Williams Meat Co., Inc.

786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Williams Meat Company, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union 103. Case 23-CA-3554 November 24, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On July 7, 1970, Trial Examiner David S. Davidson issued his Decision in this proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent has not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that those allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions with a supporting brief limited to the Trial Examiner's failure to find that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(3) and the Respondent filed exceptions and a reply brief to the Trial Examiner's finding that it had violated Section 8(a)(1). 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 proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders the Respondent, Williams Meat Company, Inc., Hous- ton, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID S. DAVIDSON,Trial Examiner: Pursuant to a charge 1 According to Schade , employee Sammy Williams signed a card and gave it to Schade but then asked Schade to return it which Schade did. filed on February 18, 1970, by Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union 103, hereinafter referred to as the Union, a complaint issued on March 20, 1970, alleging that Respondent interrogated employees, requested them to report on union activities of other employees, and discriminatorily discharged Alphonse Schade, Sr., in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended . In its answer Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. A hearing was held before me in Houston, Texas, on April 29, 1970. At the close of the hearing oral argument was waived and the parties were given leave to file briefs which have been received from the General Counsel and Respondent. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a Delaware corporation, has an office and place of business at Houston , Texas, the only location involved in this proceeding, where it is engaged in the business of meat processing. During the calendar year 1969, a representative period, Respondent purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped directly to Respondent's Houston operation from points outside Texas. I find that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Act and that assertion of jurisdiction herein is warranted. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts 1. The union activities Respondent purchases meats for sale to restaurants, hotels, country clubs, and other institutions. Respondent employs approximately 20 persons, including a manager, assistant manager, cooler foreman, butchers, order-fillers, meat grinders and wrappers , and salesmen. Among the employees at its processing plant was Alphonse Schade, Sr., who was hired on July 7, 1969, as a butcher to prepare rib roasts. Around January 14, 1970, Schade visited the union office and asked for authorization cards for Respondent's employees to sign. On the next working day Schade distributed approximately 10 cards to employees at the plant of which approximately 8 were signed.' About this time, Ed Bailey, another butcher, showed Cooler Foreman Chapman the card which Schade had given him. Bailey told Chapman that Schade was the source According to Williams, he never signed a card. I find it unnecessary to decide whether a ninth signed card was temporarily in Schade's possession. 186 NLRB No. 110 WILLIAMS MEAT COMPANY, INC. 787 of the card. Chapman asked Bailey if he could have the card to give it to Plant Manager Sauer. Bailey assented, and Chapman thereafter reported the conversation to Sauer and gave him the card. 2. The alleged interrogation and interference Approximately a week after Schade solicited for the Union, Cooler Foreman Chapman asked Sammy Williams if he had signed a card yet. According to Williams, Chapman asked him the question "jokingly" and was laughing at the time. Williams replied that he had not signed a card. A few weeks after Schade's solicitation, Assistant Manager Harold Jones called Harvey Wheaton, another employee, to his office and asked if Schade had given him a card. Wheaton answered that he had not, and nothing more was said. However, a little later that day Plant Manager Sauer called Wheaton to his office and asked the same question. Wheaton again answered negatively, and Sauer commented that if they wanted to go union it was up to them. Wheaton said it didn't make much difference to him one way or the other. Sauer said that he guessed Schade was giving the cards to all the white employees first. Wheaton responded that maybe he was because he hadn't given one to Wheaton. Sauer also said that he always thought that Wheaton, Williams, and Bailey were his friends, but Bailey had to come to tell him about the Union. Sauer asked Wheaton to bung him the card if Schade gave him one. Before this conversation, Schade had in fact given Wheaton a card. Wheaton did not thereafter transmit a card to Sauer.2 3. The discharge of Schade As set forth above, Schade was employed as a butcher and his principal duty was to prepare rib roasts. Schade's work record was neither outstandingly good nor poor. On one occasion during 1969,3 Sauer spoke to Schade about his work and told him that he ought to speed up so that he could get a few more ribs out each day. Schade replied that he was doing all that he could and told Sauer that he would leave so that Sauer could replace him if Sauer was not satisfied. Sauer told him that would not be necessary. Sauer 2 Wheaton's testimony as to his interrogation by Jones was uncontradicted Sauer was not questioned about his alleged interrogation of Wheaton by Respondent on direct examination On cross-examination by the General Counsel, the subject was explored over the objection of Respondent's counsel At that time Sauer first testified that he did not recall talking to Wheaton about getting a card , and then testified that he did not ask Wheaton about a card and was certain about that Although it is not clear why counsel for the General Counsel was not content to rely on the uncontradicted testimony of Wheaton without cross-examining Sauer on this subject, I have concluded that Wheaton, who remains an employee of Respondent, is to be credited. 3 Schade placed it in November Sauer and Chapman placed it at 2 or 3 weeks after Schade started work in July 4 The testimony of Schade and Sauer concerning this incident is not in any basic conflict Beyond this both Sauer and Chapman testified that Schade was only producing a little more than half of what his predecessor produced, that Chapman recommended that he be replaced, and that Sauer told Chapman he was looking for another butcher but that Schade was better than nothing However, Schade was not told that his production was only 50 percent of what it should be nor was he told that his job was in jeopardy even when he offered to leave To the contrary, he was reassured by Sauer that it was not necessary for him to leave and that the quality of was not dissatisfied with the quality of Schade's work and told Schade that his work was all right in that respect? Sauer did not speak to Schade again about his work thereaf ter. During January an incident occurred in the cooler room as a result of which Schade and Bailey stopped speaking to one another. On a Friday afternoon there remained a large order for ribs on which work had to be completed, and Bailey, whose principal duty was to cut steaks, and Windsor, a boner, started to work on it. When Bailey gave Windsor some instructions with respect to working with him to get the ribs out, Schade stated that if they were going to run a race, they could do it some other time, and that if Bailey didn't want to help, he could leave. Bailey remained until the work was done, but took offense at Schade's comment. A couple of weeks later, Sauer observed that Bailey left the plant for the day at a time when work on ribs had not been finished. Sauer asked Chapman what was wrong, and Chapman told Sauer that Bailey wouldn't help Schade anymore and had left. Chapman then told Sauer about the earlier incident. Neither Sauer nor Chapman spoke to Bailey about his early departure, and neither of them spoke to Bailey or Schade about the earlier incident. On February 16, Bailey and Chapman, the only two meatcutters who normally cut steaks, were absent, and as a consequence there was a shortage of cut steaks for delivery. On the following morning around 8 a.m. Windsor and Williams, a shipping clerk, started a discussion with Bailey about the steak shortage the previous day. Bailey asked if they meant that with all the butchers there the previous day there was no one who could cut steaks.5 Bailey and Schade were both standing at their worktables at the time approximately 10 feet apart. Bailey was facing in Schade's direction, and Schade was facing his table with his side toward Bailey. Schade took Bailey's remark as disparaging of him and replied that he was a rib cutter, had his hands full cutting ribs, and was not cutting any "damn" steaks. At that moment Bailey was holding a boning hook and Schade was holding a knife which they had been using in their work. As Schade spoke he shook his knife in Bailey's direction .6 Bailey told Schade that he wasn't talking to him and was tired of his interfering in his conversation.? Bailey his work was satisfactory There is no evidence of any effort made to obtain a replacement for Schade I entertain considerable doubt that Schade's replacement was contemplated at this time , or that Sauer actively sought a replacement for him 5 Schade, Williams, Chapman, Windsor, and Bailey all testified concerning this incident While there are slight variations in their versions of the remarks attributed to the various participants , except as noted below, their testimony is in general agreement Assistant Manager Jones, who was also identified as present, did not testify- 6 Bailey so testified without contradiction r According to Schade, Bailey walked about 6 feet in Schade's direction at this point and stopped about 4 feet away from Schade. Williams, Chapman, and Windsor, testified that they were not in a position to see Bailey at this time, although Windsor later turned in Bailey's direction and did not see Bailey leave his bench Bailey testified that he was standing a foot or 2 in front of his table when the argument began and did not go any closer to Schade Although I have no doubt that Schade believed he was threatened by Bailey, it is clear that he was considerably agitated at the time and his powers of observation may well have been impaired Bailey impressed me as candid and straightforward in his testimony concerning this incident, readily conceding facts which show that he was not altogether blameless I have credited his denial that he moved toward Schade I note (Continued) 788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD put the boning hook down on his table and picked up a steak-cutting knife about 12 inches long and invited Schade to go outside with him and settle it if he wanted to fight.8 Schade asked Bailey to please put the knife down and not to draw it on him. Then Schade put his knife down, said that he knew how to stop it once and for all , and walked out of the cooler in the direction of Sauer's office. Bailey put his knife down and followed Schade out of the cooler. Schade entered Sauer's office with Bailey following close behind. Schade and Bailey were both in a state of agitation. Schade told Sauer that Bailey had pulled a knife on him and threatened him and that he wanted to use the phone to call the police. Bailey said that Schade had started the trouble.9 Sauer tried to calm them down but could not. At one point Schade stood behind Bailey flapping his arms and making cawing sounds, which both Sauer and Bailey, who is a Negro, interpreted as a derogatory reference to "Jim Crow." 10 Sauer then told Schade that he was going to pull his card.11 He also told Schade he could go to the welfare room in another building to call the police . Schade took Sauer's statement to mean that he was discharged, went to call the police, and left the plant to await their arrival . Although the police came , Bailey was never arrested or prosecuted. Sauer testified that he later spoke to the others who had been present about what happened in the cooler and that they described it as in their testimony in this proceeding. Sauer testified that he then decided that Schade should be fischarged because from the information he had, it was Schade who started the trouble. However, he never spoke to Schade again about the incident after Schade left his office, he did not attempt to inform Schade of his decision, and Schade never called him to inquire. Schade applied for unemployment compensation, but was disqualified from receiving benefits for 6 weeks on the grounds that he had been discharged for misconduct. On appeal at the first level , the disqualification was affirmed. The appeals referee found that Schade disrupted prod- uction by interrupting the conversation of other employees and seeking to call the police without affording the employer an opportunity to settle the dispute between him and Bailey . Schade filed a further handwritten appeal to the Texas Employment Commission which was pending at the time of the hearing herein. On the day after Schade's discharge, the Union filed a representation petition for Respondent's employees. An agreement for a consent election was reached on March 17 and the election was held on April 15, resulting in a vote of seven for the Union, five against, and one challenged further in this regard that there is no evidence in the record to support the assertion in Respondent's brief that Schade approached Bailey, waving his knife, and threatening Bailey's life. 8 According to Schade , Bailey asked him to cut it out and go outside, and Schade replied that he was not going outside with any knife and cut it out with him . Although Williams and Windsor testified that they heard nothing said about going outside, Chapman testified that he heard Bailey ask Schade to go outside and settle it, and Bailey conceded that he said to Schade, "Al, if you want to fight, let's step outside." 9 According to Schade, Bailey said that Schade had no business interfering with his conversation . According to Sauer, Bailey kept saying that Schade had started all the trouble. According to Bailey, he told Sauer that Schade had picked up a knife and shook it at him. 10 Both Sauer and Bailey so testified without contradiction. ballot. On April 23 the Union was certified as the representative of Respondent's production and mainte- nance employees. B. Concluding Findings 1. The alleged interrogation There is no question that Respondent became aware of Schade's union activities through the report of Bailey to Cooler Foreman Chapman which was transmitted to Plant Manager Sauer . Thereafter, Chapman asked employee Sammy Williams if he had signed a card . Williams described that interrogation as joking. As Chapman was a minor supervisor, and the interrogation appears to have been casual and not directed beyond Williams' own activities, I conclude that Chapman's interrogation of Williams did not violate Section 8 (a)(l) of the Act. Later Assistant Manager Jones called Wheaton to his office and asked if Schade had given him a card, and Wheaton, concealing the truth, denied that Schade had done so. Despite Wheaton's denial , later that day Sauer called Wheaton to his office, and repeated the same question, to which Wheaton gave the same answer. Although Sauer then indicated that it was up to the employees if they wanted a union , he expressed disappoint- ment in Wheaton, stating that he had always thought Wheaton, Williams, and Bailey were his friends , but that it was Bailey who had told him about the Union. Sauer then asked Wheaton to bring him the card if Schade brought him one. Bearing in mind that Wheaton was called to the office first by Jones and then by Sauer for questioning , that he was questioned a second time despite his initial denial that Schade gave him a card, that the interrogation concerned Schade's activities as well as his own, that Wheaton did not feel free to answer truthfully , that Sauer asked Wheaton to bring him the card if he was given one, and that Sauer's statement that it was up to the employees if they wanted a union was accompanied by an expression of disappoint- ment in Wheaton for not telling him of the union activities, I conclude that the interrogation of Wheaton by Jones and Sauer and the request to Wheaton by Sauer to bring him a card violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.12 2. The discharge of Schade The General Counsel contends that the inference of discrimination against Schade is readily drawn from the facts that it was Bailey who reported Schade 's union 11 According to Schade, on direct examination . Sauer said he had no other alternative than to pull his card "since all this other stuff has come up." On cross-examination , Schade repeated his version of Sauer's statement without mentioning the quoted clause. When reminded of it, Schade testified that the quoted clause was part of it , too. According to Sauer, he told Schade that he was going to pull his card until he could find out the details . Although the circumstances leave in doubt whether Schade was merely suspended pending an investigation , I am not persuaded that Schade in his agitated state accurately recalled the words used by Sauer or that his testimony can be relied on to establish that Sauer referred to "other stuff' meaning Schade's union activities. 12 Cameo, Inc., 140 NLRB 361. enfd . in part 340 F .2d 803 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 382 U .S. 926. WILLIAMS MEAT COMPANY, INC. 789 activities to Respondent and that Bailey and Schade received disparate treatment following their February 17 altercation. Respondent contends, however, that Schade was discharged for cause after several earlier disruptive incidents between himself and other employees, and the February 17 incident demonstrated that he was a source of disruption in the plant and a threat to its continued operation in harmony and safety. There are some factors which support the General Counsel's contention. There is no question that Sauer knew of Schade's union activities as a consequence of Bailey's report to Chapman. The interrogation of Wheaton by Jones and Sauer shows both animus and particular interest in Schade's union activities. There was disparate treatment of Schade and Bailey when Sauer pulled the card of Schade but allowed Bailey to return to work without saying anything to him despite the fact that Schade had come to his office to charge Bailey with threatening him and Sauer at that point had no independent basis to determine who was at fault. Although Sauer testified that after investiga- tion he concluded Schade was responsible for the altercation between Schade and Bailey, there is substantial basis to question that conclusion. Schade's offense allegedly was that he interrupted the conversation between Bailey, Williams, and Windsor. However, Bailey's remark, which prompted Schade's interruption, could well be viewed as a "dig" at Schade, the likely target of Bailey's remark, and it is questionable that one who rises to bait is more to be blamed than the one who casts it. As for what followed, the evidence establishes that both Schade and Bailey shared blame for the escalation of the dispute. On the one hand, Schade continued to hold his knife in his hand and shook it at Bailey as he spoke. On the other, Bailey did not choose to tell Schade to put the knife down, but exchanged his boning hook for a long knife and told Schade that if he wanted to fight, they should go outside and settle it, further escalating the argument. If Bailey believed that Schade was threatening him, Schade's reaction to Bailey's picking up the knife made it immediately clear that Schade was not seeking a fight. Yet Bailey did not put his knife down when Schade asked him to, but held it until Schade put his knife down and turned to leave If, as Sauer testified, his investigation disclosed what the witnesses testified before me, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Bailey as well as Schade warranted censure for his conduct. Sauer never reprimanded Bailey for his role in the argument. Moreover, Sauer did not speak further with Schade before deciding responsibility for the incident and never even notified him further that he was discharged, leaving in considerable doubt whether the decision to discharge Schade was deferred pending investigation. Thus, there is merit to the contention that Respondent showed favoritism to Bailey, while at the same time it discharged Schade with little consideration of his defense for his conduct. On the other hand, the evidence also shows that Bailey was a valued employee with considerable seniority, both more versatile and more willing in the performance of his duties than Schade. Although I am not persuaded that Respondent had decided to replace Schade before this incident and find the testimony in that regard exaggerated, Schade had displayed a rigid attitude toward his work, was relatively new, and was undoubtedly considered less valuable as an employee than Bailey. The evidence of animus against the Union was limited to the interrogations of Wheaton. While I have found those interrogations coercive in all their circumstances, Sauer did indicate that it was up to the employees if they wanted a Union, and there is no evidence of any action taken by Respondent against the Union during the pendency of the representation petition filed after Schade's discharge. While Sauer took no action against Bailey after learning of the earlier dispute between them, he also said nothing to Schade about it although it appears that he learned of that dispute after Schade started soliciting cards for the Union. At the time of Schade's discharge his union activities had been known to Sauer for several weeks and it appears that after Schade's initial solicitation of cards no further union activity occurred until after Schade's discharge. In sum, this is a case in which there are factors present to raise a suspicion that the reasons advanced for the discharge were not the true reasons for it and that the disparate treatment given Bailey and Schade was related to their roles with respect to the union activities. On the other hand, the evidence also shows that the relationship between Bailey and Schade was poor and deteriorating, that both shared responsibility for its deterioration, and there were considerations relating to the relative value of both employees to Respondent which could also have caused Respondent to end a simmering situation in its plant by discharging the less valued employee and retaining the more useful employee, without regard to their roles with respect to the Union. Under all the circumstances of this case, while the case is close and Sauer's testimony in some respects was not convincing, I cannot conclude that the inference of discrimination is sufficiently compelling to warrant the conclusion that Schade's discharge was caused by his union activities. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the allegations of the complaint based on Schade's discharge be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the discharge of Alphonse Schade, Sr., did not violate the Act, I shall recommend that the complaint otherwise be dis- missed. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following: 790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Williams Meat Company, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union 103, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By coercively interrogating an employee concerning his union activities and asking him to give Respondent any union authorization card he might receive , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER 13 Upon the basis of the above 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 recommend that Respondent, Williams Meat Company, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees with respect to their union or concerted activities or soliciting them to give it any union authorization cards they receive. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union 103, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representative of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its Houston, Texas, place of business copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 14 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained 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. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.15 • IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that allegations in the complaint found not to have been sustained in the Decision herein be dismissed. 13 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. 11 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." 15 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 LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WE WILL NOT question employees about their union activities or membership nor will we solicit them to give to us any union authorization cards they may receive. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union 103, or any other labor organization, to bargain 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, or to refrain from any and all such activities. WILLIAMS MEAT COMPANY, INC. Dated By (Employer) (Representative) (Title) 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, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002, Telephone 713-226-4296.