May & Bigley, Inc.

MAY & BIGLEY, INC. 653 May & Bigley , Inc. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Carpenters District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO. Case 6-CA-4317 September 26, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MC'CUi LOCH AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND ZAGORIA On April 21. 1969. Trial Examiner Abraham H. Mailer issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, tinding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed limited exceptions with a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions.' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree. that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with discharge, threatening to close the plant, and engaging in surveillance. The Trial Examiner also found, and we agree. that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging employee Alfred Barnes on July 5. 1968, because of his union activity. We adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the credited evidence shows that Barnes was not drinking on the job as Respondent contends.2 and his conclusion that Respondent's contention that Barnes voluntarily quit was an afterthought. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, and in agreement with the General Counsel and Respondent. we find that Respondent's holiday pay policy required employees to work both the day before and the day 'These findings and conclusions were based , in part, upon credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner, to which the R,spondent has excepted Having caretuliy renewed the record, we conclude that the 'trial Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence Accordingly, we rind no basis for disturbing those lindings Standard Drv Wall Products , Inc 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 E 2d 362 (C A 3) 'in doing so , we find it unnecessary to adopt the Trial Examiner's lindings with regard to the attitude manifested by the Respondent toward the drinking habits of Doyle May, a supervisor after July 4 to qualify for holiday pay . For the reasons stated below, we find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by denying holiday pay for July 4 and by refusing to allow 12 employees to work on July 3, as alleged in the complaint. The credited evidence shows , and the Trial Examiner found , that Respondent's president, Houseworth . on July 2 went to a union meeting at Egulf Park and told the employees he would never recognise the Union but would close the plant before doing so, and that they were fired and could pick up their checks in the morning. The employees on the following morning. July 3. went to the plant to pick up their paychecks as directed . They were told by Houseworth' s secretary that she knew nothing about their discharge and suggested they wait for President Houseworth The employees then returned to the street and waited for Houseworth. lie arrived and then departed , telling them that the plant was theirs if they wanted it. Shortly thereafter, Houseworth returned and told the employees, "I can't fire you here on the street ," and that they could go to work if' they wanted . He also said that he would not tolerate a union .' The employees decided to leave and seek the aid of the Union. Ihey were informed by the Union agent that they could not be discharged for union activity and told to return to work the next day The employees returned to work on the next working day. July 5, but were not paid for July 3 or for the July 4 holiday These circumstances reveal that President Houseworth discriminatorily discharged these employees on July 2 because of their union adherence and their attendance at a union meeting. Thereafter, on .luly 3, he clearly indicated that union adherence was incompatible with employment with Respondent . While Houseworth offered at that time to reemploy the employees, he made it clear that they could not work for him unless they repudiated the Union. We therefore find that Respondent violated Section 8( a)(3) of the Act when it discriminatorily discharged these employees on July 2. As the Respondent at no time on July 3 offered them full and unconditional reinstatement, they are entitled to backpay for July 3 which they failed to receive because of Respondent 's discrimination against them.' Furthermore, the employees ' failure to qualify for the July 4 holiday pay was due solely to Respondent's unlawful refusal to permit them to work on July 3 as found above. .Accordingly, we find that Respondent 's denial of holiday pay to them was in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 'Employees Donald Carl and Raymond Dixon, upon whom the 'trial Examiner relied in other material aspects. testified that Houseworth made this statement Although Houseworth denied this, the Trial Examiner found that he was not a credible witness. In these circumstances , we credit the testimony of Carl and Dixon 'Cf Keystone Floors, Inc. d/b/a Keystone Universal Carpet Company, 130NLRB 4 178 NLRB No. 102 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We shall, therefore, order that these employees also be reimbursed for July 4, 1968.5 Finally, we adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the Union, on and after July 2, when the Union first demanded and Respondent refused recognition and bargaining, had been duly designated by a majority of employees in an appropriate unit to act as their collective-bargaining agent. In essential agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by rejecting the Union's recognition and bargaining demands and engaging in numerous independent unfair labor practices in its efforts to undermine the Union's majority. Those unfair labor practices destroyed the conditions necessary to the holding of a fair election and are so coercive and pervasive that they tend to preclude the likelihood that an election would be a more reliable indication of the employees' desires than the card majority achieved before their commission. For these reasons, we conclude that. in order to protect the statutory rights and interests of the employees and to remedy the unfair labor practices committed, it is essential that the Respondent be ordered to recognize and bargain with the Union as the statutory representative of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining 6 As requested by the General Counsel, we shall substitute for the Notice recommended by the Trial Examiner, a notice expressed in simple and readily understandable language as set forth in the attached Appendix.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and orders that the Respondent May & Bigley, Inc., Bedford, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as amended below. 1. Incorporate in paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, immediately following the words "July 4, 1968," the following. "and pay for July 3. 1968 " 2. Substitute the Appendix attached hereto for the Appendix set forth in the Trial Examiners Decision. 'Member Lagoria does not agree that the evidence establishes that the discrimmatees were required to repudiate, the Union as a condition of reinstatement He nevertheless concurs in the award of backpay as, in his opinion, Houseworth 's statements and conduct on July 3 did not constitute the unequivocal offer of reinstatement to which the discriminatees were entitled Laminating Services. Inc . 167 NLRB No 31. `N L R B v Gissel Packing Compani . 395 U S 575. 'Bilyeu Motor Corp. 161 NLRB 982 APPENDIX NOTICE ro ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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: Alter a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we, May & Bigley, Inc.. violated the National Labor Relations Act, and ordered us to post this notice. The Act gives all employees these rights To organize themselves. To form, join or help unions. To bargain as a group through a representative they choose. To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. To refuse to do any or all of these things WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. WE wil r. NOT threaten to close the plant because you join a union WE Wit 1. NOT threaten to fire you because you join United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO or any union. We WIT i. NOT spy on your union meetings or union activities or make you think we are spying on you. WE WILL NOT fire you, or punish you, or treat you differently in any way if you join United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO or any union W'EWILLgive these employees the pay they lost for July 3 and July 4, 1968, and also pay them 6 percent interest. The names of these employees are: Gary Stickler, Harry Traynham, Donald Carl, Raymond Dixon, George Edwards, Ronald Bloom, Milfred Bookhammer, Raymond Duncan, Alfred Barnes, Arthur Rugg, Jesse Hafer. and Ross Evans. As to Alfred Barnes, WE WILL give him,back his job and seniority, and will make up the pay he lost and also 6 percent interest. WrwiLLnotify Alfred Barnes if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. WE WILL bargain, upon request, with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO, on wages. hours and conditions of employment, and any agreement we reach will be put in writing and signed. The bargaining unit is: All regular production and maintenance employees employed by us at our facility located on Railroad Street in Bedford, Pennsylvania, excluding all woodcutters, office clerical employees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. Dated By MAY & BIGIJ-Y, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) MAY & BIGLEY, INC. 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, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone 412-644-2977 _IRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION S1ATEMENT OF IiIL CASE ABRAHAM H. MALLER, Trial Examiner: On July 22 1968, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, filed a charge against May & Bigley, Inc., herein called the Respondent, and on September 10, and 20, 1968, the Union filed an amended and second amended charge. respectively, against the Respondent Upon said charges. the Regional Director for Region 6 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on October 16, 1968, issued on behalf of the General Counsel a complaint against the Respondent, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1). (3) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S C. Sec. 151. et seq.) herein called the Act. Briefly, the complaint alleged that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by: (1) threatening employees with cessation of operations if they selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative, (2) engaged in surveillance of a union meeting of its employees. (3) interrogating employees in regard to their union membership, activities, and sympathies: and (4) threatening employees that they would be discharged because of their activities on behalf of the Union.' The complaint further alleged that the Respondent denied employment and refused to grant holiday pay to certain employees named therein because of their activities on behalf of the Union and because they engaged in concerted activities, and discharged employee Alfred Barnes, all in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The complaint further alleged that the Respondent refused to recognize and bargain with the Union, notwithstanding the fact that the Union had been designated as the collective-bargaining representative by a majority of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit and notwithstanding the fact that Respondent did not have a good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority status, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Affirmatively. Respondent alleged that Barnes voluntarily terminated his employment. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before me at Bedford, Pennsylvania, on November 6 and 7, 1968 The General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Party were represented and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs with me Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and by the Respondent Upon consideration of the entire record' and the briefs, and upon my observation of each of the witnesses, I make the following: The last allegation was added as an amendment to the complaint at the opening of the hearing. 'The General Counsel has tiled a motion to correct the record in certain particulars therein specified . No opposition to such motion has been filed FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONC'I LSIONS OF LAW I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 655 The Respondent is. and has been at all times material herein, a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture of wooden insulator pins at its plants located in Bedford, Pennsylvania During the 12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint, Respondent shipped goods and material valued in excess of $50.000 from its Bedford. Pennsylvania, plants directly to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Accordingly, I find and conclude that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction here. ti. THE LA13OR ORGANIZATION iNVOLNE1) United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters District Council of Western Pennsylvania , AFL-CIO, is. and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III. IIIL ISSUES I Whether Respondent engaged in the following conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (a) threatened employees with cessation of operations if they selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. (b) engaged in surveillance of a union meeting of its employees, (c) interrogated employees in regard to their union membership, activities and/or sympathies; and (d) threatened employees that they would be discharged because of their activities on behalf of the Union 2 Whether Respondent committed the following acts in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1): (a) discharged Barnes because of his activities on behalf of the Union, and (b) denied employment to 13 of its employees on July 3 and denied the same employees holiday pay for July 4 because of their activities on behalf of the Union. 3. Whether the Respondent refused to recognize and bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). IV. THE AI IEGED UNFAIR iABOR PRACTICES A. Sequence of Events The Union's organizational campaign began on June 13, when Alfred Coughanour, a special business representative for the Union, appeared at Respondent's plant and distributed pamphlets and blank authorization cards to Respondent's employees as they went to work. Shortly thereafter, a notice was posted on the bulletin board at Respondent's plant. The notice was signed by Meairl Houseworth, president and (jointly with his wile) the owner of all the stock of the Respondent, and stated that if the Union came into the plant, the Union should sign the paychecks, because the plant would be closed The notice remained posted for approximately 2 weeks.' Upon .onstderation of the motion , it is hereby ordered that such motion be and it is hereby granted 'The uncontradicted testimony of employees Donald Carl and Alfred Barnes. 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On June 20, a union meeting was held at Egulf Park, a public park located about 2 to 3 miles from Respondent's plant. The meeting was attended by approximately 12 to 15 employees of Respondent. At that meeting, Coughanour solicited signatures of authorization cards for the Union.' Fle told the employee, that the cards had it dual purpose, viz., to authorize the Union to act as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees and to obtain a representation election. Coughanour collected 12 authorization cards. A second union meeting was held after working hours at 4 30 p m., on July 2 at Egull Park. The meeting was attended by 14 employees 5 At the meeting, Barnes took the floor and spoke in favor of the Union As he was doing so, President Houseworth stationed himself behind a pavilion. some 50 to 75 feet from the union meeting, and was observed looking toward the meeting. After about 15 minutes, Houseworth went to his truck and drove up to the place where the employees were assembled. He got out of his truck and walked toward the meeting As he did so, Barnes was still speaking in favor of the Union Union Representative Coughanour introduced himself to Ilouseworth and told him that the Union represented a majority of his employees and requested that Houseworth recognize and bargain with the Union. President Houseworth replied that he would never recognize the Union and that he would close his plant before doing so. President Houseworth then told the employees that they were fired and that they could pick up their checks the following morning He then got into his truck and drove toward the main road that runs in front of the park There he stopped and began to write on a pad as he glanced back toward the meeting He drove back and forth three or lour times' On July 3, the Union wrote Respondent a letter in which it claimed majority status and demanded recognition. In its letter, the Union offered to prove its majority status through an impartial card check. On the morning of July 3, the employees who had attended the meeting of July 2 (with the exception of Roy Foor) reported to the plant in order to receive their paychecks in accordance with President Houseworth's directions of the day before. They entered the plant office Some of the employees had mailed in authorization cards to the Union prior to June 20. but these cards had apparently been misplaced in the Union' s Pittsburgh oificcs Accordingly, Coughanour asked the employees who had sent in cards to sign new ones and to date them back to the date they signed the original cards `Employees attending the meeting were Gary Stickler, Harry Traynham, Donald Carl, Raymond Dixon , George Edwards. Ronald Bloom, Milfred Bookhammer, Raymond Duncan , Alfred Barnes Arthur Rugg, Simon Hann, Roy Foor, Jesse Hafer , and Ross Evans the last two arrived after the meeting began The loregoing is based upon the credited testimony of Coughanour and of several employees who were present at the meeting President Houseworth's version is different He admittedly attended the meeting because. as he testified, he had heard that there was going to be a meeting there Ile testified further that he did not recognize any of the employees, although he knew that they were employees , that there were only seven employees present and that employees Hafer and Evans came while he was there He testified that he was between 75 and 100 yards from the meeting, taking a rest , that he then came closer and watched for about 20 minutes He then approached to within 50 feet of the meeting and spoke to Representative Coughanour, that he told Coughanour, "All the guys you have here can go in and pick up their paycheck the next day it they like to " Ile then got into his truck and went to Bedford where he had a "couple of beers" and then went back past Egulf Park on his way to Charlesville, where he had some business Based upon my observation of President Houseworth's demeanor while he was testifying, I find that he was not a credible witness, and 1 do not credit his testimony and spoke with Respondent's Secretary Virginia Winesickle She told them that she knew nothing about their being discharged and suggested that they wait for President Houseworth. The employees went back out on the street and waited for Houseworth. When he arrived, he went into the office, came out again, got into it truck, and drove away As he left, he shouted to the employees that the plant was theirs if they wanted it The employees then re-entered the office and again spoke with Winesickle. She suggested that they wait for Houseworth's return The employees left the office and awaited Houseworth on the street. When Houseworth returned, he told them that he could not fire them on the street and that they could go to work if they so desired. Confused by Houseworth's contradictory statements, they decided to leave and to seek the advice of Union Representative Coughanour Employee Carl telephoned Coughanour who advised him that President Houseworth could not lawfully discharge the employed for their union activities and suggested that they return to work the next day. Carl disseminated the information to the other employees who had stayed away from work. The next day was July 4, and the plant was closed On July 5, these employees returned to work Sit of the employees Barnes, Evans, Dixon, Ilafcr, Edwards, and Carl, found that their timecards were missing The group went to the office to see President Houseworth He told them that he considered them to be the ringleaders of the Union and asked who the spokesman was. No one answered. llouseworth then produced a hook and quoted some figures to demonstrate that he was not financially capable of' recognizing the Union. He told the employees that he would close the plant before he would recognize the Union and warned them that he would fire anybody for joining the Union. He then threw the timecards on the table and told the employees that they could go hack to work if they so desired. The six employees returned to work. On July 5. the employment of Barnes was terminated. The General Counsel contends that Barnes was discharged for union activity. 4hc Respondent contends that Barnes had been drinking on the job, that he was given the option of ceasing his drinking or quitting, and that he voluntarily quit The facts concerning this issue are set forth separately under the appropriate heading, infra. On July 8, Union Representative Coughanour called President Houseworth, repeated his claim of majority status. and requested recognition. He offered to prove the Union's majority through an impartial card check. Houseworth told Coughanour that he would not recognize the Union and referred hun to Respondent's attorney, Paul A. Koontz. Coughanour then telephoned Koontz and offered to prove the Union's majority status through ap impartial card check. Koontz stated that he doubted the Union's majority status, and arranged a meeting between President Houseworth and Coughanour to be held on July If. When Coughanour arrived at the Respondent's plant on July 11, President Ilouseworth came out and told him that Attorney Koontz had canceled the meeting, but indicated his willingness to talk to Coughanour. Coughanour repeated his claim of majority status and demand for recognition. President IIouseworth rejected the claim for recognition, stated that he would not bargain with the Union, and that he would close his plant if the Union came in. The next day, Coughanour telephoned Attorney Koontz and again demanded recognition. Koontz replied that the MAY & BIGLEY, INC. Respondent would not recognize the Union voluntarily. On July 15, the Union received a letter from Respondent . dated July 12, in response to its letter of July 3. Respondent repeated its doubt as to the Union's majority , declined the request for recognition, and suggested that the Union file a representation petition. B. Concluding Findings 1. Interference, restraint, and coercion The notice posted by the Respondent in its plant shortly after the inception of the Union's organizing campaign, stating that if the Union came into the plant, the plant would be closed, was a threat in violation of Section 8(a)(l). This threat was orally repeated by President Houseworth when he came to the union meeting on July 2, and was reiterated on July 5 when he spoke to the six employees whose timecards he had pulled on the morning of that day. President Houseworth engaged in surveillance of the union meeting of July 2, and gave the employees the impression of such surveillance. Houseworth admitted that he knew that there was going to be a union meeting at Egulf Park, went there and, by his own admission, watched the meeting for about 20 minutes Even if Houseworth did not, as he claims, recognize the employees present at the meeting (a statement which I do not credit), his uninvited presence at the meeting gave the employees the impression of surveillance which is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. And this impression was strengthened by his conduct in writing on a pad of paper after he left the meeting, while glancing back at the meeting. Houseworth's conduct was clearly violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so find. I further find and conclude that President Houseworth told the employees who attended the union meeting on July 2 that they were discharged . In addition , on July 5, he threatened the six employees whose timecards he had pulled that he would fire anybody for joining the Union. These statements by President Houseworth were patently violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and I so find 2. The discharge of Barnes Barnes went to work for Respondent on May 1. His employment terminated on July 5. Respondent contends that Barnes had been drinking on the job and was given the option of stopping his drinking or quitting his job. and that Barnes thereupon voluntarily quit. It is uncontradicted that Barnes was reprimanded only once while working for the Respondent. This had nothing to do with drinking on the job and occurred before the start of the Union's organizational campaign. Barnes was one of the most active union adherents among Respondent's employees. He signed an authorization card for the Union on June 13. He also spoke in favor of the Union to other employees as they gathered outside of Respondent's plant during the lunch hour In addition, he solicited employees to sign authorization cards for the Union Barnes was instrumental in setting up the union meetings of June 20 and July 2 and urged employees to attend the meetings. At both of these meeting,,, Barnes spoke in favor of the Union. and as previously noted, President Houseworth observed Barnes speaking to the employees at the meeting of July 2. He was one of the employees who did not report to work on July 3, in view of President 657 Houseworth's statement that the employees who attended the meeting of July 2 were fired Also, he was one of the six employees whose timecards President Houseworth had pulled on the morning of July 5, and who were told by Houseworth that he considered them to be ringleaders of the Union. While working on July 5, employee Dixon cut his finger as he was tiling a saw. Barnes volunteered to go to his car to get some gauze. bandage, and mercurochrome. While Barnes was at his car, Houseworth approached and asked him what he was doing. Barnes explained that he wanted some bandages for Dixon's finger. Houseworth inquired as to why he had not gone to the office for the materials, and Barnes explained, "Well, he cut his finger in the morning and didn't have no bandages then so I went and got him one." Barnes and Houseworth then returned to the plant where Houseworth observed that Dixon's finger was cut At quitting time on July 5, Barnes noted that his timecard was missing. He went into the office and asked Winesickle about this She told him that Houseworth had informed her that he had discharged Barnes for drinking on the job and had instructed her to prepare Barnes' final paychecks' President Houseworth denied discharging Barnes. He testified that on July 5, he saw Barnes drinking on the job and that he told him that he would either have to cease drinking on the job or quit. He testified further that he heard nothing about the matter until Monday, July 8, when Winesickle told him that Barnes had picked up his check I have heretofore indicated that, based upon his demeanor while testifying, I did not find Houseworth to be a credible witness. I do not credit his testimony in this instance either. Houseworth's testimony was general and lacking in essential details. Thus, he did not state where in the plant or what time of the day he had seen Barnes drinking on the job, or whether he drew this conclusion from Barnes' behavior. Moreover, the. testimony of several employees contradicts that of I-Iouseworth. Thus, employee Dixon whose cut finger was being dressed by Barnes and who, of necessity, was standing very near to Barnes while the finger was being bandaged, testified that he smelled no alcohol on Barnes' breath. Also, employees Dixon and Carl spoke with Barnes during the day of July 5 and testified that he spoke coherently and that they did not smell any liquor on his breath. They also testified, as did employee Edwards, that they saw Barnes performing his work on a large saw on July 5, that he performed his work in a normal manner, and that they did not see him stagger or manifest any of the other indicia of drunkenness. Barnes, himself, testified credibly that he had not drunk any alcoholic beverages on July 5. Finally, Houseworth's testimony was contradicted by Winesickle, Respondent's secretary, who admitted that Houseworth had told her that Barnes was fired. It may also be noted that Respondent has tolerated not only drinking in the plant, but also extended periods of drunkenness. Thus, Doyle May, a supervisor, was drinking in the plant in the early part of 1968, at a time when President Houseworth was in the plant. May was drunk for a period of 2 weeks thereafter During that time President Houseworth attempted to get May to come back to work. At the end of the 2-week period. May returned to work and continues to work at Respondent's 'There were two checks . One was for $20, which Barnes endorsed and returned to Winesickle to repay a loan from Houseworth The other was for the balance of his pay 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plant as a supervisor. He was not disciplined in any way In view of all the foregoing, I find and conclude that Barnes did not voluntarily quit his job, but was discharged because of his activity on behalf of the Union. Respondent's contention that Barnes was given the choice of stopping his drinking on the job or quitting and that he voluntarily quit thereafter is nothing more than an afterthought, and the antecedent contention that Barnes was drinking on the job is nothing more than an obvious pretext. 3. The holiday pay issue It is undisputed that the employees who did not work on Jute 3 did not receive holiday pay for July 4. The General Counsel contends that these employees were denied holiday pay because they engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection, and in order to discourage membership in the Union The Respondent contends that under its preexisting policy, an employee must work the day before and the day alter a holiday in order to receive pay for the holiday. It was stipulated that all of the alleged discrimmatecs worked on July 5. In support of Respondent's contention, President Houseworth testified that the plant rule regarding holiday pay, which required an employee to work the day before and the day after the holiday in order to be eligible for holiday pay, was instituted on May 30, and a notice to that effect was posted in the plant and remained posted for about I month. Respondent was unable to produce a copy of the notice referred to When asked what the notice said. President Ilouscworth replied: "I believe it said. 'Any employee not working the day before a holiday or the day alter won't receive holiday pay."' It should be observed that the notice quoted by President Houseworth was in the disjunctive. i.e.. "the day before a holiday or the day after" (emphasis supplied). 'lo make sure that President Ilouseworth had not inadvertently misquoted the notice, I put the followin g questions to him: TRikL L\ vii\ER: Or day alters Tier, WITNESS, 'I hat's right. TRI&L FxA\ii\I-R. Or did it say "and day after9" THE WITNLSS: It said "or day after." In view of the foregoing, it is clear that under Respondent's stated policy, an employee was entitled to holiday pay if he worked either the day before the holiday or the day after the holiday, but was not required to work both the day- before and the day after the holiday The denial of holiday pay to the employees who worked on July 5, but did not work on July 3 was not, therefore, in accord with Respondent's policy. In view of Respondent's antiunion conduct both before and after lulu 3, 1 find and conclude that Respondent's denial of holiday pay to the employees who did not work on July 3 was discriminatory for the purpose of discouraging membership in the Union. Accordingly, I find and conclude that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. Respondent's refusal to recognize and bargain with the union a The appropriate unit it was stipulated and I find that the following is an appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act All regular production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its facility located on Railroad Street in Bedford , Pennsylvania , excluding all woodcutters , office clerical employees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. b Membership in the appropriate unit It was stipulated and I find that on July, 2, there were 29 employees in the appropriate unit Raymond Dixon, Ken few, Sewell Harbaugh, Russell Smith, Dennis Ileming. Gary Stickler, Fred Dively, Simon Jack Hann, Roy Foor, George Edwards, Jacob Herline, Albert Hann, Ronald Bloom, Virgil Turner, Paul Traynham, Milfred Bookhammer, Ronald Claybaugh, Earl Cornell, Alfred Barnes, Donald Carl, James Hann, Jesse Hafer, Russell Rose, Theodore Fleck, Raymond Duncan. Harry Traynham, Arthur Rugg, Raymond Drenning, and Ross Evans. It was further stipulated and I find that on July 3, Ronald Stcvey became an employee in the unit, and Simon Bann terminated his employment. On August 10, Gary Stickler terminated his employment On September 7, Earl Cornell terminated his employment. On September 30, Harry Traynham terminated his employment. Excluded from the foregoing stipulation as to the membership in the appropriate unit is the question of the status of Robert Custer who Respondent claims should be included in the unit. Custer is the son-in-law of President Houseworth. He was paid on an hourly basis and acts in the place of Supervisor Doyle May when the latter is not working. When acting in place of May, Custer assigns duties to the employees and supervises their work On one occasion, Custer did a special work assignment for Respondent unconnected with bargaining-unit work 'the General Counsel contends that by virtue of Custer's relationship to Houseworth he enjoys a special status which allies his interests with those of management and, therefore, should not he counted as a member of the appropriate unit. It is probably unnecessary to decide this particular issue. inasmuch, as noted infra, Custer's inclusion in the appropriate unit would not affect the Union's majority Vera Ladies Belt & Novelty Corp . 156 NLRB 291. 292, fn 2 However, should -a sufficient number of the Union's authorization cards be found to he invalid, Custer's inclusion in the unit might become critical. In Browne and Buford, Engineers and Surveyors. 145 NLRB 765, the Board held that there is nothing in the .Act requiring the exclusion of sons-in-law. and that there was no evidence in that case that the son-in-law enjoyed a special status by virtue of his relationship to a partner The Board has held that in the case of a corporate employer "the mere coincidence of a family relationship between an employee and his employer does not negate the mutuality of employment interest which an individual shares with fellow employees, absent evidence that because of such relationship he enjoys a special status which allies his interest with those of management" (International Metal Products C'ompanv. 107 NLRB 65. 67) The Board has recently affirmed this policy in Foam Rubber Ciiy 2 of Florida, Inc . 167 NLRB No 81 The evidence in the instant case concerning Custer's duties is rather meager and does not indicate that he enjoys such special status as would ally his interest with those of management Accordingly. I find and conclude that Custer should be included in the appropriate unit. MAY & BIGLEY, INC. c. The demands for recognition As indicated above, the Union made demands for recognition on July 2, 3, 8, 11. and 12. On these occasions, the Union offered to prove its majority status through an impartial card check The Union has never withdrawn its demand. Union Representative Coughanour explained that the Union did not make any express demands after July 12, because to have done so would have been futile. The Union tiled its charge in the instant case on July 22. d. The Union's malortiv status The Union demonstrated its majority status by authorization cards executed by a number of employees in the appropriate unit.' The authorization cards read as follows I hereby authorize the Carpenters District Council of Western Pennsylvania, U.B. of C. & J. of A. to act as my exclusive bargaining agent in regards to wages, hours and working conditions and to petition the N.L.R B. to hold an election to determine whether or not a majority of the employees of the below mentioned Company. wish to be represented by the above mentioned Union.' In its brief, Respondent does not attack the card of any individual signer. Rather, Respondent contends that the Union was not authorized by a majority of' the employees to act as their bargaining representative, because "the authorization card was plain and unambiguous The signatories simply authorized the Union to petition the Board for an election ." 10 In support of this contention Respondent relies upon NL R.B V. Shelby Manufacturing Company, 390 1-.2d 595 (C.A 6). Respondent's contention must be rejected. The Shelby case is distinguishable. The Court there said at page 596 In our opinion these cards were ambiguous. They were calculated to and did indicate a purpose to secure an election This is all the more clear from evidence that the card solicitors did in tact represent to a number of employees that their purpose was to secure an election. 1-urthermore, it is significant that the Court in .Shelbtt distinguished "on its facts" N L R B v Winn-Dixie Stores. Inc., 341 F.2d 750 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 382 U S. 830. in which the same Court held to be valid for majority purposes a dual-purpose card the language of which was strikingly similar to the language of the authorization cards in the instant case." The Courts of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit and for the District of Columbia have sustained the validity of dual-purpose authorization cards N L R B r. CJ. Glasgow Company, 356 F.2d 476, 478 (C.A 7); N L.R.B v. Fosdal, 367 F.2d 784, 787 (C A. 7); International Union. United A , A. & A IMP Wkrs v. ;Y.L.R B., 363 F.2d 702 (C.A D C.), cert denied sub none 4ero Corp v N L R B , 385 U.S 973.'= The number of employees who executed these cards is discussed infra :The previously mentioned. Union Representative Coughanour at the meeting of June 20, told the employees present that the cards had a dual purpose, viz , to authorize the Union to act as the collective -bargaining representative of the employees and to obtain a representation election "Br p 8 ""Over the signature and home address of the signer was a statement that the undersigned employee does 'hereby authorize District Union Local 237, AFL-CIO, to represent me and in my behalf petition the National Labor Relations Board for an election to determine bargaining rights "' IN L R B v Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc . supra, 754 ) 659 Having concluded that the authorization cards were valid for the purpose of proving the Union's majority, I now turn to a consideration of whether a majority of Respondent's employees had signed such authorization cards on the dates when the Union made its demands for recognition. The following employees testified credibly that they executed authorztation cards at the union meeting on June 20 and that they gave the cards to Union Representative Coughanour at that meeting- Donald Carl, Alfred Barnes, George Edwards, Ronald Bloom, Milfred Bookhammer , and Raymond Duncan In addition, Ross Evans testified credibly that he signed a card on June 14 and gave it to Union Representative Coughanour at the union meeting of June 20 . Raymond Dixon testified credibly that he signed an authorization card at the union meeting of June 20 and gave it to Employee Barnes. Barnes testified credibly that he gave it to Coughanour at the same meeting. The foregoing cards should be counted in determining whether the Union had a majority Union Representative Coughanour testified that Jesse Hafer gave him a signed authorization card at the union meeting held on June 20 Employee Donald Carl testified credibly that Earl Cornell gave him a signed authorization card at the union meeting held on June 20 and that he, Carl, gave it to Coughanour at the same meeting. Carl also testified that he saw Gary Stickler sign his authorization card at the meeting of June 20, that Stickler gave him the card and he. in turn, gave it to Coughanour at the same meeting. Carl also testified that he saw Harry Travnham sign his card at the union meeting of June 20, that Traynham gave him the card and that he, in turn, "In the recent cases of Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association, 163 NLRB No 106. and Kawneer Company. 164 NLRB No 138, the Board held valid for a majority purposes dual-purpose authorization cards I note that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rclused to enforce the bargaining portion of the order in the Yazoo Lase, holding the authorization card to be ambiguous N L R B v Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association , 405 F 2d 479 It is apparent that the f ifth Circuit is in disagreement with the Seventh Circuit and with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia In any event , it is my duty as a Trial Examiner to apply established Board precedent which the Board or the Supreme Court has not reversed Insurance Agents ' International Union , 119 NLRB 768, 773, Novak Logging Company , 119 NLRB 1573, 1575-1576, Scherrer and Davisson Logging Company, 119 NLRB 1587, 1589. In this connection . I do not consider Silver Fleet , Inc . 174 NLRB No 141. to constitute a departure from the holdings in Yazoo and Kawneer In Silver Fleet , the authorization card contained the following statement in bold letters "THIS DOES NOT OBLIGATE ME IN ANY WAY" A majority of the Board considered this statement as misleading , as it could imply that by "signing the card, the employee was not doing anything that he would not have an opportunity to reconsider " Furthermore, in finding that cards obtained by the Union were insufficient for the purposes of proving maionty status, the Board said "[wle rely not only on the language of the card itself, but also on testimony dealing with the solicitation of the cards " "It appears that the cards which were executed at the meeting of June 20 were dated "June 13" Union Representative Coughanour testified credibly that at the June 20 meeting he told the employees that he knew that many of them had executed cards that he had passed out at the plant on June 13 and had mailed the Lards to the Union's office He testified that these cards had been lost by the Union , and that he told the employees to sign new cards and date them as of the date that they had executed the cards originally The fact that these cards were executed on a date different from that which appears thereon does not destroy the validity of the cards, particularly in light of the credible evidence establishing the actual date on which each card was signed Henrv Spen & Company. Inc , 150 NLRB 138, 150 Similarly, the fact that the dates on some of the cards involved in the instant proceeding may have been filled in by someone other than the signer does not destroy the validity of the cards Southland Paint C'ompani Inc , 156 NLRB 22, 43, Henri, Spen & Company. Ina , supra 660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gave it to Coughanour at the same meeting. With regard to Arthur Rugg. Carl testified that Rugg gave him his signed authorization card "sometime in June" and that he. Carl, gave it to Coughanour at the meeting of July 2. The foregoing cards were properly authenticated and are valid. Sandy's Stores. Inc, 163 NLRB No. 95, Lifetime Door Co., 158 NLRB 13, 21; Colson Corporation v. N.L.R B., 347 F 2d 128, 134 (C.A. 8), cert. denied 382 U.S. 904. Ronald Claybaugh signed his card in June and gave it to Employee Dixon on the same day at Claybaugh's home." Dixon testified that he gave it to Employee Carl on June 21, and Union Representative Coughanour testified credibly that he received the card approximately 1 week after the July 2 union meeting. Since Claybaugh delivered the card to Carl, an employee-representative of the Union, on June 21, the card may be counted toward the Union's majority from and after July 2. Simon Hann testified credibly that he signed an authorization card on July 2 at the union meeting and gave it to Coughanour at that meeting The card is valid and may be counted toward the Union's majority. Paul Travnham testified credibly that during the month of June, his son Harry. an employee of the Respondent and a card signer, came to him after a union meeting and asked him to sign an authorization card. Paul Traynham told his son that he was very busy at the time and could not sign the card then. His son told him that the card was needed immediately. Paul Traynham then authorized his son to sign his name, and his son did so in the presence of Paul Traynham and the latter's wife. Paul Traynham's authorization card hears a second signature which, he testified, is his own . He testified further that on August 14, an agent of the Board visited his home in order to take an affidavit in connection with the investigation of the instant case. Paul Traynham told the Board agent the facts outlined above in regard to his son's signing the authorization card He offered to sign the card again in order to "verify the signature." The Board agent told Traynham that he could sign the card if he so desired. Traynham chose to do so and put the date, August 14, 1968, under his signature. After Harry Traynham signed his father's name, he told his father he was going to mail the card to the Union The reverse side of the authorization card bears postmarks indicating that it was mailed on July 3 and was received by the Union in Pittsburgh on July 8. There is also a time stamp indicating that the card was received by Region 6 of the National Labor Relations Board on July 22. As Paul Traynham explicitly authorized his son to sign the authorization card and his son did so in his presence, the card should be counted as valid as of the date of its execution, viz., June 20. Peterson Brothers, Inc. 144 NLRB 679, 681, enforcement partly denied on other grounds 342 F.2d 221 (C.A. 5). Lincoln Manufacturing Co , 160 NLRB 1866, 1876, enfd. 382 F.2d 411 (C.A. 7), cert. denied 389 U.S. 972 Union Representative Coughanour and Employee Evans testified credibly that they saw Roy Foor sign an authorization card at the union meeting of July 2. Coughanour testified that Foor gave him the card after he signed it. l-oor testified that he did sign an authorization card on July 2 and gave it to Coughanour at the meeting. However, he testified that the authorization card bearing "There is a slight, unimportant difference between the testimony of Claybaugh and Dixon as to the date. Dixon testified that he saw Claybaugh sign his card on June 20 his name which was shown to him at the hearing did not bear his signature. He admitted that the card which he did sign bore the same printing as the authorization card shown to him which was identical with the authorization cards of the other employees introduced into evidence In view of his testimony that the authorization card shown to him at the hearing did not bear his signature, I directed Foor to sign his name three times on a blank sheet of paper. I am satisfied from a comparison of his signatures on the paper and the signature of his name on the authorization card that the latter is substantially different from his signatures on the blank sheet. Although I invited the parties to adduce expert testimony regarding the signatures. none was offered. There is no explanation in the record as to why Foor's purported signature on the authorization card differed from his signature on the blank sheet of paper. However, the essential fact is that, according to his own testimony, Foor executed an authorization card designating the Union as his collective-bargaining representative and that he gave his authorization card to Union Representative Coughanour on that date. Accordingly, I find and conclude that Foor did, in fact, designate the Union as his collective-bargaining representative on July 2 and such designation should be counted in determining the Union's majority status. Aero Corporation, 149 NLRB 1283, 1291, enfd. 363 F.2d 702 (C.A. D.C.), cert. denied 385 U.S. 973, Crawford Manufacturing Co, 161 NLRB 989. 1023, enfd. in part 386 F.2d 367 (C.A. 4). The Union continued its campaign even after the tiling of the complaint and obtained four additional cards. The facts pertaining to these cards are as follows. Union Representative Coughanour testified that he saw Theodore Fleck sign an authorization card on August 26. at the latter's home and that Fleck then gave the card to Coughanour Fleck's card is properly authenticated and is valid and may be counted in determining the Union's majority status as of that date Union Representative Coughanodr testified that he saw Charles R. Drenning sign an authorization card at the latter's home on August 26 and that Drenning gave him the card after he signed it. Drenning was called by the Respondent to explain why he signed the card "Charles R. Drenning" while he endorses his paychecks "'C. Raymond Drenning." Drenning explained that he endorses his checks in that manner because they are made out that way. He testified that he signed his authorization card "Charles R. Drenning." His card is valid and may be counted in determining the Union's majority on August 26. Ken Tew testified that he signed a card on September 17 and mailed it to the Union. 1 find and conclude that Tew's authorization card is valid and may be counted in determining the Union's majority as of that date. Union Representative Coughanour testified that Virgil Turner signed an authorization card on August 26, at the latter's home and that Turner then gave him the card. Turner was called as a witness by the Respondent. He admitted that he had signed the authorization card. However, he testified that when he signed it, he was told by Coughanour that the card had nothing to do with the Union and that its purpose was to get a man back to work. On rebuttal, Coughanour testified that he went to Turner's home on August 26, introduced himself, and said that he was a representative of the Carpenters Union He then went into a detailed explanation of what in his opinion, the Union could do for the employees of the Respondent. As part of the explanation, Coughanour told MAY & BIGLEY, INC. Turner that the Union was seeking the reinstatement of Barnes. He explained to Turner that the card had a dual purpose, tiz, to authorize the Union to represent the employees of Respondent and to petition the NLRB for an election. After the explanation, Turner said that he would sign a card and asked Coughanour to fill it out. Coughanour did so and, Turner signed it. Coughanour took the card and left. I do not credit Turner's testimony To do so, would require me to believe that Union Representative Coughanour called at Turner's home and did not even introduce himself, or tell Turner that he was representing the Union It would require me to believe that Turner signed the union authorvation card without reading it, taking the word of a complete stranger as to the purpose and effect of the card. Although Turner claimed that he had some difficulty in reading at the time because he needed new glasses, it is strange that he did not ask his wife who was present to read the card to him. Furthermore, Turner admitted that he had received a union card from Coughanour in June when the latter passed out cards to all the employees, read the card, and knew the purpose thereof. Finally, Turner testified that he had been "ordered" to go to a union meeting on November 1, but on cross-examination testified that he was merely told by certain union members that they wanted him to go to a union meeting. In sum, I do not find Turner's testimony to be credible On the other hand, Union Representative Coughanour impressed me as an honest, straightforward witness I therefore find and conclude that Turner's card is t alid and may be counted to determine the Union's majority status as of the date it was signed. To recapitulate, I have set forth below in tabular form the number of employees in the appropriate unit and the number of authorvation cards signed on the various dates involved herein: Dates Number of Number of Employees" Authorization in the Unit cards signed July 2 30 17i6 July 3-Aug 9 30 16" Aug. 10-Aug. 25 29 IS'" Aug. 26-Sept. 6 29 18" Sept 7-Sept. 16 28 1720 Sept. 17-Sept 29 28 18 21 Sept. 30 27 1722 I have heretofore found that the Union made demands for recognition on July 2, 3. 8, 11. and 12. but did not "The figures in this column include Robert Custer "This number includes all of the cards discussed above except those of Fleck, Turner. Dreining, and Tew "As indicated above, card signer Hann terminated his employment on July 3 "As indicated above, card signer Strickler terminated his employment on August 10 "Fleck, Turner, and Drenning executed authorization cards on August 26 20 As indicated above, card signer Cornell terminated his employment on September 7 "Tew executed an authorization card on September 17 22Harry Traynahm terminated his employment on September 30 661 make any specific demands thereafter because of the obvious futility of doing so. Nevertheless, the Union's demand was a continuing one. The foregoing discussion demonstrates quite clearly that on the foregoing dates and thereafter the Union represented a majority of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit. e. Respondent's alleged good-faith doubt as to the Union's Majority It is well settled, of course, that an employer may insist upon a Board election as proof of a Union's majority, as Respondent did here, but it is equally well settled that it may not lawfully refuse to bargain "if its insistence on such an election is motivated, not by any bona fide doubt as to the Union's majority, but rather by a rejection of the collective bargaining principle or by a desire to gain time within which to undermine the Union" (Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, 1264, enfd. 185 F.2d 732 (C A D.C.), cert. denied 341 U.S. 914) Respondent contends that it had a good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority. The record compels a contrary finding and conclusion. Respondent's expressed doubts had no rational basis in fact. Thus, when asked on cross-examination why he did not accept the Union's offer of a card check, President Houseworth simply replied- "I don't know." By peremptorily rejecting the card check offer, Respondent "deliberately shut its eyes to the facts. . . and assiduously avoided giving the Union any opportunity to substantiate its claims. Such conduct is not indicative of good faith" (N L.R B. v Philanion Laboratories, Inc , 298 F.2d 176, 180 (C A 2) See also :'V L R B v. George Groh and Sons, 329 F.2d 265, 269 (C.A. 10); N L.R B. v. Economy Food Center, Inc , 333 F.2d 468, 472 (C.A. 7), enfg. 142 NLRB 901. Furthermore, from the very inception of the Union's organizational campaign and continuing after the Union's original demand for recognition and bargaining, the Respondent engaged in a series of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3), which I have found above. From this conduct, I find and conclude that the Respondent never had a good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority status, but refused to grant the Union recognition because it rejected the collective-bargaining principle and wanted time to destroy the Union's majority I therefore find and conclude that Respondent's failure and refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union was a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Kav Allen Classics, Inc., 152 NLRB 1250, 1251: Mink-Dai'ton, Inc., 166 NLRB No. 79; Brandenburg Telephone Company, 164 NLRB No. 26. V. THE EFFEC'I 01' THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICFS UPON COMMERCE The activities of May & Bigley. Inc.. set forth in section 1V, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent set forth in section 1, above. have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade. traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing-"- commerce and the free now thereof. 662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD VI. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3). and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent discharged .Alfred Barnes because of his activity on behalf of the Union, I shall recommend that the Respondent be required to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights, dismissing if necessary any employees hired after his discharge. Respondent should also be required to make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered because of the discrimination against him, with backpay computed in the customary manner 2' I shall further recommend that the Board order the Respondent to preserve and, upon request. make available to the Board or its agents payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of the backpay due and the right of employment Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily denied holiday pay to employees Gary Stickler, Harry Traynham, Donald Carl. Raymond Dixon , George Edwards. Ronald Bloom, Milfred Bookhammer, Raymond Duncan, Alfred Barnes, Arthur Rugg, Jesse Hafer, and Ross Evans" for the purpose of discouraging membership in the Union, I shall recommend that the Respondent be required to make said employees whole for the loss of holiday pay, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are of a character striking at the root of employee rights safeguarded by the Act. 1 shall recommend that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent its officers, agents. successors, and assigns. shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discouraging membership in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Carpenters District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Threatening to close the plant if a majority of the employees select United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Carpenters District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, to represent them. (c) Threatening to fire its employees it they join United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization "F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 "As Simon Hann terminated his employment on July 3, he is not entitled to holiday pay for Jul,, 4 (d) Engaging in surveillance of the union activities of its employees. or giving the impression of engaging in surveillance thereof. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to sell-organization, to form, loin, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right is affected by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (f) Refusing, upon request, to bargain collectively with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the following appropriate unit. All regular production and maintenance employees employed by Respondent at its facility located on Railroad Street in Bedford, Pennsylvania, excluding all woodcutters, office clerical employees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer to Allred Barnes immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing if necessary any employees hired subsequent to his discharge. and make him whole for any loss lie may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's discrimination against him in a manner set forth in the section of the Decision entitled "The Remedy " (h) Make whole the following employees. Gary Stickler. harry Traynham, Donald Carl. Raymond Dixon, George Edwards, Ronald Bloom, Milfred Bookhammer. Raymond Duncan. Alfred Barnes, Arthur Rugg, Jesse Haler, and Ross Evans by paying them holiday pay for ,July 4, 1968, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum (c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, for examination and copying. all records necessary for the determination of the amount of backpay due. (d) Notify Alfred Barnes if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to lull 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. (e) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters District Council of Western Pennsylvania, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement (1) Post at its Bedford. Pennsylvania, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." [ Board's Appendix substituted for Trial Examiner's I25 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director "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 MAY & BIGLEY, INC. for Region 6. after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall he posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thercol, and he 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (g) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 663 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 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 prosision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "