I was feeling a little better and just wishing they would hurry up and get it over w ith. About 5 weeks later in the early part of July, Underwood again went to the plant and spoke to Buzzard. Underwood testified that he "told him [Buzzard] that I was still under a doctor's care and waiting for him to evaluate my situa- tion." The doctor had informed him, Underwood told Buz- zard, that his shoulder was improving. Underwood visited the plant for a second time on Au- gust 17, at which time he informed three of the employees that the NLRB had certified the Union as the production employees' bargaining agent. On the same day and while he was in the plant. Underwood spoke to Buzzard who inquired as to the state of his health to which Underwood responded that he "was doing pretty good and I was sup- posed to get released to come back to work in about three weeks .... IBuzzardl said. 'That's good.'" IThe following day, August 18, about noon, Morgan came to Underwood's home unannounced. According to Urndcrwood, Morgan said: "Jim. I understand 'sou was out at the mill yesterday." and I said, "Yes. I was." and he said, "Well, I don't want you back out there anymore. As a matter of fact, I don't want you back at my property anymore." Then I said, "Okay." lie got into his pickup and left and I went back in the house. Underwood denied both on his direct and cross-exami- nation that he had ever told Morgan or Buzzard that he had "quit" his job. On September 23, U nderwood telephoned Buzzard at the plant and informed him that his "doctor planned on releasing me on September 27 and I said I called to find out if I still had a job and Mr. BuzzaiLd told me, 'No, I had to replace you.' " On or about September 27, testified U nderwood, his physician informed him that he "could go back to work He didn't limit me to any work or anything." ('on- 648 PHILO LUMBER UOMPANY 64 temporaneously with this release by the doctor, the disahil- ity payments for the injury incurred while he was employed by the Harwood Products Company lumber mill were dis- continued by Harwood Products' insurance compan. At or about the same time that Buzzard notified L nderwood he had been "replaced," Underwood applied forjobs with other employers but was unable to obtain ans stork. While chopping firewood at home for his stove on No- vember 14, Underwood reinjured his same shoulder where- upon his doctor wrote a medical report which reads as fol- lows: 9 Ma)y 1977 RE: James Underwood To Whom It Ma' Concern: This is to certify that the abthoe named patient was released to return to work on September 27. 197h. l)ue to the severity of his headaches and tenderness .ind pain in his right shoulder, disabilil s was reinstated on November 15, 1976. Thank you. s; Robert A. Kraft Robert A. Kraft. M.D. IUnderwood then delivered the doctor's letter to liar- wood Products. his former emploser ;wlhen he had injuredl his shoulder, whose insurance compans reinstated Underwood's disability payments. It was elicited on Underwood's cross-examination that. when he learned that these medical tests revealed he wkould have to undergo surgery. he so notified Buzzard shortl' thereafter and requested "time off." See above. In response to questions by Buzzard in June alnd Jul. accord- ing to Uinderwood, he advised him that he hadt not been informed by his doctor how long it 'Awould be before he would be able to return to work. Also. in response to a question by Respondent's counsel, he testified that when he spoke to Buzzard on August 17. at the plant, he told him his doctor estimated that he should be pil sicall} able to return to work in about 3 weeks. tnder further cross-ex- amination. it was educed that Underwood telephoned Buz- zard and informed him that the doctor was planning on releasing him on September 27 "and I uanted to know if I had my job . running the barker . . [Buzzard] said. 'No, I had to replace you.'" On cross-examination he testified that on September 27 he had an appointment with his doctor who told him "that I could go back towork." Upon learning this he did not cots, e this information to any of Respondent's plant officials "to request work" because, testified Underwood. Morgan had forbidden him on August 18, when he came to his home, not to ever "come back" to tbe plant. Underwood also testified that, when Morgan told him on August 18 that he was fired. he so informed Donald Nelson, business representative of the Charging Party Union. Underwood continued. in answer to a question by Respondent's attorne). that he telephoned Buzzard on September 23 and "asked for work" but was informed that he had been terminated. Jimmie Sutton. an emploee from 1975 to Novemniber 19 when he voluntarily left the employ of Respondent, testi- fied that. shortIv after Underwood entered the hospital on f:ebruars 26. he was told by Buzzard that "[Underwood) alwavs had his job there as soon as he got out of the hospi- tal." On August 18, testified Sutton, he told Morgan at the mill entrance that he was interested in buying his pickup truck. and during this conversation he informed Morgan that the day before "Underwood had come out to the mill and told us we were certified union and that there was going to he a union meeting at his house on Thursday [August 191 . 'You mean [Morgan questioned Sutton] he came out here [to the plantl and said that' and I said, 'Yes,' and he said, 'Well, we'lljust see about that.' and he left and started walking toward the mill real mad." Steve Hencz. an employee, testified that he had a con- versation with Morgan in late September or early October at the plant. According to Hencz. Morgan approached him and "asked me who were the union pushers. He mentioned a couple of names and said. 'If the union gets in, I'm going to shut that son of a bitch down and I'm going to get a new crcw. (;arland Smith wXas formerly employed by Respondent for 4-1 2 sears, 6 months of which he was plant superin- tendent. lie testified that, during the Union's organiza- tional campaign at the plant. Morgan told him in August 19)7 "that he would shut the damn mill down for three scaris if the Union got in." B. Re vlonelnt 'y Case Darrell Buzzard. who is superintendent of Respondent's Philo lumber mill. testified that Underwood never request- ed a lease of absence to undergo tests at a hospital for his injured shoulder which had been injured when he was em- plos ed bx liarwood Products Company. Nor could Under- wood estimate. according to Buzzard, when he might re- turn to work. Therefore, continued Buzzard, it was impossible for him to assure Underwood that his job would he ax; ilalble hern his doctor certified him as being able to pwork inaismuch as "1 had no assurance of when he would eser be able to come back to work." When questioned again Xwhether he had assured Underwood that when he recos cred froli surgcrs he could return to his job. Buzzard testified: Your Ilonor, to set the record straight here, when Mr. Undervwood caume to me at the mill and told me that he guessed that he was going to have to quit because he had to go into the hospital for an operation from this old injurN, I told him at that time to hold on and see how it turns out, because he was a good barker operator and for a period of time up until I got m5 barker operator aind trained him, if Mr. Underwood had come htick aith a slip from a doctor showing me that he seas ph'sically able to go back to work, I Aould hasve hired him, up to the date that I promoted this barker trainee to barker operator. Morgan. the owner of Respondent, testified on direct examinatioln that he first learned Underwood would be en- tering the hospital on February 26. which was a "few dass before his last dai of work." He continued that he spoke to 649 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Underwood upon learning this and that Underwood told him "he was quitting and I said, 'well, that's awful short notice.' And I said that was kind of putting us on the spot. And he said that he had to go and have an operation on his shoulder." Morgan added that he neither recalls Underwood's notifying him he was entering the hospital nor does he remember Underwood ever requesting a leave of absence. Morgan explained that Underwood "was put- ting him on the spot" in that he gave Morgan "only three or four days [notice] before he was going to leave." Thus, added Morgan, he was put in a seriously precarious posi- tion inasmuch as Underwood was the only employee in the Philo plant at that time who was able to operate the de- barking machine. Morgan concluded this phase of his testi- mony by describing Underwood as "a good debarker oper- ator." However, it appears that Morgan resented Underwood's refusing Morgan's request that he postpone his surgery and "give us a little more time," to which Un- derwood responded, according to Morgan, "that he had made arrangements." On cross-examination, Morgan phrased his version of the issue in this proceeding as follows: [Underwood] mentioned to me that he was going to quit and that he had to have an operation on his shoulder .... I told him that was kind of putting us on the spot .... He said he was quitting because he had made arrangements to have an operation on his shoulder . . . . And I said that we should have a little more time. On rebuttal, Underwood testified that he gave ample no- tice to Respondent through Buzzard that he was entering the hospital to take various tests which would last 2 weeks and that he kept Buzzard informed of his tests, surgery, and progress thereafter and told Buzzard, as soon as he learned of it, his doctor's estimate of when he would be able to return to work. He also testified that in the entire time he was employed by Respondent he was absent from work "maybe two or three days. And as far as being off sick, maybe I missed one day or two, but not many." He denied that he ever told either Morgan or Buzzard that due to this shoulder injury he was "quitting his job." C. Analysis of the Testimony; Credibility and Conclusions The testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses is credited based upon their testimony and demeanor while on the witness stand which was both consonant with the facts and delivered in a sincere, straightforward manner. This is in contrast with Morgan's and Buzzard's incredible testimony which is neither believable nor in accord with the findings of fact.3 The version of Underwood is accept- ed as the more accurate account of the various conversa- tions he had with both Buzzard and Morgan when he spoke to them regarding entering the hospital and thereaf- ter when he underwent tests and surgery and the progress of his state of health up until the time his physician dis- charged him as physically able to resume his duties as a debarker operator. Underwood's testimony, in conjunction 3 See Buzzard's self-contradictory testimony, vupra. with the entire background of evidence adduced in this case, merits belief. This conclusion is supported and strengthened when it is considered that there is other testi- mony corroborating Underwood's testimony; namely, the testimony of Sutton, Hencz, and Smith. This impression that Underwood and his corroborating witnesses were tes- tifying truthfully is based on two cogent considerations: They were not intelligently capable of successfully practic- ing guile or deceit, and their testimony was not substantial- ly shaken by able counsel for Respondent who vigorously and thoroughly cross-examined them. Moreover, the reasons advanced by Morgan and Buz- zard for their refusal to rehire Underwood are unconvinc- ing as their testimony did not tend to establish the factual validity of the reasons assigned for Underwood's termina- tion. Furthermore, for Underwood to quit his job immedi- ately prior to entering a hospital knowing he would be in- curring medical and surgical expenses, some of which undoubtedly were not reimbursable, strains, if not shatters, one's credulity. It is incredible that the reasons assigned therefor were the ones in fact that were alleged by Respon- dent to have been the reasons for Underwood's termina- tion. On the contrary, it is believed that the reasons alleged were deliberately spurious and a pretext to screen Respon- dent's discriminatory motive; namely, retaliation for Underwood's union activities in refusing to rehire him af- ter he recovered from his disability. It is concluded that the discredited defense that Underwood quit was manufac- tured and "furnished the excuse rather than the reason for IRespondent's] retaliatory action." N.L.R.B. v. Thor Power Tool Companyr, 351 F.2d 584, 587 (C(.A. 7, 1965). Under these circumstances and the record as a whole and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, including the testimony detailed above, as well as the corroborating testi- mony of Underwood's three fellow employees, including the background of Respondent's knowledge of Underwood's intensive union activities, it is concluded that this conflict in testimony is resolved in favor of the versions told by the General Counsel's witnesses. Accordingly, it is found that Respondent, when it seized upon the absurd story that he quit his job as a pretext to rid itself of Under- wood, an active union adherent, was discriminatorily moti- vated and therefore such action was violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.4 nll I HE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act, it shall be recommended that it be required to cease and de- sist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to eradicate the effect thereof and to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discriminatorily termi- nated James Underwood by refusing to rehire him because of his union activities, it shall be recommended that Re- spondent offer him reinstatement to his former or substan- tially equivalent job, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination 4 :.I.R B S Schil Slel Prodlucti .Irn, 480 1 2d 586, 593 (('.A. 5, 19'3). 650 PHILO LUMBER COMPANY against him, with all his seniority and other rights and priv- ileges, by paying to him a sum of money equal to the wages he would have earned from the date of Respondent's refus- al to rehire and return him to his former debarkerjob until his reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period. with interest thereon to be computed in the manner pre- scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NL.RB 651 (1977). 5 Upon the foregoing findings of fact. conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case. and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER The Respondent, Philo Lumber Company, Inc., aI. ton- ville, California. its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging its employees' membership in the above-captioned Union or any other labor organization or their concerted union activities by discharging them and: or refusing to rehire them or by otherwise discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment because of their concert- ed activities. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations. to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the National l.abor Rela- tions Act, as amended.7 2. Take the following affirmative action designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to James Underwood immediate, full, and un- conditional reinstatement to his former job or a substan- tially equivalent one, if such job no longer exists, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights, privileges. or working conditions, and make Underwood whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner prescribed in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations Board, or its agents, for inspec- tion, examination, and copying. all payroll records, social security payment records. timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or useful in determining compliance with this Order or in computing the amount of backpay due as herein provided. (c) Post at its Philo lumber mill at Laytonville, Califor- nia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." ' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after being signed bh Re- spondent's authorized representative, be posted by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. See. generall. vis PhrlngR & Heating ( ,,. 138 Nl RB 716 11962}, In the event no excepllons are filed as prosided by Sec 102 4t of the Rules ailnd Regulatrions.l of the Nitlional I abhor Relations Board. the findings. conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 1(12 48 of the Rules and Regulaitons. he adopted by the Board and bectome its findings. conclusions, and Order. and all hobjectins Ihereto shall he deemed a.i ied for all purposes See Phlido Lumniher ({mpani, 229 NlRB 210 (1977) In thle oeent that this Order is enforced hb a Judgment of a United States ('ourt of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted bh Order of the National Labohr Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a .ludgnment of the I nited States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the N.itrlinal I abhor Relalttons Board " APPENDIX NOT I( F To EMPI oYF[-s POSr: ) Bs ORDI R OF THIF NAIIONAI LABOR RELATIONs BOARD An Agency of the United States Government F[ollowing a hearing in which all parties participated and offered their evidence, it has been found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. We have been ordered to post this notice and to do what we say in this notice. WI sAt IH Nor discourage our employees from engag- ing in concerted activity on behalf of Local Union No. 3-469, International Woodworkers of America, AFL- ('(). or any other labor organization, by discharging or refusing to hire or rehire them or by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment. WF UIL.. NOT in any other manner interfere with. restrain, or coerce any of our employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Na- tional lIabor Relations Act, as amended, to self-orga- nization and to bargain through a union of their own choosing, except to the extent set out by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. which gives you the right to decide not to become involved in any or all of the above activities. WV IIU.L offer James Underwood immediate, full, and unconditional reinstatement to his former debark- ing job or a substantialls equivalent position, and pas him, with interest. for the wages and/or earnings he mayr have lost because we refused to rehire him when he recovered from his disability. Plill ( I. MBlR CO()SPAN. IN( 651