Murphy Brothers, Inc.

516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Murphy Brothers, Inc. and Laborers Local Union No. 267 affiliated with Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Case 19-CA-3815 November 1, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On August 12, 1968, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Exam- iner.' ORDER herein was issued on November 27, 1967. The complaint alleges that Murphy Brothers, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Respondent or the Company, on or about September 16, 1967, terminated the employment of Ernest L. Harris because of his activities on behalf of the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Respondent, by its answer, denies that it committed the unfair labor practice alleged. Pursuant to due notice a hearing was held in Pocatello, Idaho, February 15, 1968, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. At said hearing the General Counsel and the Re- spondent were represented by counsel; no appearance was entered on behalf of the Union. Briefs were submitted by the General Counsel and the Respondent within the time des- ignated therefor. From my observation of the witnesses and upon the entire record, I make the following. FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is a Washington corporation engaged as a contractor in general construction at various locations, in- cluding Pocatello, Idaho. During its fiscal year preceding the issuance of the complaint, which period is representative of its annual operations generally, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, purchased and caused to be trans- ported to its Pocatello, Idaho, construction site directly from points outside the State of Idaho materials valued in excess of $50,000 As is conceded by Respondent, it is and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED As is conceded by Respondent, the Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent, Murphy Brothers, Inc., Pocatello, Idaho, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility resolutions made by the Trial Examiner. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Such a conclusion is not warranted here. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE STANLEY GILBERT , Trial Examiner : Based upon a charge filed on Ocober 2, 1967, by Laborers Local Union No. 267, affiliated with Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union, the complaint 173 NLRB No. 88 III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE Background Information and Sequence of Events At all times material herein, the Union and Respondent were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement covering the "laborers" employed by Respondent in its construction of a flood control project on the Portneuf River, Pocatello, Idaho. This construction work is seasonal in nature and apparently was commenced in 1966. Harris was first employed by Respondent in 1966 and was laid off later that year because of the seasonal shutdown. When the project was resumed in 1967, the Union was requested by Respondent to dispatch laborers to the jobsite and Harris was the first laborer requested by name. Harris was employed by Respondent in 1967 on May 15. Shortly after he commenced work he was "stepped up" from the classification of laborer to that of "pipe layer" and continued to be paid at the scale of a pipe layer until the termination of his employment on September 16, 1967. Except for a leave of absence of approximately one week in the beginning of August, Harris worked continuously for Respondent between the aforesaid dates of May 15 and MURPHY BROS., INC. 517 September 16, 1967. He returned from his leave of absence on or about August 10, 1967, and a few days later, on August 14, he was appointed as the Union's job steward. Prior to that time, both in 1966 and 1967, the Union had no job steward on the construction site. The Issue General Counsel contends that Harris was terminated on September 16 because of his activities on behalf of the Union as job steward. Respondent contends that he was discharged because of the deterioration in his work performance after he became job steward. The only issue in this proceeding is whether the termination of Harris was for cause or was discriminatorily motivated. It appears from the record, and Respondent's witnesses so testified, that Harris was a good worker prior to his appoint- ment as job steward. However, certain of Respondent's witnesses (particularly Paul Godsil, Respondent's grading superintendent, and Delbert Barham, laborers' foreman who was Harris' immediate supervisor for most of Harris' employ- ment in 1967) testified that his work performance deteriorated after he became job steward. It appears that Harris, as job steward, did raise certain matters with Respondent involving rights of the laborers under the Union's collective-bargaining agreement with the Respondent Because of the type of work Harris did, there are no objective means, such as amount of production or level of quality, which would permit a compari- son of Harris' work performance prior to his appointment as job steward with his performance thereafter or a comparison of his performance with that of others in like jobs Conse- quently, to a large extent, the determination of the issue herein depends upon the credibility of the testimony of Godsil and Barham, and of the contrary testimony in the record, principally of Harris, with regard to the latter's work perfor- mance. Harris' Activity as Job Steward As indicated above, the Union appointed Harris as steward on August 14, 1967. It appears that there were two occasions when Harris raised matters involving the laborers' rights under their collective-bargaining agreement. The first occurred approximately 3 days after he had been appointed. There is little dispute as to the material facts with respect to this incident. According to the credited testimony of Harris, Harold Charlton, business agent of the Union, was on the jobsite and told Harris that an "oiler" was rigging cement buckets and that such work belonged to the laborers. Harris informed the machine operator that oilers could not rig cement buckets and that the work would have to be stopped until a laborer was assigned to do the rigging. Harris' testimony as to what then occurred, which is credited, is as follows: At this time Mr. Barham were coming towards me, and I walked over to him, and he asked me what-asked me what was I doing shutting his machine down. I explained to him why the machine was to be shut off. He said, "Well, you don't have any business shutting off my machines because that's a bad reflection on me as a foreman." So I told him, "Well, I'm sorry if this hurt your image as a foreman, but this is the job I have to do. I'm responsible-I have responsibilities for the union just like I have for the company. It's not only for me or for the union, it's for the company as well," so at this time he told me-he said, "Well, you go and rig the buckets," and I did until he assigned a man on that evening. Barham's version of the incident is substantially in accord with that of Harris. Harris further credibly testified that Barham appeared to be angry and that his voice was louder than normal. It is noted that Godsil testified that the first time Barham complained to him about Harris' work performance was about a week after Harris returned from his vacation. This would place the complaint approximately at the same time that Harris raised the issue with respect to the rigging of the buckets. The second incident occurred around the first of Septem- ber. Harris was assigned to work in a crew under Corwin Whitworth, a "general foreman." Early on the day he started work under Whitworth, he raised a question with Whitworth of the propriety (under the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement) of a crew of laborers being under the supervision of nonlaborer foreman. It appears that there were six laborers in the crew, including Harris.' Harris requested of Whitworth that, if he got in touch with Godsil, he tell Godsil that he would like to see him. About an hour and a half later Godsil came to him and asked him what the problem was. He explained his interpretation of the collective-bargaining agree- ment and Godsil disagreed with him, contending that Whit- worth was a superintendent and could supervise laborers. Harris informed Godsil that he would see Charlton during his lunch break. He was unable to do so, but left a message for Charlton to contact him on the jobsite. It appears that Charlton and Godsil discussed the matter later that day when Charlton came to the jobsite, and agreed that a laborer foreman would relay Whitworth's orders to the laborers. Harris testified that Godsil informed him of his agreement with Charlton and his testimony as to their conversation at that point, which is credited, is as follows: A [Godsil said] "I will have to-Pat will have to give his orders to poor little George and have him run over to his poor little laborers and give them the orders so that you can get organized." So it was kind of funny to me at the time, but I didn't pay any attention to his statement at that time. So I just said, "If that's the agreement that you and Chuck [Charlton] have, then that's the agreement that we'll go by." He says, "This job was run much better last year without a labor steward." Then he just left, and I resumed working the rest of the day there-not the rest of the day-until about four o'clock, which I was called back to Mr. Barham's crew. Q. You were called to Mr. Barham's crew. A. That same day. Q. How many days did you work for Mr. Whitworth? A. Not a complete day. Godsil denied that he made the statement as to the job running better without a labor steward. However, Charlton i It is noted that Godsil testified that there were only two laborers Harris' testimony that there were six laborers in the crew. Therefore, in the crew under Whitworth , including Harris. However, Charleston the testimony of Harris and Brown as to the number of laborers on the Brown testified that he was on the crew at the time and corroborated crew is credited. 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD testified that when he worked out his agreement with Godsil that day Godsil remarked that "it was funny that the company was having umon trouble in 1967, when it didn't have any in 1966 without a shop steward on the job." Godsil was not questioned as to whether he made such a statement to Charlton, but he did testify as follows when asked whether he discussed with anyone Harris being discharged for union activities. No, sir. I always go around stating-I cuss those unions. They always give me a bad time-well, I shouldn't say they always give me a bad time , but they're always hounding me about something , and I say, "Gosh damn the unions anyhow, they're always on me," but I'll turn around and say in the same breath that we've got to have 'em. I mean, I'm, of course, for management, but somebody might have misinterpreted this statement, I don't know. Based upon the above uncontradicted and credited testimony of Charlton of the statement that Godsil made with regard to "union trouble" and Godsil's own testimony above quoted, as to his tendency to "cuss" unions , Harris' testimony is credited over the aforesaid denial of Godsil. Harris' Work Performance Considerable testimony was elicited with respect to Harris' work performance . Barham and Godsil testified that after Harris was appointed job steward they noticed that his work performance deteriorated . The gist of their complaint was that he worked more slowly rather than that the quality of his work changed . Barham testified: I think that as far as Mr. Harris was concerned he was performing it properly. It was the speed of which he was performing the job. Harris denied that there was any change in his work performance and a fellow worker, Charleston Brown, testified that he observed Harris' work both before and after he was steward and saw no change in his work performance. It is recognized that, in the circumstances, particularly in view of the nature of the work which Harris did , it is difficult to either prove or disprove an allegation that he slowed down in his work. However, there are a number of things in the record which militate against crediting the testimony of Barham and Godsil that Harris slowed down in his work. Although there were two incidents of negligence on the part of Harris, one involving the overloading of a trailer and the other involving faulty signaling by Harris to a driver, it is noted that neither of these incidents appears to have been of any significance in the decision to discharge Harris. In both incidents he was mildly admonished by Barham that he "should know better," according to Barham's testimony. Godsil testified that after Barham first complained to him about Harris, he watched Harris more closely and observed that he was not doing his job properly. However, it is noted that some days after Barham complained to Godsil about Harris, Godsil assigned to Harris the responsibility of repairing flap gates . It is further noted that on this job Harris was leadman when one or two other laborers were assigned to assist him, and that he was without any immediate supervision. There is no showing that any fault was found in the quality of his work at the flap gate but there is testimony which is not credited that he took too much time to accomplish the job. It appears that at no time was any complaint made to him about the amount of time he was taking, or took, to do the job. Although Godsil testified that he talked to Barham on a number of occasions about Harris' work under Barham's supervision and instructed Barham to speak to Harris about it, the record reveals that, at no time, did Barham do so. According to Harris no mention was made to him about his work performance until the day he was discharged . Godsil testified that about 10 days before Harris was terminated, Harris complained to him about being "shoved around" and that he told Harris that he should know the reason for it, that it was because he was not doing his work satisfactorily. This testimony of Godsil is not credited . Godsil testified that he tried moving Harris around to see if he could get better work performance out of him and tried putting him on different crews. The record reveals that there were only two occasions when his crew assignment was changed . The first occurred when he was made responsible for the repairing of the flap gates and the second when he was placed on Whitworth's crew for less than a day. It is inferred from the record that the reason he was removed from Whitworth 's crew and assigned to Barham was because of the afore-mentioned complaint that Harris raised as job steward with respect to laborers being under a nonlaborer foreman. Further, Godsil testified that he tried to persuade other foremen to take Harris on their crews and they refused to do so. Godsil testified that he asked George Andrews, a labor foreman, if he wanted Harris on his crew and that Andrews said , "No, if he can't do the job for you, he can't do it for me." When Godsil was asked whether Andrews said anything to him about his observance of Harris' work , Godsil testified that he never asked Andrews. However, it is noted that in his pretrial statement to the Board, Godsil stated that Andrews did tell him that he had observed Harris' work . When Godsil was asked whether or not the reading of his pretrial statement on that point refreshed his recollection , Godsil answered evasively that Andrews did not remember the incident, and finally admitted that Andrews "never come out-right out and said that, but he could have." On the other hand, Andrews categorically demed that Godsil had ever asked him to take Harris on his crew. Moreover , Andrews testified that he would not have had any objection to Harris being on his crew. Andrews further testified that he never told Godsil that he had observed Harris' work performance . Andrews was a forthright and convincing witness, and his testimony is credited. Other than the testimony relating to the brief period Harris spent on Whitworth's crew, detailed hereinabove , and that relating to Andrews, there is nothing in the record to support Godsil's testimony that foremen refused to have Harris on their crews. Godsil testified that on Thursday, September 14, he observed Harris dawdling at his job and decided to discharge him. Harris was notified of his discharge by Barham on Saturday , September 16. Hares' testimony with respect to notification of his discharge is as follows: A. Approximately four-fifteen Mr. Barham called me off to the side-which was just two of us working there, Jerry Brown and myself, but he called me off from Jerry and says, "Well , Emie, I have bad news for you." I said, "What is it?" He says, "Well , Paul and some of the other guys got their heads together and decided it was best to let you go." And I said, "For what reason?" at that time, and he says-quote again : "Well, they say that your slacking off on your work." I said, "Well, what do you think about it?" He said, "Well, I have nothing to do with it." I said, "Well, your my foreman and you don't have anything to do with MURPHY BROS., INC. 519 my being terminated?" He said, "Well, as I say, it was Paul and some other guys that got their heads together" Barham testified as follows- Q. On the day of termination do you recall any conversation with Mr Harris on that day concerning his termination? A. Yes, I informed him that he was to be terminated, and I also said to him that if it was up to me it would have been different, and I indicated at this point that he wouldn't have been there as long as he was if it had been- TRIAL EXAMINER: What did you say to him? I don't- just what were your words? You said you indicated that-that's a conclusion. You may have thought you indicated it to hum or you may not have. What I'd like to know is what your language was. THE WITNESS. Well, I told him it was decided that he would be terminated, and that if it had been up to me that it would have been different. TRIAL EXAMINER: But you didn't say in what way it would have been different? THE WITNESS. No, sir. It is concluded from Harris' credited testimony and the testimony of Barham, after it had been clarified, that Barham implied to Harris at that time that he did not agree with the judgment as to Harris' work performance and the decision to discharge hum. This is consistent with his failure to talk to Harris at any time about slowing down in his work. Based upon the foregoing appraisal of the testimony of Barham and Godsil and observation of them on the stand, the Trial Examiner is of the opinion that they were unconvincing witnesses as to the work performance of Harris, as contrasted with Harris and his corroborating witness, Brown. Therefore, it is concluded that their testimony that Harris' work perfor- mance deteriorated cannot be credited and that his work performance did not, in fact, deteriorate. Concluding Findings While it is realized that the appointment of an employee to the position of union steward may affect his attitude toward his work, there is nothing of substance in the record, other than the discredited testimony of Barham and Godsil, relating to the contention that Harris' appointment as job steward affected his attitude toward his work .2 Based upon the foregoing analysis of the record, parti- cularly the credibility findings hereinabove with respect to the testimony of Barham and Godsil, the credited testimony of Harris and Brown, and Godsil's apparent resentment of union interference evidenced by the credited testimony of Harris and Charlton and Godsil's own testimony, it is concluded that Harris' discharge was motivated by his activities as job steward and not by poor work performance. Therefore, it is found that Harris was discharged by Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE The unfair labor practice of Respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with its operations set forth in Section I above, have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent discharged Ernest L. Harris in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since it is not known whether the flood control project in Pocatello, Idaho, has or has not been completed, the Recommended Order will be in the alternative.3 In the event that the project has not yet been completed, it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to offer Harris immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of discharge to the date of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period, in accordance with the formula prescribed in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, together with interest on such sum, such interest to be computed in accordance with the formula prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 715. In the event the project has been completed, it will be recommended that the foregoing be modified to the following extent: The Respondent need not offer reinstatement to Harris, but shall instead send a letter to him stating that, notwithstanding his discharge, he will be considered eligible for employment in the future at any of the Respondent's projects if he should choose to apply for employment at any of them. In addition, Respondent will be ordered to include in said letter a copy of the notice which would otherwise have been posted if the project had not been concluded. Also it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to marl copies of the notice to all employees who were employed by the Respondent at the Pocatello, Idaho, project on September 16, 1967. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2 Respondent points out in its brief testimony with respect to a statement that Harris is supposed to have made at the time he gave a faulty signal to a driver. This statement, purportedly made to a Mr. Emehiser, was that Emehiser could not fire him because he is the steward . There is no showing that Emehiser was a supervisor at the time and, furthermore , the testimony with regard to the statement was stricken from the record with the consent of the parties. Moreover, counsel for Respondent represented that there was no significance to the testimony about the statement Therefore , the matter of the statement was not litigated and said stricken testimony cannot be considered as a basis for a finding that Harris made such a statement or that his appointment as steward affected his attitude toward his work. 3lnterboro Contractors, Inc, 157 NLRB 1295, 1302. 4 This does not mean, however, that Respondent is required to offer Harris employment at other projects ; Respondent is only to consider him for employment on a nondiscriminatory basis. 520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent discharged Ernest L. Harris for activities on behalf of the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and upon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, it is ordered that Murphy Brothers, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of any employee for engaging in activities on behalf of Laborers Local Union No 267, affiliated with Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to engage in , or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) In the event the Respondent's operations at the flood control project in Pocatello, Idaho, are still in progress, offer to Ernest L. Harris immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss he may have suffered by reason of his discharge in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) In the event Respondent's operations at its flood control project in Pocatello, Idaho, have been completed, make Ernest L. Harris whole for any loss-of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discharge and assure him of his future eligibility for employment by the Respondent in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (c) Notify Harris if he is 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 Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records and reports and all other records necessary or useful to determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (e) In the event that the Respondent's operations at the flood control project in Pocatello, Idaho, are still in progress, post at such project copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and remain posted as long as operations on the project are in progress, but for a period of no longer than 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. (f) In the event the Respondent's operations at the Pocatello, Idaho, project have been completed, mail copies of the aforesaid notice to the employees specified in the section entitled "The Remedy." (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' 5 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 6 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read * "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employees or otherwise discriminate in regard to their here or tenure of employment, or any terms or conditions of employment, because they have engaged in activities on behalf of Laborers Local Union No. 267, affiliated with Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL offer Ernest L. Harris immediate and full reinstatment to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed if we have not completed our operations at the flood control project at Pocatello, Idaho. WE WILL, in the event that the flood control project at Pocatello, Idaho, has been completed, assure Ernest L. Harris that he is eligible for future employment by us. MURPHY BROS., INC. 521 WE WILL make Ernest L. Harris whole for any loss of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military against him. Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. MURPHY BROTHERS, INC This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days (Employer) from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Dated By If employees have any question concerning this notice or (Representative) (Title) compliance with its provisions, they may communicate direct- ly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Note: We will notify the above-named employee, if he is Washington 98101, Telephone 583-7473. presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of