David R Webb Co , Inc

236 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD David R Webb Co , Inc and Eugene McGaha Case 25-CA-18553 September 30 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On June 8 1988 Administrative Law Judge Donald R Holley issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief 1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegat ed its authority in this proceeding to a three member panel The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge s rulings findings, 2 and conclusions3 and to adopt the recommended Order ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent David R Webb Co Inc Edinburgh Indiana its officers agents successors and assigns shall take the action set forth in the Order i The Respondent has requested oral argument The request is denied as the record exceptions and bnefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties 2 In sec III A par 14 of his decision the judge referred to John Cole man The correct spelling of this supervisor s name is Coffman The Respondent excepted to the judge s finding that employee Eugene McGaha testified that he told Coffman that his disability might prevent him from performing the dryer feeder job We do not rely on this finding that we conclude is not fully supported by the record However this does not affect the result in this case 3 In affirming the judge we note that given the poor performance of Hill Young and McGaha in the position of feeder on the #2 vacuum dryer the Respondent was not obliged to retain these employees in that position However we agree with the judge that the employees perform ance in that position which was not substantially equivalent to their pre strike positions could not provide a basis for the Respondents failure to continue to extend to these employees their Laidlaw rights Walter Steele Esq for the General Counsel Jack H Rogers Esq (Barnes & Thornburg) of Indianapo Its Indiana for the Respondent Eugene McGaha pro se of Nineveh Indiana for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DONALD R HOLLEY Administrative Law Judge On an original charge filed in this case by Eugene McGaha an individual on March 17 1987 the Regional Director for Region 25 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against David R Webb Co Inc (Re spondent) on June 25 1987 alleging in substance that by rehiring economic strikers Alice Hill Rex Young and Eugene McGaha in jobs other than their former or sub stantially equivalent jobs and thereafter terminating their employment when they were unable to perform the job to which they had been recalled Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act Respondent filed timely answer denying it had en gaged in the unfair labor practwes alleged in the com plaint The case was heard in Indianapolis Indiana on Sep tember 28 and 29 1987 All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to participate On the entire record and after careful consideration of postheanng briefs filed by the parties I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Respondent a Delaware corporation maintains its principal office and place of business in Edinburgh Indi ana where it is engaged in the manufacture sale and distribution of wood veneer and related products During the 12 month period preceding June 25 1987 it in the course and conduct of its business operations sold and shipped products goods and materials valued in excess of $50 000 to customers located outside the State of Indiana It is admitted and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act II STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION It is admitted and I find that Chauffeurs Teamsters Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No 135 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Teamsters Local 135) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondent manufactures wood veneer and other wood products at its Edinburgh Indiana facility It em ploys approximately 400 employees About 260 employ ees were in the bargaining unit represented by Teamsters Local 135 in 1986 On July 28 of that year the bargain ing unit employees commenced what is conceded to have been an economic strike On November 3 1986 the striking employees through the Union offered uncondi tionally to return to work During the course of the strike Respondent hired nu merous replacements and a number of striking employees abandoned the strike and returned to work After the strike ended Respondent without union participation promulgated a plan for recall of striking employees for whom no jobs were available immediately The plan in volved creation of a preferential hiring list from which employees would first be recalled according to qualifica tions and seniority in their prestrike department After all jobs in all departments were filled the recall was accom 291 NLRB No 36 DAVID R WEBB CO plashed by consideration of qualifications of employees and their total length of service with the Company i By mid February 1987 only 20 to 30 employees re mained on the preferential hinng list Alleged discnmma tees Alice Hill Rex Young and Eugene McGaha were concededly the three employees on the list with the most plantwide seniority At some unstated time before February 17 the Re spondent s personnel manager Charles Kilpatrick con tacted employee Hill to offer her the job of operator of #2 vacuum dryer on the second shift The position had been upgraded from a labor grade 1 job to a labor grade 2 job during the strike and it paid $6 09 per hour Hill accepted the job offer and reported for work at 3 30 p in on February 17 She was terminated at the end of her shift on February 17 under conditions set forth infra Hill was not called as a witness by either of the parties during the hearing Through the testimony of Kilpatrick it was established that Hill was approaching the age of 62 at the time of the hearing and she is 4 feet 11 inches tall For approximately 3 to 4 years before the strike she had been employed in a labor grade 1 job on the first shift The precise job was that of labeler in the export clipping and measuring department In that job she re moved bundles of veneer from a conveyor attached a label to the bundle and placed the bundle on a different conveyor The job required no heavy lifting or eye hand coordination as the bundles were simply shoved from one conveyor to another It paid $5 91 per hour when the strike began but was upgraded to a labor grade 2 job during the strike Kilpatrick indicated that during her 12 to 13 year tenure with Respondent Hill had per formed some unspecified job in the dryer department had performed a second veneer handler job in the export clipping and measuring department which involved moving sheets of veneer with the assistance of another employee from one conveyor to a second conveyor about 3 to 4 feet distant and had been tried in a layup job but had been disqualified from it 2 A video tape that depicts the functions performed by the feeder of the #2 vacuum dryer was placed in the record as Respondents Exhibit 1 Briefly the job con lists of placing a quantity of wood veneer on a scissors lift with the aid of a conveyor elevation of the scissors lift through use of a foot pedal or button to the height of 4 to 4 1/2 feet and flipping individual sheets of veneer upward with the fingers to permit a vacuum to grab the individual sheets and affix them to a belt that moves through the dryer Jerry Thompson the supervisor of Respondent s second shift testified that when Hill reported for work on February 17 he briefed her on her starting time breaktime punch in procedure and directed her to the #2 vacuum dryer where he explained and then demon strated the job she was to perform He indicated he noted things were not going smoothly when she began to perform and sought to improve her situation by con structing a platform for her to stand on to compensate 1 The validity of the recall procedure is not at issue in this case 2 When Hill was disqualified on the layup job because she was unable to perform it she was transferred to other work 237 for her lack of height Thompson testified Hill expen enced difficulty with virtually every aspect of the job dunng the shift He stated she was not efficiently loading the scissors lift and she was unable to efficiently feed the machine He indicated her failure to properly feed the machine caused sheets of veneer to fall to the floor and resulted in the discard of product at the other end of the machine because sheets of veneer came out folded Thompson claimed he had never seen an employee per form as poorly on the machine and he indicated he re ported Hill s deficiencies to the plant manager and to Kilpatrick At the end of her shift on February 17 Hill was in structed to report to Kilpatrick When she did he told her her performance was not satisfactory and something would have to be done Kilpatrick testified Hill then told him she did not like the job and would rather stay at home with her husband and collect unemployment until she was eligible to retire (at age 62) Kilpatrick informed her Respondent would replace her and it would not object to her drawing unemployment He admits Hill was then terminated On February 18 Kilpatrick contacted Rex Young then the employee with the greatest plantwide seniority on the preferential hiring list and offered him the pose tion of feeder on the #2 vacuum dryer on the second shift Young accepted the job offer and agreed to report that day at 3 30 p in Young testified he was hired by Respondent on Febru ary 10 1975 His first job was that of flitch hanger 3 In that job which he held for 3 to 4 years he hand cleaned flitches with a hand planer He next worked for 3 to 4 years marking samples and measuring veneer In that job he received logs from the vat area and affixed tickets to them which indicated the number of board feet in each flitch After he was disqualified in the above described job he was transferred back to the vat department where he performed the flitch cleaner job during the 2 to 3 years that preceded the strike As a flitch cleaner he with the assistance of a second employee placed flitches on a chain which acted as a conveyor and moved flitches through a washer that resembled a car wash Young worked on the first shift immediately before the strike and he earned $6 02 per hour in his labor grade 3 position Thompson testified that when Young reported for work on February 18 he briefed him just as he had briefed Hill the afternoon before and he then acquainted Young with the manner in which he was to feed the #2 vacuum dryer He testified Young loaded the scissors lift efficiently but experienced difficulty in feeding the ma chine He indicated that Young like Hi'l improperly fed the machine and as a result a lot of sheets were discard ed Thompson testified Young continued to remain ineffi cient in feeding the machine on February 19 and there were many discarded sheets and a lot of starting and stopping of the machine to straighten up the messes that resulted from improper feeding Thompson reported his 2 When a log is split in half in quarters or otherwise each individual piece is called a flitch 238 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD observations of Youngs performance to Kilpatrick and told the employee to contact Kilpatrick at 1 p in the next day When Young reached Kilpatrick by phone at 2 p in the next day Kilpatrick terminated his employment indicating he could draw unemployment On Friday February 20 Kilpatrick contacted Eugene McGaha and offered him the feeder job on #2 dryer on the second shift McGaha asked if Kilpatrick thought he could perform the work and Kilpatrick assured him he could 4 McGaha was hired by Respondent in 1975 He worked in the maintenance department for 3 to 4 years repairing tuning and servicing towmotors and/or forklifts After working on the machines he tested them Throughout his employment he drove a forklift about once a month to unload and warehouse acid delivered to the facility During the 7 years preceding the strike he was classified as a truckdnver He drove a pickup truck and flatbed truck McGaha indicated he also substituted for the clerk in the toolroom of the maintenance department while driving a truck In that job he checked tools in and out He was a licensed driver and possessed a company It cense to drive a forklift As a driver he worked the first shift and was paid $6 90 per hour in his labor grade 7 po sition Thompson testified that when McGaha reported for work on Monday February 23 he briefed him and dem onstrated how the feeder job on the #2 vacuum dryer was to be accomplished He indicated that McGaha like Hill experienced difficulty loading the scissors lift and experienced difficulty when feeding the dryer Thomp son claimed he went to the #2 vacuum dryer repeatedly to explain demonstrate reexplain and redemonstrate the job but McGaha just could not or would not do the job McGaha testified his left arm was 15 to 20 percent dis abled and he called John Coleman his former supervisor in the maintenance department on Tuesday to ask if they were setting him up to fire him indicating his disability may not permit him to perform the dryer feeder job He testified Coleman said he would call him back but he never did When McGaha reported for work on Wednes day February 25 he was told he was to see Kilpatrick When he went to the latter s office Kilpatrick terminat ed him indicating he could draw unemployment While interrogating Kilpatrick as an adverse witness counsel for the General Counsel caused Kilpatrick to review information in the personnel files of approximate ly 34 employees In the process he established inter alia that employee Cindy Jackson was in Hill s job when the strike ended and that employee Cindy Burton who had less seniority than Hill was given Hill s prestrike job after Hill was terminated on February 18 1987 Similar ly the record revealed openings in Young s prestrike job of flitch cleaner were filled by employees Howard Tutor Jeff Taylor and Jackie Jackson on April 22 May 9 and July 22 1987 respectively 5 Finally although the 4 McGaha testified he had surgery on his left arm about a year before the hearing and he claimed Kilpatrick was aware the arm was 15 to 20 percent disabled 5 The named employees were all junior in service to Young records revealed that employee Larry McCallum who was in McGaha s prestrike truckdriver job when the strike ended remains in that job counsel for the General Counsel sought to show that certain forklift and/or relat ed jobs which McGaha could arguably perform were awarded to employees with less seniority than McGaha after he was terminated in February 1987 In support of its claim that Hill Young and McGaha performed poorly on the #2 vacuum dryer job Re spondent placed in evidence as its exhibits 2 through 13 portions of personnel files of employees and production records to show that other employees including persons allegedly placed on vacuum dryers for the first time ex perienced better production than the alleged discrimina tees I have reviewed each of the exhibits and see no need to analyze them at length here Suffice it to say they reveal that other employees placed on the #2 dryer feeder experienced significantly higher production than Hill McGaha and Young 6 Analysis and Conclusions The General Counsels contention in the instant case is that the alleged discriminatees as economic strikers were entitled by virtue of Laidlaw Corp 171 NLRB 1366 (1968) to their prestrike jobs or to substantially equivalent jobs when vacancies occurred and that Re spondent could not lawfully deprive them of such right by recalling them to jobs they could not perform and thereafter terminating them On the other hand Respondent contends that when economic strikers accept recall to jobs other than their prestrike jobs they enjoy no exemption from uniformly applicable conditions of work and forfeit their right to future recall to their prestrike jobs or substantially equiv alent jobs if they are unable to perform the jobs they accept and are terminated for that reason In Laidlaw Corp supra the Board held at 1369-1370 that economic strikers who unconditionally apply for reinstatement at a time when their post tions are filled by permanent replacements (1) remain employees and (2) are entitled to full rein statement upon the departure of replacements unless they have in the meantime acquired regular and substantially equivalent employment or the employ er can sustain his burden of proof that the failure to offer full reinstatement was for legitimate and sub stantial business reasons If an employer fails to sustain his burden of proof a re fusal to reinstate employees after an economic strike con stitutes an unfair labor practice notwithstanding the ab sence of animus or bad faith for such conduct dis courage[s] employees from exercising their rights to or ganize and to strike guaranteed by §§ 7 and 13 of the Act NLRB v Fleetwood Trailer Co 389 U S 375 378 (1967) Although Respondent stressed the fact that the dryer feeder job to which the alleged discriminatees were all 5 Young s statistics were markedly higher than those of Hill and McGaha DAVID R WEBB CO 239 recalled was a so called entry level job which individ uals with no training should be able to perform it does not contend the alleged discriminatees were recalled to jobs that were substantially equivalent to their prestrike positions Indeed I would reject such a contention if it were advanced Thus the record reveals Young worked in a labor grade 3 job before the strike and McGaha worked in a labor grade 7 job prior to the strike All three alleged discriminatees worked the first shift before the strike In the circumstances described the dryer feeder job on the second shift did not constitute substan tially equivalent employment for any of the alleged dis criminatees H & F Binch Co 188 NLRB 720 724-725 (1971) Providence Medical Center 243 NLRB 714 744 (1979) Remaining for resolution then is whether Respondent has shown that its failure to offer the alleged discrimina tees full reinstatement was for legitimate and substantial business reasons Respondent contends that it was legally obligated to offer the alleged discriminatees the feeder position and that once they accepted the position it was legally entitled to treat them like it would any em ployee placed in the job under discussion Explaining that when employees are placed on jobs they cannot per form efficiently employees are uniformly transferred or terminated it claims it lawfully terminated the alleged discriminatees My review of Laidlaw and its progeny fails to reveal a situation wherein the Board has decided the precise issue posed by Respondent Respondent claims however that the issue was decided in its favor in Weyerhaeuser Co 274 NLRB 972 (1985) and Lehigh Metal Fabricators 267 NLRB 568 (1983) In point of fact it relies on dicta set forth in those decisions by Judge Harmatz Thus in Weyerhaeuser supra at 974 the Judge stated Under the Act strikers are to be treated in the same fashion upon their unconditional offer to return to work as would have been the case had they not participated in a strike Absent specific evidence of antiunion motivation economic strikers are entitled to no more or no less They enjoy no exemption from uniformly applicable conditions of work which are unrelated to strike activity and which fail to prejudice the strikers on the basis of worktime lost due to participation in a strike In Lehigh supra at 575 he stated employer misgivings concerning the qualifica tions of an economic striker are to be tested on the job through recall with the employer later permit ted to take appropriate action if the recalled striker is in fact unqualified or cannot do the work Although the above quoted comments were appropri ately set forth in Weyerhaeuser and Lehigh Metal neither case stands for the proposition that an employer can ex tinguish an economic strikers right to his or her pre strike job or to substantially equivalent position by offer ing the striker a job he or she cannot perform and there after terminating the strikers employee status for failure to perform adequately Instead in Weyerhaeuser the issue involved the rights of economic strikers versus the rights of nonstrikers in a situation when a plant had been closed so long that nonstriking employees contractual recall rights had expired and the issue was whether economic strikers enjoyed superior recall rights when the plant re opened merely because they had engaged in a strike On the other hand the issue in Lehigh Metal was whether economic strikers could be deprived recall because the employers subjective view was that they would be unable to perform available work because of changes in the skill level of such work Patently the above quoted remarks extracted from Weyerhaeuser and Lehigh were made in a context where in the right of economic strikers to their prestrike jobs was under discussion The comments are clearly inappli cable here where recall was to a lesser job that was not substantially equivalent to the prestrike jobs held by the alleged discriminatees There may conceivably be circumstances in which an employer would be justified in terminating an economic striker who had been recalled to a job other than his or her prestrike position but the facts in the instant case fail to establish that Respondent terminated Hill Young and McGaha for legitimate and substantial business reasons The reason assigned for the termination of each of the employees was failure to perform the dryer feeder job to Respondents satisfaction Respondent concedes the em ployees could have refused recall to the job under dis cussion without losing their employee status Moreover it is clear that by accepting and subsequently leaving a job that was not substantially equivalent to their pre strike positions at an employer other than Respondent the employees would have retained their status as Re spondent employees and they would have been entitled to their prestrike positions when they became available In the circumstances described I find Respondent has failed to sustain its burden of proving that Hill Young and McGaha were deprived of their right to full rein statement for legitimate and substantial business reasons Although I have rejected Respondents contention that it could in effect treat the alleged discriminatees as new employees in the factual situation presented I note the instant record affirmatively reveals Respondent treated the alleged discriminatees discriminatorily Thus as noted supra the record reveals that during the period preceding the strike both Hill and Young were assigned to jobs which they failed to perform satisfactorily They were disqualified on those jobs and were thereafter trans ferred to work they could perform Obviously Hill and Young were treated differently in February 1987 and no explanation was offered for what would appear to be a failure by Respondent to follow its past practice when regular employees were placed on jobs they were unable to perform Although McGaha was not shown to have been disqualified on any job before the strike he testified he was partially disabled when he was recalled to the dryer feeder job and he claims he told Supervisor Cole man his disability might prevent him from performing the dryer feeder job Additionally McGaha claimed Kil patrick was aware of his disability In the circumstances described it would appear Respondent was aware 240 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD McGaha would be unable to perform the dryer feeder job to supervisions satisfaction The fact that McGaha was the third person recalled to the job after two re called strikers had failed to satisfactorily perform lends substance to McGaha s assertion to supervision that he was being set up when he was recalled to the dryer feeder job In sum I find that in the circumstances presented in the instant case Respondent did not fulfill its Laidlaw obligations by recalling the alleged discnminatees to jobs that were not substantially equivalent to their prestrike jobs and terminating them when they were unable to perform satisfactorily I find as alleged that by terminat ing the employment status of Hill Young and McGaha on February 17 19 and 25 1987 respectively and thereby terminating their preferential recall rights Re spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 David R Webb Co Inc is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act 2 Teamsters Local 135 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 By engaging in the unlawful acts described in sec tion III above Respondent has engaged in and is engag ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 4 The above described unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer tarn unfair labor practices it shall be recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the pole cies of the Act Having found that Respondent discriminated against Alice Hill Rex Young and Eugene McGaha by terms nating their employment status and preferential recall rights and having found that the prestrike positions held by Hill and Young became vacant after Respondent en gaged in the unlawful conduct described I shall recom mend that Respondent offer Hill and Young immediate and full reinstatement to their prestrike positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privi leges As the record fails to reveal that McGaha s pre strike position became vacant before the time the hearing was held in this case I shall recommend that Respondent be required to offer McGaha immediate and full rein statement to his prestrike position if a vacancy in such position has occurred since the hearing here was held without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges If no such vacancy has occurred in McGaha s prestrike position I recommend Respondent be required to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to a sub stantially equivalent position of employment Respondent will be required to make each of the alleged discnmina tees whole for any loss of pay they suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them from the date they should have been reinstated to the date of valid offers of reinstatement The date McGaha should have been offered reinstatement shall be left for resolution at the compliance stage of this proceeding Loss of backpay and interest shall be computed in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 7 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record I issue the following recommend ed8 ORDER The Respondent David R Webb Co Inc Edin burgh Indiana its officers agents successors and as signs shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Recalling economic strikers to jobs that are not substantially equivalent to their prestrike positions and terminating their employment status and preferential recall rights when they are unable to perform the jobs to which they are recalled (b) In any like or related manner interfering with re straining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer Alice Hill and Rex Young immediate and full reinstatement to their prestrike positions of employment and offer Eugene McGaha immediate and full reinstate ment to either his prestrike position or to a substantially equivalent position of employment in each case without prejudice to the employees seniority or other rights and privileges and make them whole for the discrimination practiced against them in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision (b) Remove from its files all reference to the dis charges of Alice Hill Rex Young and Eugene McGaha and inform the named employees that such records will not be used as the basis for future action against them (c) Preserve and on request make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all pay roll records social security payment records timecards personnel records and reports and all other records nec essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order (d) Post at its Edinburgh Indiana facility copies of the attached notice marked Appendix 9 Copies of the r See generally Isis Plumbing Co 138 NLRB 716 (1962) In accordance with the decision in New Horizons for the Retarded interest on and after January 1 1987 shall be computed at the short term Federal rate for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1987 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621 Interest on amounts accrued prior to January 1 1987 (the effec tive date of the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621) shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977) 8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all put poses 9 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation al Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board DAVID R WEBB CO 241 notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25 after being signed by Respondents authorized representative shall be posted by Respondent immediate ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced or covered by any other maters al (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent has taken to comply A4ENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or dered us to post and abide by this notice WE WILL NOT recall economic strikers to jobs that are not substantially equivalent to their prestrike positions and terminate their employment status and preferential recall rights when they are unable to perform the jobs to which they are recalled WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL offer Alice Hill and Rex Young immediate and full reinstatement to their prestrike positions of em ployment and offer Eugene McGaha immediate and full reinstatement to either his prestrike position or to a sub stantially equivalent position of employment in each case without prejudice to the employees seniority or other rights and privileges and make them whole for the discrimination practiced against them in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision WE WILL remove from our files all reference to the discharges of Alice Hill Rex Young and Eugene McGaha and inform the named employees that such records will not be used as the basis for future action against them DAVID R WEBB CO INC