Woodruff Electric Cooperative Corp.

WOODRUFF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORP. 575 Woodruff Electric Cooperative Corporation and International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 26-CA-3016 February 18, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On October 15, 1968, Trial Examiner George Turitz issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that the Respondent 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 the Respondent had not engaged in a certain other unfair labor practice alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal as to it. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. 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 brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 'The Respondent contends that the credibility findings of the Trial Examiner are erroneous in that they resolve crednbility in favor of the General Counsel's witnesses rather than those of the Respondent It is established Board policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner' s credibility findings unless, as is not the case here, a clear preponderance of all relevant evidence convinces us they are incorrect , Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). Nor does the fact that the Trial Examiner credited all the General Counsel's witnesses, and credited none of the Respondent's witnesses, necessarily indicate any impropriety. NLRB v Pittsburgh Steamship Co, 337 U.S. 657 Accordingly , we find no basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings in this case In adopting the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent's operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act, we also rely on evidence that the Respondent has recently received $41,000 in loan funds from the Rural Electrification Administration , and was presently negotiating an additional large loan ORDER 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, Woodruff Electric Cooperative Corporation, Forrest City, Arkansas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision, as so modified: Add the following as paragraph 2(d), and reletter the following paragraphs accordingly: "(d) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION GEORGE TURITZ, Trial Examiner: On a charge filed on February 23, 1968, by International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC (the Union), and served on February 23, 1968, upon Woodruff Electric Cooperative Corporation (Respondent), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board), through the Regional Director for Region 26 on May 17, 1968, issued a complaint and notice of hearing against Respondent. Respondent filed its answer in which it denied all allegations of unfair labor practices. The hearing on the complaint was held before me in Forrest City, Arkansas, on June 24 and 25, 1968. The General Counsel and Respondent were each represented by counsel at the hearing, and both have filed briefs with the Trial Examiner. Upon the entire record and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is an Arkansas corporation maintaining places of business at Forrest City, Augusta, and Moro, all in Arkansas, where it is engaged as a public utility in the distribution and sale of electric power. Respondent has built and maintains electric-power lines covering an area of approximately 4,500 square miles in a seven-county area of the State of Arkansas. In the course and conduct of its business operations Respondent annually receives gross revenues in excess of $250,000. It is found that Respondent is an employer whose operations affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act). II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 174 NLRB No. 84 576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondent applied to a local bank and obtained a written commitment for a $290,000 loan at 6 1/2 percent interest on the security of the two notes mentioned. On February 19 a memorandum was issued informing the employees that working time was being cut back to 9 hours per day; the policy had been announced to the foremen earlier. Respondent was aware that the foremen often reported and claimed for their crews overtime not actually worked. On February 19 Bostick and other officers of Respondent met with Clapp, the REA administrator, Brown, its Southwest Area Director for its electrical program, and various other important REA officials, including representatives of the general counsel of the Department of Agriculture. Bostick, in his testimony, sought to describe the meeting as an attempt by Respondent to obtain two things - an immediate emergency loan because of the ice storm, and a regular loan based on construction which Respondent had carried out in the past with its own funds. He also testified that while both requests were refused at the meeting, the refusal was tentative and subject to further consideration; that Brown promised to telephone the REA's final answer in a few days; and that Brown telephoned on February 21 at or about 1:40 and informed him that the REA would consider a loan based on future construction and on $670,000 worth of equipment already purchased which met REA standards, but that there would be no loan on past work orders, and, further, that no immediate funds were available. He testified that the call lasted 30 or 40 minutes, and that this was the first time he was told with finality that there would be no immediate loan. Brown in his testimony pictured the meeting as devoted primarily to a discussion of Respondents practices in various areas, including engineering, planning, construction, investments, finances, and rates, with a view of bringing about changes which would enable it to qualify generally for REA loans. He stated that Respondent was seeking a loan of approximately $2 million based upon the construction which it had already carried out with its own funds. He testified that Bostick was told that REA, contrary to the normal practice, might advance approximately $675,000 on the basis of specialized equipment which Respondent had already purchased meeting REA standards, but that in any event nothing would be advanced on the $1,300,000 of past work orders since the construction did not meet REA standards. While admitting that Bostick urged Respondent's need for immediate relief, Brown testified that there was not, and could not have been, any question of an immediate loan, i.e., on that day, first, because processing any REA loan necessarily took several months, and, second, because no actual application was submitted, so that there was nothing for REA to act on at the meeting. Moreover, he testified, it was pointed out at the meeting that the immediacy of Respondent's need would be met by the $290,000 bank loan for which Respondent had a commitment and which the REA officials told Bostick they approved of Respondent's taking, plus the $41,000 balance remaining from the 1962 loan, which they promised to consider advancing upon an application supported by work or inventory orders. Brown denied promising to telephone or otherwise communicate any further answer to Respondent after the meeting, except as to the $41,000, and as to that he said that that sum was advanced in the middle of March. The Trial Examiner has credited Brown's testimony as to the meeting. No reason is apparent why Brown should have misrepresented what happened, and as he was The principal issue litigated, which was purely factual, was whether Respondent's layoff or discharge of 14 employees on February 22 and 23, 1968, was triggered by a telephone call on the afternoon of February 21 from the Rural Electrification Administration ("REA") refusing to advance an emergency loan to Respondent, and thus had an economic motivation, or was triggered by the discharged employees' attendance at a meeting on the evening of February 21, and thus had a discriminatory motivation. A. Respondent's Financial Condition; the Telephone Call on February 21 Electrical cooperatives borrow needed capital funds from REA, paying a low interest rate. The practice is that the cooperative, aided by REA officials, works out plans and estimates for work to be done over a 2-year period and prepares a loan application, and that REA, if all its requirements and standards are met, advises the cooperative that it will lend the money, a process usually taking up to 6 months. Then funds are advanced upon presentation of proper work or purchase orders. Because Respondent failed to conform to REA requirements its efforts to obtain loans were unsuccessful after 1962 and REA, in addition, had withheld $41,000 from a loan authorized in 1962. Respondent had had to use its own funds for construction and its financial condition deteriorated to the extent that in late 1967 it had to borrow $100,000 to pay its taxes. At sometime prior to November 28, 1967, arrangements were made for a meeting of Respondent with REA to be held in Washington on January 10, 1968. The purpose of the meeting was to review Respondent's practices so that it could take the necessary steps to make them conform with REA policies and regulations and thus place Respondent in a position to qualify for REA loans and get its financial affairs straightened out. For reasons not disclosed by the record there were several postponements of the meeting and it was not held until February 19, 1968. Meanwhile, however, starting on January 7, 1968, an ice storm had struck the region served by Respondent. The storm reached a crisis on January 10, by which time 750 poles had fallen to the ground. Other electrical cooperatives and two contractors sent in 32 trucks with 91 men to help, and Respondent hired extra employees in addition. It took 3 weeks to get the lines back into operation; but repairs of storm damage were still being made at the time of the hear„ng. At that time Respondent's estimate of the cost was $300,000; its estimate presented at the February 19 meeting was $220,971.07. At the meeting of Respondent's board of directors on January 23, 1968, the ice-storm damage was among the matters discussed. The board of directors instructed T. E. Bostick, the manager, to raise money from local banks by discounting or borrowing on two notes held by Respondent in the total amount of $290,000, and he was instructed to cash or borrow on any other securities held by Respondent. Steps were also taken enabling Respondent to use the $41,000 remaining from its 1962 authorized loan for repairs to distribution facilities damaged by the storm. Finally, the manager was instructed, "to curtail every expense in order to recover from the heavy damage done by the ice storm . . . . 11 WOODRUFF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORP. testifying concerning a matter within his official responsibility and competence, his recollection of the incident would be particularly reliable Respondent failed to call any of its officers, who, presumably, were available in the area of the hearing site, to corroborate Bostick. Moreover, Brown's description of the meeting is supported by a number of factors: (1.) The meeting was planned and set up long before the ice storm and for purposes which coincided with the character of the meeting as described by Brown. (2.) Respondent's board of directors met on January 23, 1968, and discussed problems caused by the ice storm, but the minutes of the meeting make no particular reference to the pending conference with the REA. Bostick testified that he and other officers were given a specific directive at that meeting to go to Washington to seek an immediate loan from REA, but he admitted that such a directive should have been included in the minutes. Moreover, the minutes disclose that the president placed before the board two possible ways of meeting the problems caused by the storm, an REA loan and discounting or borrowing on notes, and that the board did nothing about an REA loan but did direct Bostick to raise $290,000 from local banks by discounting or borrowing on two notes. The board also passed a necessary resolution to enable Respondent to use the $41,000 remaining from the 1962 REA loan for ice-storm damage. (3.) The letter which Bostick presented to the REA at the meeting dwelt primarily, and in detail, upon Respondent's general financial situation. While it stated that the unexpected ice-storm damage had forced Respondent to ask for help, it did not urge or request an immediate loan. The only possible indication of immediate need was a schedule of "accounts payable" and "cash available" attached to the letter which showed a surplus as between the two categories of only $65. However, as Brown testified, the schedule disclosed on its face that this condition was not "immediate" since, first, it ignored the fact that the amount of cash would be increased by customer payments in the regular course of business, and, second, one of the accounts payable was for $103,000 not due until April 1, 1968. In addition Bostick's testimony established that Respondent did not, at least as a matter of course, meet all accounts payable promptly. (4.) Brown's letter of March 7 summarizing "the main ideas" discussed at the February 19 meeting made no reference to any request for or denial of any immediate loan. (5.) Bostick submitted no loan application but admitted that REA had told him on February 19 that there could be no advance of funds without an application. He also admitted that in any event the actual advance of funds would take a month after approval. As to the question of further communication with Respondent, Brown testified that he told Bostick at the end of the meeting that he "would confirm these discussions;" that on February 20 he was prevented by visitors from writing a letter reviewing the meeting; that on February 21 he realized that February 22 was a holiday, after which he was scheduled to be away for a week; that rather than have Bostick wait 10 days to 2 weeks for the promised summary of the February 19 discussions, and also because he himself desired to have some inkling of Respondent's reactions to the discussions, he decided to telephone Bostick, which he did on February 21. He testified as to the February 21 telephone call: The subject of the conversation was to review, as best I could, all of the things that we had discussed and what 577 I thought, representations that had been made in the administrator's office, and the understandings which had been reached to furnish a sort of summary of that meeting. Brown also stated that during the telephone conversation he promised Bostick to send a confirming letter when he returned from his impending trip, and Brown did send such a letter, the one dated March 7 already referred to. It is found that Brown did not promise or make, and Bostick did not expect, a telephone call or other communication giving any further answer to Respondent's requests than were given at the meeting on February 19. The Trial Examiner does not credit Christian's testimony that Bostick told him that, "Mr. Brown, of the REA said they would review the coop's entire file and give Bostick a final answer by phone on February 21." B The Employees' Meeting on February 21 On February 21 various employees started to discuss among themselves obtaining representation by a union. Early that afternoon Carl Lawson and three other men employed by Respondent met briefly with Hobbs, an international representative of the Union, and discussed the matter. They decided to have a meeting to determine how many men wanted a union. Word of the meeting was passed among the employees and it was held about 2 miles from Respondent's Forrest City plant at or about 7:30 that evening. It lasted until 9 or 9:30. Some two dozen of Respondent's approximately 75 nonoffice personnel attended the meeting, among them 4 of the 6 crew foremen at Forrest City.' After discussion indicated that the men present felt that a union was needed, Hobbs was invited. He came and informed the employees how to go about organizing themselves. He raised question as to the eligibility of the crew foremen for membership, but after discussion he said that be agreed with the foremen that they were not supervisors and were eligible. All four who were present indicated that they favored having a union. One, Franklin, was an especially active proponent. No cards were solicited or signed and no arrangements were made for future steps to be taken. Lawson testified that it was unnecessary to plan at that time for further steps since the men knew that they would see each other the next day. Among those who learned of the meeting was Ray Capshaw. Employed since 1963, Capshaw had been classified as a foreman until 1968, when he was demoted and the job of utility repairman created for his benefit. Christian, Respondent's operations manager, testified as follows At about 6:15 p.m. on February 21 Capshaw telephoned, saying "I've got to talk to you " He asked Capshaw to meet him at the office, but when Capshaw did 'Respondent's crews usually consisted of three men, including the foreman, who worked manually along with the others , but some were larger. In Case 26-RC-3117, after a hearing, the Regional Director on May 9, 1968, found in accordance with Respondent's contention at that hearing, that the crew foremen were supervisors and he excluded them from the unit . The Union filed a petition for review which the Board has not yet acted upon. In the present case both Respondent and the General Counsel take the position that the foremen are supervisors. 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not appear by 6:25, he went to Capshaw's house, which was close by, where he found Capshaw "pretty well intoxicated." Capshaw said, "I've got to talk to you; they're having a meeting tonight," and he asked to see Bostick. The two proceeded to the office, where Christian telephoned Bostick. He asked Bostick when he was coming back to the office, advising him, " ... I think you need to come back right now." When Bostick arrived 15 minutes later, Capshaw said, "they are having a meeting tonight - you'd be surprised who's doing it, Mutt Robertson and George Haynes." At that point Christian had to leave the room and he heard little more of the conversation. On cross-examination Christian testified that he had no idea what the meeting was about; that he called Bostick only because Capshaw asked him to, and that he did not know whether the matter was important, but told Bostick that Capshaw said so. He testified that thereafter he did not give the matter much thought, did not discuss the Union, did not ask Capshaw what the meeting was about, and had no idea at all that it concerned a union. Bostick testified as follows: Christian telephoned him, . and he asked me to come to the office, that some of the boys had some information they might want to pass on to me." When he got to the office, Capshaw, who was "quite heavily intoxicated," said that there was something he thought Bostick should know, that some of the boys were having a meeting at a service station that night. Capshaw said that "they had asked him to serve as spokesman for the group," and that he thought that perhaps Bostick would like to go to the meeting. Bostick declined, telling Capshaw that his door was always open to those who wished to speak with him. Capshaw thereupon asked Bostick, "Well, do you want me to represent you?" Bostick declined this also.2 Bostick, volunteering, testified: And nothing was ever said about a union meeting - I didn't even know what the meeting was about and he didn't tell me. He just said, "some of the boys thought they wanted to talk things over." Bostick insisted that he had no idea that a union was to be the subject of the meeting and that he never discussed the meeting with Capshaw after that occasion since he did not think Capshaw was in any condition to remember. During the conversation, he testified, Capshaw said, "I can tell you who is pushing this." Bostick said that that was not necessary, but Capshaw said, "Well, anyway I'm going to tell you who it is. It's Mutt Robertson and George Haynes." Bostick testified that Capshaw raised a question as to whether he himself should go to the meeting, but Bostick told him that it was up to himself, and Capshaw finally said that he thought he would go. Capshaw, who was still highly intoxicated, went to the meeting, where he frequently interrupted the discussions with various parliamentary comments and suggestions. In order to keep him more quiet he was finally designated as nominal "chairman" of the meeting. He left before the meeting was over. About 11 o'clock that night Bostick telephoned Floyd Laird, Respondent's general field supervisor, who had gone to bed, and asked him if he had heard anything about the meeting. Bostick testified that Laird said that he had heard nothing. Laird testified: 'Respondent contends that Capshaw was spokesman for the employees There is no competent evidence to this effect nor, in view of Capshaw's condition and his alleged offer to represent Bostick also, is there credible evidence that Bostick thought so [he] asked me did I know they was having a meeting; he didn't say what kind, because he didn't know, and I know I didn't and I said, "no, sir , I didn't" and that was all that was said. Houston Perry testified that Laird asked him the next morning how the meeting came out, explaining that Bostick had called him at 11 o'clock and "told him that the boys were having a little union meeting" and that Bostick had asked him whether he knew anything about it. Laird testified that he recalled no conversation with Perry on February 22. He specifically denied having asked Perry how the meeting came out or, in fact, having told Perry or anyone else about Bostick ' s telephone call. Laird's denials were not convincing , especially in view of the absence of explanation , evidentiary or otherwise, of how Perry could have learned of the call except through Laird. The Trial Examiner has credited Perry's account of the conversation . On the basis of the lack of credibility both of Laird's denial that Bostick had said it was a union meeting, and of Bostick's denial that Capshaw had said anything about a union meeting, see Dyer v. MacDougall, 201 F.2d 265, 269; cf. Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v N L.R B., 362 F.2d 466, 470 (C.A. 9), enfg 151 NLRB 1329, and as no reason appears why Capshaw should have withheld that particular item of information from Bostick, it is found that Bostick knew that the meeting was concerned with unionization.' C. The Layoff and Discharge of the Employees About 6 o'clock the next morning, February 22, Bostick called Christian and asked if he was up yet. Christian told him he was not. Bostick asked him to come to the office as soon as possible. Christian arrived at the office about 6:45. Bostick had a list of the various crews and their foremen and from it made up a list of employees to be laid off, which he gave to Christian. He did not consult Christian about the list, having made up his mind whom to lay off before Christian arrived. The designated employees were laid off that day before starting work except for A. L. Morgan and foreman Alford and his crew. Christian requested that Alford's crew be allowed to complete an urgent job they were on before being laid off and Bostick consented. Their layoff and that of Morgan were postponed 2 days. The delay in Morgan's layoff was not explained. The foregoing findings are based upon testimony of Christian, given in large part on cross-examination. Bostick's testimony was different and has not been credited. Those laid off and their dates of layoff were: February 22 February 23 Thomas Browning Curtis Bledsoe Larry Garner Roy Matthews Larry Hill A. L. Morgan Carl Lawson Jerry Posey Russell Parham Johnny Rosebud J. W. Smith Larry Smith Bobby Webb 'The point does not affect the merits since, even according to Bostick's testimony that the meeting was about the employees' "problems" and possibly a strike, it would have been a concerted activity within the protection of the Act N L.R.B v Washington Aluminum Company, Inc., 370 U S. 9 However, as Bostick, Christian and Laird thought the point important, their professions that they did not know the meeting concerned unionization bear significantly and unfavorably upon their credibility. WOODRUFF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORP. On February 22 Bostick also prepared a letter of dismissal for Houston Perry, Respondent's material clerk. Bostick failed to see Perry that day and therefore did not discharge him until February 23, when he called Perry into the office and handed him several checks, saying, "Hap it looks like we are going to have to part company." Asked why, Bostick said that it was because he could not pay the salary Perry was demanding and because Perry did not like the work. He handed Perry the dismissal letter which read as follows: February 22, 1968 Mr, `Hap' Perry Material Clerk Woodruff Electric Coop. Corp. Forrest City, Arkansas Dear Hap: Following our conversation a few clays ago in which you stated that unless you could make $6,000.00 or more per year in the store room that you would not be satisfied with the job, this is to advise I have gone into the possibilities of advancement in this category and find that it is impossible to pay that much salary in our warehouse. In view of this fact, I am attaching your check for payment in full for your services through the 22nd and hope that you will find something that will pay better. We enjoyed having you with us and I am sorry that you could not like the work, or that it was not in keeping with the salary that you expected. Yours very truly, T.E. Bostick Manager PS I am attaching a third check for the day of February 23, since I missed you this afternoon at 5 o'clock. Perry, an employee for 7 years, had frequently expressed dissatisfaction with his salary. In about November or December 1967 he had threatened to quit because he felt that certain instructions indicated that Respondent did not have confidence in his ability to make necessary decisions when taking inventory, but otherwise he had never expressed dissatisfaction with his job. His last complaint about pay was on February 20, when he told Bostick, who, as already stated, had cut overtime hours, that he would have difficulty getting along on his salary with only 9 hours' work. Bostick at that time promised to try to work out a pay increase for Perry, saying, "I'll see. I'll help you out the first of the month." During that conversation Bostick criticized Perry for claiming more overtime than he actually worked. This was, to Bostick's knowledge, a common practice among the employees which Bostick had found it difficult to control. Bostick did not claim that Perry's overtime irregularities were a factor in his discharge; he ascribed it solely to Perry's dissatisfaction and the fact that it was possible to get along without him. He testified that Perry was selected for discharge as part of the general layoff when he ascertained from Christian that the latter thought that he and the staking engineer could handle Perry's work. Christian, however, contradicted Bostick, testifying that Bostick did not confer with him prior to deciding to discharge Perry. On February 22 Respondent had among its employees nine crewmen and one utility repairman who had been 579 hired on or after January 7, 1968, the beginning of the ice storm, and two other crewmen who had been hired after January 1, 1968, but before the storm. On February 22 and 23 Respondent laid off 8 of those 12 employees, namely, Larry Garner, Larry Hill, Carl Lawson, A. L. Morgan, Russell Parham, J. W. Smith, Larry Smith and Bobby Webb, and retained 4, namely, O. F. Frazier, Bennie Holmes, Wayne Robertson and Lloyd London, the last being the utility repairman. None of the four retained had attended the employees' meeting. All eight laid off had attended with the exception of Larry Hill; and Hill had been reported at the meeting to be in favor of having a union.' On February 22 and 23 Respondent also laid off five crewmen and one material clerk hired at various times prior to January 1, 1968. These six employees, with their respective dates of hire, were: Curtis Bledsoe July 18, 1966 Thomas Browning August 16, 1967 Roy Matthews June 21, 1967 Houston A. Perry June 1, 1961 (Material clerk) Jerry Posey September 1, 1967 Johnny Rosebud September 9, 1967 All six had attended the employees ' meeting. Bostick testified that at the time of the layoff he had work for the laid off employees and even at the time of the hearing had work for some; however, he had decided that he had to lay them off at once when he received Brown's telephone call, since he did not know how he was going to meet the next payroll. He admitted that usually the selection of crewmen for layoff and recall was left to the discretion of the crew foremen. Bostick's testimony as to the basis of selection of employees for layoff was as follows: In general the last people put to work, those with lowest seniority, were the ones laid off on February 22 and 23, although that was not, he said, a set rule. At that time Bledsoe, Matthews, Posey, Larry Smith, and Webb, were all on Alford's crew, which was selected for layoff for two reasons. First, it was working with borrowed equipment, which had to be returned to the owner since it could not be purchased. Second, Respondent preferred to "keep some of our people who had been with us for some time . . . . That the Alford crew which was the most inexperienced people we had, could be laid off as a crew • they were the last group and a bunch of them were picked up here in the ice storm and that was just the logical group to lay off." As to Browning, he testified that his foreman had reported that one day he looked good but the next he was afraid that Browning would hurt someone; that Bostick had said that he should let him go, and the foreman replied that he might have to do that. He stated, further, that when it became necessary to lay some employees off, he decided that Browning should be included. Bostick explained the retention of the four employees hired during the ice storm who had not attended the meeting as follows: Frazier was on a crew with much work to do; Holmes operated a truck picking up damaged transformers, of which there were still many in the field; London was specifically requested by Capshaw who reported that he was a good repairman; and 'Respondent did not follow seniority, although, according to Bostick, it did give preference to employees older in point of service Among the 12 January hires all but one of those laid off had been hired before at least some of those retained, and three had been hired before all four of those retained. 580 DECicIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Wayne Robertson was retained because of his father, who worked for the Company for about 20 years. D. Interrogation and Other Independent Interference, Restraint and Coercion Lawson testified that in early January 1968, when he was being interviewed by Bostick for employment,' Bostick asked him whether he belonged to a union and what he thought about the Union, and that he informed Bostick that he was a member at another plant in the area and thought it was a good thing. He testified that Bostick stated that he would not have a union Bostick testified that he merely asked Lawson, as he did many applicants, what organizations he belonged to and that Lawson mentioned the Union He admitted telling employees that Respondent had got along well without a union and that he hoped that that would continue, but he denied saying at any time that he would not have a union, testifying that he told them it was their prerogative, if they so wished. Christian corroborated Lawson's testimony that Bostick specifically asked him if he belonged to a union, and it is so found. Christian's account of the conversation, which included nothing one way or the other about Bostick's .alleged comments that he would not have a union or that it was the employees' prerogative to have one if they wished, concluded, "that was about the extent of the conversation ." As Christian on other occasions gave testimony, which, if not clarified by cross-examination, would have been misleading,' and as Lawson's testimony on the point was convincing , the Trial Examiner credits Lawson's testimony and finds that Bostick did not say that it was the employees' prerogative to have a union but told Lawson that he would not have a union. At some time on February 22, after instructing Christian to make the layoffs, Bostick went to Respondent's place of business at Moro and spoke with men employed there, including the two crew foremen, Fred and Jack Hill. He testified that after discussing various business matters, he asked whether they had had any visitors there in the last day or two. At the hearing Bostick haltingly explained this question by stating that he did not know what the meeting the night before had been about and that he "wanted to know if some of the same trouble was bothering some of the people in that area ...." Asked how the question of a union got into the conversation, he testified. I believe somebody - I didn't mention it - somebody mentioned the fact, wanted to know if we were - somebody had heard that somebody had had a meeting the night before. I said I didn't know whether it was a union meeting or not; somebody wanted to know if it was a union meeting. 'Although on cross-examination Christian, as already stated, testified that Bostick independently had decided on whom to lay off before Christian came to the early morning conference on February 22, his direct testimony gave the opposite impression He testified And at that time, we did talk about who we would lay off, and Mr. Bostick gave me a list of the people to lay off Q Now, you say you discussed this and then Mr. Bostick gave you a list of the people to lay off? A. Yes. Bostick also testified that he told the employees at Moro the same thing he had said when hiring Lawson, namely, that it was their prerogative to have a union if they so desired, but that Respondent had got along fine without unions and he hoped that they could continue without a union. Lawson testified that when, later that day, he approached foreman Fred Hill about the Union, Hill said that the men at Moro could not go along or help because Bostick had been there earlier and had told them that he would not have a union. Hill did not testify Bostick denied that he at any time said that he would not have a union. Respondent contends that Lawson should not be credited with respect to this incident because, among other things, "it appears inprobable and unreliable that Lawson attributes identical utterances to Fred Hill and Bostick as to ' . . not going to have no union' ," and because Lawson testified that his conversation with Hill was prior to his discharge As Hill was telling Lawson what had been said by Bostick, who himself testified that he said the same thing on both occasions, there is no such improbability or unreliability as is contended Lawson's testimony that the vist was "prior to" his discharge was at variance with the entire tenor of this testimony and of his investigative affidavit It was an inadvertent error as to an unimportant detail which crept into his testimony when he merely answered "Yes" to counsel's leading question premilinary to the incident as to which he was about to testify Significantly Hill, one of Respondent's supervisors, was not called as a witness It is found that Hill did tell Lawson that Bostick had said he would not have a union. Concluding Findings as to Interrogation and Other Independent Interference, Restraint, and Coercion Respondent proved no justification for asking Lawson, when he applied for work, whether he was a member of a union and how he felt about a union. Such questions would be assumed by an applicant for employment not to be idle chitchat, but to relate, rather, to, his application. Bostick's interrogation thus contained the implication that Lawson's employment might be affected, either then or in the future, by his attitude on unionization. Bostick gave Lawson no assurance that he could safely join the Union. On the contrary, whatever doubt there might have been that the effect on Lawson's employment would be adverse if Lawson acted on his beliefs on his new job was removed when Bostick told Lawson that he would not have a union, thereby expressly warning that he would not respect the employees' rights under the Act. Bostick's threat was neither negated nor cured by the fact that he hired Lawson notwithstanding his past union membership and his favorable opinion of unions. At that time Respondent's need for employees was acute. Moreover Lawson was necessarily aware that he was subject to Bostick's power to discharge him if he disregarded Bostick's warning and that his exercise of his rights under the Act subjected him to the risk that Bostick might retaliate by using that power. It is found that Respondent unlawfully interrogated Lawson at the time he was hired and threatened that Respondent would not have a union to represent the employees, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Although Fred Hill may not have been considered by employees to represent management, the fact is that he did. His report to Lawson on February 22, that Bostick had said he would not have a union represented an WOODRUFF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORP. authoritative statement to employees by Hill of Respondent's antiunion policy and constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Respondent. Laird's telling Perry of Bostick's inquiry as to what Laird knew about the meeting was not calculated to give the impression that Respondent had been watching the meeting or the employees; the midnight call to Laird tended rather to show that Respondent and its agents had not been there and that Respondent therefore needed information from other sources. Nor did Laird's disclosure that Bostick knew about the meeting tend to indicate to Lawson that the Respondent had engaged in spying In view of the large number of individuals who knew of the meeting, among them foremen and various employees of long service, Bostick might easily have learned about it from any individual attending, or invited to attend, the meeting. It is found that the General Counsel has failed to prove that Respondent created the impression of surveillance of employees' union activities. See Chelsea Clock Company, 167 NLRB No. 85; see also William L. Bonnell Co., Inc., 170 NLRB No. 14. Laird's question as to how the meeting went did constitute an inquiry, first, as to what the employees in general were doing with respect to unionization and other concerted activities, and, second, as to whether Perry in particular was among those who had attended the meeting. In the absence of any evidence of legitimate need for that information, and especially in view of the discriminatory layoff which was taking place that very morning, as discussed below, the interrogation had a necessarily coercive effect. It is found that by Laird's question to Perry on February 22 Respondent engaged in unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1). Concluding Findings as to Discrimination It has been established that Bostick got Laird out of bed at 11 o'clock on the night of February 21 to find out about the meeting, and got Christian out of bed at 6 o'clock the next morning to tell him whom to lay off. It has been established, further that every person laid off or discharged on February 22 and 23 attended the February 21 meeting except for Larry Hill, and that he was counted at the meeting as favoring the Union. It has also been established that several employees hired during the ice-storm emergency, but who did not attend the meeting, were retained while three employed in 1967, and one employed in 1966, were laid off. That Respondent was keenly interested, in the employees' collective activity was established by the note or urgency in Christian's call summoning Bostick to meet Capshaw; by Bostick's prompt appearance at the office; by his telephone call to Laird late at night; and by his trip to Moro the next day to find out if the men there had had "visitors," by which, of course, he meant employees from Forrest City or other individuals interested in organizing the employees at Moro. It is reasonable to infer that Bostick made similar inquiries of others. Moreover Respondent's own evidence establishes that Capshaw, for one, was ready, indeed anxious, to furnish Bostick information about individual employees' participation in the activity which was going on. The Trial Examiner infers that after attending the meeting Capshaw did report further to Bostick, whose denial is not credited, and that Capshaw reported to the extent that he could on who had attended the meeting and who had favored a union. In any event, whether the information came from Capshaw or from some other source, it is inferred that Bostick did get information 581 about who attended the meeting and what was said there. Bostick laid Perry's discharge to two things, Perry's dissatisfaction with his salary and work, and the fact that he ascertained from Christian that he could get along without Perry. However, Christian's denial that he was consulted about Perry's discharge and the absence of that reason from Perry's discharge letter and from Bostick's statement when discharging Perry leave Respondent only the explanation that Perry was selected because of his dissatisfaction. The evidence establishes that Perry was not dissatisfied with his work. So far as his pay was concerned, Respondent had tolerated his dissatisfaction for a long time past, and Bostick's explanation is not credited. In view of the foregoing and of Respondent's attempt at the hearing to establish a basis for discharge not mentioned at the time of the discharge, see Hurd Corporation, 143 NLRB 306, 318, and Transway, Inc., 160 NLRB 838, 849, it is found that Respondent discharged Perry because he attended, and was active in connection with, the meeting. It is further found that such discharge was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Bostick's testimony as to his decision to make the sudden layoff and discharge and as the procedures and reasons for the layoff was contradicted at virtually every turn by established circumstances and/or testimony more reliable than his. It was untrue that Respondent's cash position on February 21 raised the possibility of inability to meet a payroll; there was a surplus of available cash of over $100,000 at least until April 1. It was untrue that the reinstatement of some of the discriminatees on March 4 was made possible by the $290,000 bank loan; Respondent had listed the $290,000 as 'cash available" on February 17. It was untrue that the purpose of the February 19 meeting was to get an immediate emergency loan; the meeting was to study and aid Respondent's general financial condition and had been set up long before the ice storm The January 23 minutes disclosed Respondent's expectation of meeting the immediate emergency through the bank loan and through the $41,000 available from the old REA loan. It was untrue that after the REA meeting Bostick hoped for an immediate loan. Such a loan was impossible under REA procedures, and even Bostick admitted, first, that he assumed that the actual advance of funds would take a month, and, second, that he was told on February 19 that there could be no loan without an application. Most important, it was untrue that REA promised on February 19 to give its refusal of an immediate loan further consideration and to telephone its final answer within a couple of days. Brown had no intention of telephoning; and when, because of supervening circumstances he did telephone on February 21, he said nothing further than what had already been told Bostick on February 19.6 Bostick's testimony that Alford's crew were selected for layoff because they were the most recently hired and 'Christian and Johnston testified that directly after the telephone call Bostick told them that the loan had been denied and that everyone possible would have to be laid off immediately. However, in view of the above findings as to the nature of the meeting and of Brown 's telephone call, and of the further fact that notwithstanding his position as operations manager and his superior familiarity with the work going on and the various crews, Christian did absolutely nothing in the way of planning for an immediate layoff, their testimony that an immediate layoff was ordered is not credited. Respondent had for some time been considering reducing its work force as soon as feasible but had found it not feasible There was no change with respect to feasibility on February 21 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD inexperienced was contradicted by Respondent's payroll records, which established that three of the five rank-and-file members had been hired in September 1967 or earlier, whereas Frazier, Holmes and Robertson, who were retained, had been hired after the ice storm. Bostick's own testimony establishes that crewmen were easily interchangeable. His explanation that Holmes and Frazier were retained because of the particular work they were doing is not credited for that reason. While Respondent did not make layoffs by seniority it did, admittedly, take it into consideration. The point on which the discrediting of Respondent's testimony is most telling in strengthening the inference of its discriminatory motive was as to the process of selecting employees for layoff. Bostick testified that the selection was made by him and Christian together, and Christian corroborated him on his direct examination. On cross-examination, however, Christian testified unequivocally that he had nothing to do with the selection and that Bostick had made up his mind before Christian appeared at the early morning conference. It will be recalled that there was a similar contradiction between Christian and Bostick with respect to Perry. Respondent's counsel was at great pains to establish that it was Christian, not Bostick, who was familiar with the employees and their duties. Moreover, Respondent's normal procedure was to have crew foremen make selections for layoff. In those circumstances the fact that neither Christian nor the foremen, but Bostick, made the selections tends to show that considerations other than company work needs and the employees' respective abilities were the factors which controlled the selection. Finally if the decision for an immediate layoff had been made because of Brown's telephone call, the selections would have been made, or at least worked on, the same afternoon. Cf. Chatfield Paper Corporation, a Division of the Mead Corporation, 172 NLRB No. 47. Respondent contends that its failure to lay off any foremen attending the meeting, including those who were the most active proponents of the Union, negates the existence of a discriminatory motive. However, an employer does not have to discriminate against all union adherents, or even against the most active, in order to accomplish the purpose of discouraging union membership and activity, all employees can learn the lesson to be derived from a single discriminatory discharge In this case Respondent had a particular reason not to discharge the foremen; the record establishes that they were hard to find. Moreover, as they were supervisors, Bostick could restrain their union activities without resorting to discharging his most useful employees. It is found that but for the employees' union and other concerted activities Respondent would not have cut back its payroll on February 22 or for a substantial time thereafter. See Battle Creek Steel Fabricating Company, Inc., 169 NLRB No. 125. It is further found that Respondent laid off the employees on February 22 and 23 in order to discourage union membership and union and other concerted activity and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE It'is found that the activities of Respondent set forth above in section III, occurring in connection with its operations described in section I, 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 As it has been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that the Board issue the Recommended Order set forth below requiring Respondent to cease and desist from said unfair labor practices and to take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that Perry was discharged for discriminatory reasons and not because of his complaints about pay or because Respondent thought it could get along without his services. It is therefore recommended that Perry be reinstated with backpay to his former or substantially equivalent position of employment. It has also been found that the 13 crewmen named in the complaint - were laid off or discharged for discriminatory reasons. Bledsoe, Matthews, Posey and Rosebud were reinstated on or about March 4 and their layoff on April 22 and Respondent's subsequent failure to reinstate them were not alleged to have been discriminatory. For this reason no recommendation is made for their further reinstatement. It is, however, recommended that Respondent make Bledsoe, Matthews, Posey and Rosebud whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination against them up to their reinstatement. Browning, Larry Smith and Webb were hired before the ice storm, and Lawson, although hired during the ice storm, was informed by Christian prior to his layoff that he "had a job,' 17 whereupon he arranged to purchase necessary tools and other equipment through Respondent. In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Browning, Larry Smith, Webb and Lawson be reinstated with backpay to their former or substantially equivalent positions of employment. On April 23, 1968, an outside contractor, engaged for nondiscriminatory reasons, began doing certain construction work for Respondent. Respondent's payroll records disclose that, except for London, all male nonsupervisory employees hired during January 1968, after the beginning of the storm, were terminated by the end of May 1968. It has been found that but for the employees' union activities on February 21, no layoff would have occurred on February 22 or 23 or for some time thereafter. Nevertheless, in the light of the emergency created by the storm and the above facts, it must be concluded that Respondent would eventually have terminated some employees on the basis of its economic needs. Moreover, the further conclusion is warranted that some of the discriminatorily terminated employees hired after inception of the ice storm might have been affected by such reduction of personnel, even absent the discrimination. The present record furnishes no basis for determining the exact order in which they might have been terminated, except to the extent that Bostick testified that Respondent did normally give consideration to length of service. Under these circumstances, it is recommended that Respondent offer Garner, Larry Hill, A. L. Morgan, Russell Parham, and J. W. Smith immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and in the event that there is 'Christian did not deny Lawson 's testimony to this effect; he testified only that he told Lawson when he reported for work that the job was temporary, which Lawson, in turn, did not deny. WOODRUFF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORP. insufficient work for all of them, that Respondent dismiss, if necessary, all persons who were newly hired after their discriminatory terminations in February. If there is not then sufficient work for the remaining employees and those to be offered reinstatement, all available positions shall be distributed among them without discrimination against any employee because of concerted activities, in accordance with a system of seniority or other nondiscriminatory basis. Respondent shall place those employees, if any, for whom no employment is available after such distribution, on a preferential list, with priority in accordance with a system of seniority or other nondiscriminatory basis, and thereafter offer them reinstatement as such employment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work.' It is also recommended that Respondent make said employees whole for any losses they may have suffered because of Respondent's discrimination. In the case of each of the employees entitled to backpay the backpay shall be a sum of money equal to the amount that the employee normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of his reinstatement or offer of reinstatement or placement on a preferential list,' as the case may be, less his net earnings during said period, the backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294, and shall include the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. The possibility that one or more of the employees discriminated against might have been discharged in a reduction of work force even if Respondent had no discriminatory motive shall be taken into consideration in determining the amounts of backpay Respondent's speedy and drastic discriminatory reaction to news of the inception of the employees' concerted activity goes to the heart of the Act and indicates a disposition on Respondent's part not to abide by the law insofar as the Act is concerned. It is therefore recommended that Respondent be required to cease and desist from infringing in any manner in the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Woodruff Electric Cooperative Corporation, is engaged in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent is, and at all times material has been, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 3. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. By discriminatorily laying off and discharging employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 'Cameo, Incorporated, 140 NLRB 361, 368-369, enfd in relevant part 340 F.2d 803 (C.A. 5) 'As Bledsoe, Matthews, Posey, and Rosebud had substantially more seniority than the employees hired during the ice storm, the order shall not be deemed to prevent Respondent from including them on such priority list 583 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. The unfair labor practices described above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, Respondent, Woodruff Electric Cooperative Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Laying off or discharging employees or discriminating in any manner against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because of their membership in, or activities on behalf of, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC, or any other labor organization, or because they have engaged in their right to self-organization or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership, activities, or desires in a manner or under circumstances constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (c) Threatening employees that Respondent would not have a union to represent them in collective bargaining. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, to the following employees: Thomas Browning, Carl Lawson, Houston A. Perry, Larry Smith, and Bobby Webb. (b) Offer Larry Garner, Larry Hill, A. L. Morgan, Russell Parham, and J. W. Smith immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, if jobs are available, dismissing, if necessary, any persons hired by Respondent on or. after February 22, 1968. If sufficient jobs are not available for the remaining employees and those to be offered reinstatement pursuant to this paragraph, all available positions shall be distributed among them without discrimination against any employee because of concerted activities, in accordance with a system of seniority or other nondiscriminatory basis. After such distribution, Respondent shall place those employees, if any, for whom no employment is available on a preferential list, with priority in accordance with a system of seniority or other nondiscriminatory basis, and thereafter offer them reinstatement if such employment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work. (c) Make whole Curtis Bledsoe, Thomas Browning, Larry Garner, Larry Hill, Carl Lawson, Roy Matthews, A L. Morgan, Russell Parham, Houston A. Perry, Jerry Posey, Johnny Rosebud, J. W. Smith, Larry Smith, and Bobby Webb for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in section V in this Decision entitled "The Remedy." 584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, work orders, contracts for work, and all other reports and records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and the right to reinstatement. (e) Post at its offices and places of business at Forrest City, Moro, and Augusta, Arkansas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."10 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 26, after being duly signed by its representative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegation in the complaint that Respondent created the impression of surveillance of its employees' union activities be dismissed. "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, a Decision has been issued finding that we violated the law and ordering us to post this notice and actually do what we say in this notice. Since it has been found that we discriminated against the 14 employees named below by laying them off or discharging them, we will do the following: WE WILL offer Thomas Browning, Larry Garner, Larry Hill, Carl Lawson, A. L. Morgan, Russell Parham, Houston A. Perry, J. W. Smith, Larry Smith and Bobby Webb reinstatement to their former jobs, with all the rights and privileges which they enjoyed at the time we fired them, as provided in the Decision, and if any of them are now in the Armed Forces, we will notify them of their right to their former jobs after discharge from the Armed Forces. We are not offering Curtis Bledsoe, Roy Matthews, Jerry Posey, or Johnny Rosebud such reinstatenent because we already did reinstate them. However, we will pay them and the rest of the employees named in this paragraph for any loss of wages they had as a result of the discrimination which it has been found we practiced against them. WE WILL NOT discharge, lay off, or otherwise discriminate against you in order to discourage membership in or support for International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC, or any other labor organization or to discourage you from getting together to help and protect each other with respect to your jobs and things related to your jobs. WE WILL NOT ask you questions about the Union, or your activities or membership in the Union or about your getting together to help and protect each other about your jobs. WE WILL NOT threaten not to put up with your having a union. WE WILL respect your rights to self-organization, to form, join or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively as to terms and conditions of employment through the IUE or any other representative of your own choosing, or to refrain from such activity, and WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in your exercise of these rights. Dated By WOODRUFF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION (Employer) (Representative) (Title) 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone 534-3161.