Murphy Body Works, Inc.

824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Murphy Body Works, bic. and Local Ulni No. 3011, United Brothherhoud of Cam Wd Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 1 I-CA-3589 February 26, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZA&ORIA On September 20, 1968, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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 it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision acid a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the bearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and' the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Natiofal Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Nation•a1 Labor Relations Board adopts as' its l'er 'the Recommended Order of -tom Trial Exarrlinei, and hereby orders that RYe;sle'ft, Mer ', Body, Works, Inc., Wilson, N°oftit Carolina, its ' o- 'icers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the `action set forth in the Trial Exaflintr's Recorttitlended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION WILLIAM J. BROWN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the "Act," came on to be heard at Wilson, North Carolina, on June 18, 19, and 20, 1968. The underlying charges of unfair labor practices were filed on April 2, 1968, by the above-indicated Charging Party, hereinafter referred to as the "Union," and the complaint herein was issued on May 29, 1968, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, acting through the Board's Regional Director for Region 11. It alleged, in addition to jurisdictional matter, that the above-indicated Respondent, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Company," engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging, transferring, and warning employees in reprisal for their activities on behalf of the Union, and engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees through certain threats and information. The Company's duly filed answer has denied the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. At the hearing the parties appeared and participated as noted above with full opportunity to present evidence and argument on the issues. All parties waived their right to submit oral argument or file written briefs. On the entire record herein and on the basis of my observation of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The pleadings and evidence establish that the Company, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of North Carolina, is engaged at its Wilson, North Carolina, plant, in the manufacture of refrigerated truck bodies. During the calendar year preceding issuance of the complaint, admittedly a representative period, the Company received raw materials directly from points outside the State of North Carolina and valued in excess of $50,000; during the same period the Company shipped to points outside the State of North Carolina finished goods valued in excess of $50,000. I find, as the Company's answer concedes, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED I find, in accordance with the pleadings and evidence, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 'Member Fanning dissents iii part in relation to a statement of Plant Superintendent James Stancil addressed to employee Stephen Barnes. According to the credited testimony of Names, Stand approadhed him, and, introducing the subject of the Union, stated, "Some of the men around here are talking about a union " Barnes replied , "Yes, I know." Stancil is reported as then saying ; "I'm afraid if we have a union we might have to send some of you fellows home That's why we are moving you around from one place to another , to try to keep from sending anyone home " Member Fanning finds this to be a thinly'veiled threat that, if the Union succeeds in its efforts to become bargainoig repreae*lative for Respondent's employees, Respondent will alter its policy of moving employees to different jobs, rather than sending them home. It is, therefore , a violation of Section 8(aXI) of the Act III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction and Summary of Events The Company's manufacturing and assembly operations are carried on in a modern single-story building located in Wilson, North Carolina. In general overall charge of plant operations is Douglas E. Murphy, Secretary of the Company and Assistant General Manager; reporting directly to Murphy and in immediate overall charge of the plant is James E. Stancil, Plant Superintendent. The pleadings and evidence also establish the supervisory 1'4 NLRB No. 126 MURPHY BODY WORKS - 825 status at material times of James E. Lamm, Foreman of the Blacksmith Shop; - Harold Beaman, Refrigeration Foreman; and Howard Stancil, Drop Frame Foreman. Following unsuccessful Union attempts -at organization of Company employees in 1961 and 1964, Union Representative E. R. Dougherty, Jr., and Company employee Silas Lucas launched a third Union organizational drive in the Fall of 1967.' Lucas passed out Union authorization cards and solicited employee signatures both in the plant area on nonwork time and uptown in the city of Wilson. He attended all but one of the ten Union meetings. He was discharged on February 16, 1968; the General Counsel alleges this, discharge was in reprisal for his Union activity, the Company asserting that he was discharged for violation of Company rules relating to absenteeism and tardiness. The case also concerns the reason for the issuance of warnings to and discharge of Larry Robbins whose Union activity appears to have been limited to signing a Union authorization card and attending one Union meeting in downtown Wilson. The General Counsel alleges that his discharge on February 9, 1968, was in reprisal for his Union activity while the Company asserts that his discharge, during his 6-month probationary period, was based on his failure to meet Company performance standards. Employee Norman Luther Creveling was transferred within the Refrigeration Department on or about January 15, 1968, and transferred from that Department to the Mill Room on or about February 28, 1968. The General Counsel alleges that these transfers were effected in reprisal for his Union activities. The Company denies this and asserts that Creveling has subsequently been returned to the Refrigeration Department. With respect to the allegation that a warning issued to Creveling on or about April 3, 1968, was in reprisal for his Union activities the Company denies this charge and asserts that the warning was issued for sufficient nondiscriminatory reason. Finally it is alleged in the complaint that James Lamm, Blacksmith Department Foreman, and James Stancil, Plant Superintendent, on or about January 30 and February 8, 1968, threatened employees with loss of jobs and layoffs on account of Union activity. B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion With respect to the allegation of the complaint that Blacksmith Department Foreman James E. Lamm, whose supervisory status clearly appears from the pleadings and evidence, threatened employees with loss of jobs as a consequence of Union activity, Larry Robbins, an alleged discriminatee, testified that about a week and a half before his termination Lamm came to his work station, asked his opinion of the Union and then said that a union could cause the loss of his job if he was in the union or attended union meetings. Lamm generally denied ever discussing union activities with Robbins. Although Robbins did not recall this incident until he was shown his pretrial affidavit, . I was impressed with his candid demeanor and credit his account of the conversation. In accordance with the credit I accord Robbins, I find that Foreman Lamm made the statement attributed to him in the complaint and conclude that by this statement the Company engaged in a threat constituting interference, restraint, and coercion within the scope of Section 8(a)(l) 'The Company was firmly opposed to the union campaign. See G C Exh. 2. of the Act. - Stephen Barnes, a former employee in layoff status since February 9, 1968, testified that on the day before his layoff, James Stancil came to him in the plant, introduced the subject of the Union and then said that if the Union came in the Company might have to send some employees home. Stancil, according to Barnes, then added the explanation that the Company was frequently shifting job assignments to avoid sending men home when there was no work in their assigned classifications. Stancil denied making this statement attributed to him by Barnes. I found Barnes a credible witness but even accepting his testimony at face value it does not appear to make out an instance of interference, restraint, or coercion. The statement viewed in its totality appears to be no more than a prediction of the possible adverse consequences of a rigid job classification system which might - be anticipated in the event of the Union's securing representative status. I shall recommend dismissal of this allegation of the complaint. C. Discrimination 1. Silas P. Lucas Silas Lucas was hired by the Company in September 1961 as drill press operator in the Blacksmith Shop. He worked at that job until January 1968 when he was assigned to operation of the steel saw also in the Blacksmith Shop. Lucas was discharged on the morning of February 16, 1968, by James E. Lamm, his foreman who, at the time of discharge handed him a Company form entitled "Warning Record" and stating that his discharge was because of habitual absenteeism or tardiness with three unexcused offenses within a month or 30-day period.' The General Counsel contends that his discharge was in fact in reprisal for his known substantial activity on behalf of the Union's organizational campaign which continued from the Fall of 1967 until his discharge. I credit Lucas' testimony that Douglas Murphy had knowledge of his activities in an earlier Union campaign and I do not credit Murphy's denial of knowledge of Lucas' involvement in the most recent organizational effort of the Union. Lucas' Union activity was carried on in the plant area and included revelation of his Union support to supervisors Carroll and Batchelor; Lucas' immediate supervisor, James E. Lamm, did not deny knowledge of Lucas' efforts on behalf of the Union. There is no denial from supervisory or management officials of the Company that Lucas' work performance was entirely satisfactory both as to quality and quantity of production. The General Counsel has presented in evidence Lucas' timecards for the 30-day period preceding his discharge. (G.C. Exh. 8-A through H.) They reveal a tardiness on January 26, an absence for which sick pay was received on January 24, and a tardiness, hereinafter discussed on February 16. General Counsel's Exhibit 11(u) is Foreman James Lamm's report on Lucas tardiness of February 16. It indicates that he arrived at the plant at 7:20 a.m. and 'Company Rules, rule No. 4, states as discipline for violation of the rule on attendance. "Habitual absenteeism or habitual tardiness (that is defined as more than two unexcused absences a month ). Written warning - Discharge." Since a number of the more serious offenses , e g., punching another's timecard, insubordination, smoking in restricted areas, etc., provide for discharge without written warning, it is concluded that the normal penalty for habitual tardiness or absence would be warning first then discharge, notwithstanding Murphy's contrary interpretation which apparently was not communicated to employees. 826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD said that he had been stopped by law officers. Lucas testified that this explanation was communicated by him to Lamm and Stancil immediately on his arrival. He also testified that he informed them that the law officers in question (County ABC Officers Stutts and Sherrod) would confirm his account. Stutts, however, testified credibly, that he was not contacted by someone from the Company until later that afternoon. The Company has a policy, notwithstanding its rules on absence and tardiness, of excusing for circumstances beyond the control of employees, as for example the mass forgiveness accorded on the occasion of a heavy snowfall on January 12, 1968. It also appears that the telephone call from some Company representative with access to a telephone to Officer Stutts would not in fact have been made if the genuine reason for Lucas discharge was such that the circumstances of involvement with the law should have made no difference in the situation. Furthermore, with respect to the absence on January 24, it appears that Lucas received sick pay for that day and in accordance with the established sick leave policy outlined in the Company manual (General Counsel's Exhibit 3, page 14) it appears that that day should not have been regarded as an unexcused absence. The case, then, is one in which an employee with substantial length of service and one whose quality and quantity of work has never been questioned, who was known to management as the leader of the Union campaign, was abruptly terminated under circumstances which indicate that the assigned reason for his discharge could not reasonably be regarded as the true reason. The evidence appears to me to preponderate in favor of the conclusion that Lucas was discharged in fact in reprisal for his known and substantial support of the Union and that his discharge was an unfair labor practice within the scope of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 2. Larry G. Robbins Larry Rqbbins started work for the Company about October 1, 1967, on the metal cutting saw in the Blacksmith Department. He worked under the supervision of Lamm and James Stancil. His starting rate was $1.55 per hour and after about 3 months he was changed to operating the drill -press, also in the Blacksmith Department. His rate was $1.72' at the time of his discharge on February 9, 1968. He attended one Union meeting, on January 20, 1968, but was not otherwise active on behalf of the Union campaign. His testimony is that Lamm praised his work 3 or 4 times and Stancil never commented on it. Although Lamm testified at one point that he reprimanded Robbins several times for poor quality of work and for cutting personal objects it appears that his pretrial affidavit states that he did not remember any warnings to Robbins and noticed no inattention on Robbins' part until February shortly before his discharge. Stancil testified that he criticized Robbins several times and issued him a written warning on February 1, 1968. (General Counsel's Exhibit 9.) Robbins was discharged on February 9, 1968, at which time he was still within the probationary period outlined in the Employee Manual, General Counsel's Exhibit 3, page 6, which clearly contemplates the possibility of discharge within, rather than at the expiration of, such period. 'At the time of his hire Robbins was informed that there would be an automatic increase at the end of 6 weeks' employment. David Cox, leadman in the Blacksmith Shop, testified that Robbins made numerous errors in cutting material and frequently cut such material into scrap rather than retain it for salvage. He also testified that he reported Robbins' poor work to Foreman Lamm. There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether or not Robbins engaged in the making of rings and like material for personal use while on Company time and with Company material. Cox testified that he did, as did Foreman Lamm. I credit Robbins in his denial. The evidence respecting the termination of Robbins is considerably vague and inconclusive. He appeared to me to be somewhat of a blithe spirit who, although he impressed me as a truthful witness, could well have been somewhat irresponsible and not of the type to be selected for permanent employment with the Company which appears to have relatively high standards of expectancy from its employees. Robbins' activity on behalf of the Union appears to have been limited to attendance at one meeting and the signing of a Union card. The evidence is wanting to establish that his activity in this regard was known by Company officials.' I shall accordingly recommend dismissal of the allegations relating to the discharge of Robbins for want of a preponderance of evidence establishing an unfair labor practice therein.' 3. Norman Luther Creveling The complaint alleges that Norman Luther Creveling, an employee with some 6 or 7 years of service with the Company, was discriminatorily (1) transferred within the Refrigeration Department on or about January 15, 1968, (2) again transferred to the Mill Room on or about March 15, 1968, and (3) issued a warning on or about April 3, 1968, all in reprisal for his activities on behalf of the Union. The Company denies any impropriety in the transfers and warning and asserts that subsequent to the transfers noted above Creveling has been retransferred back to his original position. Creveling appears to have been a principal assistant of Lucas in the Union organizational campaign. He signed a Union card early in the campaign, attended 6 or 7 Union meetings, and solicited other employees to sign both in the plant area during lunch time and at their homes, obtaining somewhere between 5 and 10 employee signatures. I find that the Company had knowledge of his relatively active support of the Union both from the fact that it easily could have acquired such in view of his activity in the plant area and from the fact that Assistant Foreman Bobby Beaman, who had authority to assign Creveling to jobs and direct his work but did not testify, asked him directly, after widespread talk about Creveling's Union activity, if he was for the Union to which Creveling replied that he was for it 100 percent. Creveling's employment with the Company commenced in the Refrigeration Department where he worked under Foreman Harold Beaman running copper tubing in the truck bodies. After some 6 months he was transferred within the Department to the job of checking compressors 'Although I credit Robbins' testimony that Lamm (whose denial I do not credit) questioned him about the Union and stated that he could lose his job by going to Union meetings, I cannot read into this that either Lamm or the Company had knowledge of his Union activity. 'The same considerations require dismissal of the allegations of discrimination in the issuance of the warning to Robbins on February 1, 1968. In reaching my conclusions with respect to Robins I place no reliance on testimony as to his subsequent employment record with another Employer which appears immaterial to the issues herein MURPHY BODY WORKS 827 at which he worked for about 5 1/2 years. About January 15, 1968, he was transferred back to the tube running job and while working at that job, on January 29, he injured his back. In connection with this injury he consulted a chiropractor and two medical doctors, one of whom was still treating him as of the hearing in the present case. The Company's insurance carrier has paid all costs of his treatments. Creveling testified that the work of checking compressors is heavier work than that involved in putting in tubing. On February 28 Creveling was again transferred to the Mill Room where his work involved carrying lumber as well as operating a saw. On May 27, prior to issuance of the complaint herein or the filing of any charges involving Creveling, he was transferred back to the job of checking compressors in the Refrigeration Department The first question with respect to Creveling is whether or not his January 15, 1968, transfer from checking compressors within the Refrigeration Department to the job of running copper tubing in truck bodies in the same Department constituted discouragement of Union activity by discriminatory treatment with respect to a term or condition of employment. Undoubtedly a change in job classification is a change in a term or condition of employment, but there is no basis for concluding that the job of running copper tubing was any more onerous or disagreeable or less remunerative than that of checking compressors. The fact that Creveling incurred his back injury while engaged in the former, is not significant for, as Creveling conceded, checking compressors is heavier work. Creveling also conceded that, while he was engaged in checking compressors a foreman would occasionally tell him to hurry up, and employee Manning testified that he observed that Creveling was slow in checking out compressors. The evidence relating to the reason for the transfer of Creveling from checking compressors to the task of running copper tubing is considerably unclear. I can see no reasonable basis for inferring that this transfer was based on discriminatory motivations or constituted discriminatory treatment with respect to wages, hours, or terms or conditions of employment and shall recommend dismissal of this count of the complaint. With respect to the February 28 transfer to the Mill Room, Creveling testified that when it occurred Stancil said that he had reports that Creveling was not doing his job as he should and they were transferring him on that account. Creveling testified that he had no prior experience in use of the woodworking tools used in the Mill Room. While in the Mill Room Creveling sometimes complained to his foreman, Bennie Ivan Glover, about his back but never stated he could not do the work nor does it appear that he protested either the original transfer or his subsequent assignments there. It does not appear that Creveling suffered any economic or other damage as a result of the transfer. The burden is not on the Company to come forward and justify the transfer but on the General Counsel to establish a basis for inferring an unlawful motive in the transfer. I cannot see how the evidence could fairly be said to preponderate in favor of the conclusion that the transfer of Creveling to the Mill Room constituted an unfair labor practice. With respect to the issuance of a warning slip to Creveling on April 3, 1968, it should first be noted that such an action clearly appears on the evidence to involve a term or condition of employment. This appears from rule 12 on page 29 of the Employee Manual and Handbook which reads as follows: (12) Restricting output. Making unnecessary scrap. Failure to attain standard performance in work, either in quality or quantity. Written warning - Written warning - Discharge. and clearly indicates that the issuance of two such warnings followed by a third offense could constitute a basis for discharge.' The warning in question (G.C. Exh. 11), dated April 3, 1968, lists the date of Creveling's offense as April 2, 1968, and bears the signatures of Stancil and Creveling's immediate supervisor, Bennie Ivan Glover. It refers both to poor workmanship and productivity, states that the leadman (Glover) complained of him in these two respects, and that Creveling had previously been orally warned since his transfer to the Mill Room. Creveling concedes that on one occasion Glover informed him that he was a little slow but it appears from the testimony of Douglas Murphy that there never was any complaint about the quality of Creveling's work. Glover also attested to the good quality of Creveling's work in the Mill Room. The warning slip bears Glover's signature but the testimony of Glover, whom I found to be a thoroughly credible witness, is to the effect that he affixed his signature to the slip at a time when his vision was so blurred from medication administered to his eyes in first aid treatment that he could not read it clearly. Glover also conceded that he had complained seven or eight times to Stancil about the slow pace of Creveling's work but that on all such occasions he had informed Stancil that Creveling's work was of good quality, On the basis of all the evidence relating to the issuance of the warning slip in question I am persuaded that it preponderates in favor of the conclusion that the warning in question would not have been issued had 'it not been for the Company's opposition to the Union and its knowledge of Creveling's relatively substantial efforts on the Union's behalf. In reaching this conclusion I am influenced substantially by the reference in the warning to poor workmanship on the part of Creveling whereas the record clearly establishes that Creveling's work, while slow at times, -was never questioned as to its quality. The reference to poor quality and the statement that Glover had complained thereof, indicates to me that the warning was not issued for the reasons asserted therein and, in view of Creveling's relatively substantial activity in support of the Union campaign, the Company's knowledge thereof and its determined opposition to the Union organizational effort, I conclude that it was issued in reprisal for Creveling's Union activity. I conclude that the issuance of the warning slip to Creveling constituted discrimination with respect to a term or condition of employment in reprisal for his Union activity and was an unfair labor practice within the scope of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Company set forth in section III, above, and there found to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing such commerce and 'See Scolding Locks Corporation, 150 NLRB 1688. 828 the free flow thereof. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE REMEDY In view of the findings above set forth to the effect that the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices it will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take. affirmative action necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the finding that Silas Lucas was discharged in reprisal for his Union activities it will be recommended that the Company be required to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent job and make him whole for lost earnings in accordance with the remedial relief policies enunciated in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716.' In view of the findings of discriminatory discharge respecting Lucas the cease and desist provisions recommended are appropriately broad. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening an employee with the loss of his job as a consequence of participation in activities on behalf of the Union, the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discharging Silas Lucas and issuing a warning slip to Norman Luther Creveling in reprisal for their activities on behalf of the Union, the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 6. Except as specifically found herein, the Company has not engaged in unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, be required to 1. Cease and desist from. (a) Threatening employees with loss of their jobs as a consequence of their participation in activities in support of the Union. (b) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of the Union or any other labor organization by discharging, issuing warning slips to, or in any other manner discriminating against employees with respect to hire, tenure, or any term or condition of employment. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. 'In the circumstances of this case it appears unnecessary to provide for the unlikely eventuality of Lucas's service in the Armed Forces (a) Offer to Silas Lucas immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for loss of earnings suffered as a result of the Company's discrimination against him in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Rescind and delete from his employment record the written warning issued to Norman Luther Creveling on or about April 3, 1968, and furnish Norman Luther Creveling with written notification of such action. (d) Post at its plant in Wilson, North Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by the Company's authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Board's Region 11, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply with the provisions hereof ' IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed with respect to allegations of unfair labor practices not herein specifically found to have been engaged in. '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 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 threaten employees with loss of their jobs as a result of their participation in activities on behalf of Local Union No. 3011, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT discharge, issue warning slips to, or otherwise discriminate against employees because of their membership in or support of the above-named or any other labor organization. WE WILL offer reinstatement with backpay to Silas Lucas and we will cancel the warning slip issued to MURPHY BODY WORKS Norman Luther Creveling on April 3, 1968. WE WILL NOT in any way interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. MURPHY BODY WORKS, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) 829 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 Ottice, 16th Floor, Wachovia Building, 301 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone 723-2300.