Hamilton Plastics

HAMILTON PLASTICS Hamilton Plastics, a Division of Buckeye Custom Products and Darrin M Norris Case 9-CA- 25218 October 31 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On August 23 1988 Administrative Law Judge Lowell Goerlich issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed an answering brief 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 I and conclusions 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 Hamilton Plastics a Division of Buckeye Custom Products Mason Ohio its officers agents successors and assigns shall take the action set forth in the Order i The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find mgs The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products 91 rNLRB 544 (1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings Deborah Jacobson Esq for the General Counsel Harry A Goussetis Esq of Columbus Ohio and Daniel Thomas Industrial Relations Manager of Mason Ohio for the Respondent Darren M Norris of Middletown Ohio for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LOWELL GOERLICH Administrative Law Judge The charge filed by Darren M Norris an individual on March 16 1988 was served on Hamilton Plastics a Di vision of Buckeye Custom Products (the Respondent) by certified mail on March 17 1988 A complaint and notice of hearing was issued on April 26 1988 An amendment to the complaint inserting 1988 after the phrase 14th of June which appears on line 6 page 3 of the com plaint was filed on May 5 1988 In the complaint it was alleged that the Respondent discharged Darren Norris because he engaged in protected concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Rela tions Act (the Act) 529 The Respondent filed a timely answer in which it denied that it had committed the unfair labor practices alleged The case was heard on June 14 1988 at Cincinnati Ohio Each party was afforded a full opportunity to be heard to call examine and cross examine witnesses to argue orally on the record to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusion and to file briefs All briefs have been carefully considered On the entire record in this case and from my observa tion of the witnesses and their demeanor I make the fol ]owing FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS AND REASONS THEREFOR I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT At all times material the Respondent a corporation with an office and place of business in Mason Ohio has been engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale and distribution of injection molded plastic parts and related products During the last 12 months the Respondent in the course and conduct of its business operations described above sold and shipped from its Mason Ohio facility products goods and materials valued in excess of $50 000 directly to points outside the State of Ohio The Respondent is now and has been at all times ma terial an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The General Counsel charges that Norris was dis charged for engaging in protected concerted activities A The Alleged Protected Concerted Activities The conduct of Supervisor James Barnard Norris boss was described as He would yell at us would cuss he would throw temper tantrums He would yell all the time He threw stuff Kent Fraley a paint technician along with Norris and other employees observed an in cident in which Barnard yelled at and cussed employees and took the paint gun and threw it Fraley remarked that he would back Norris up if he went to manage ment in regard to Barnard s conduct Thereafter Norris approached several other employees who agreed there was a problem with Barnard and we needed to do something about it Three of the employees Stewart Kramer Bill Cummings and Paul Gogue while they did not agree to go with Norris to management did agree to help him if needed after Norris and Fraley had gone to management After Norris had talked to the employees as above noted he and Fraley went to Manufacturing and Core Production Manager Ray Hanna s office Fraley had ar ranged the meeting Norris described what occurred I went in and explained to him the situation and what was going on the way he was treating em ployees You know I said I wasn t going in there just for myself I was going in there for you know 291 NLRB No 90 530 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the other people' because Jim Banard [sic] really didn t treat me that bad He treated the other em ployees Paul Hogue and some other employees in there pretty bad and you know I was voicing my opinion for them you know and explained the situ ation and Rob Fraley you know he explaried you know he said you know he agreed there was a problem too Hanna described what occurred Darrin complained that he felt that he wasn t being treated or talked to fairly and that some-and that the other people on the floor didn t like the way that his supervisor Jim Banard [sic] was talking on the floor and he gave me some examples of some problems he had incurred on the floor and I said- and I listened and said If these things are true it s not what I want to have happen And I said I will look into it and I thanked him for coming up Hanna further testified that Norris complaint had to do with the whole department and they didn t just have to do with Darrin Barnard was reprimanded and thereafter his deport ment improved Section 7 of the Act reads in part Employees shall have the right to engage in other concerted activi ties for the purpose of other mutual aid and protec tion On the subject of concerted activities the Board has lately opined in Meyers Industries 281 NLRB 882 (1986) (Meyers II) reaffg Meyers Industries 268 NLRB 493 (1984) (Meyers 1) In Meyers I the Board adopted the following def inition of the term concerted activities In gener al to find an employees activity to be concerted we shall require that it be engaged in with or on the authority of other employees and not solely by and on behalf of the employee himself [Footnote omit ted ] The Meyers I definition expressly distinguishes between an employees activities engaged in with or on the authority of other employees (concerted) and an employees activities engaged in solely by and on behalf of the employee himself' not con certed) There is nothing in the Meyers I definition which states that conduct engaged in by a single employee at one point in time can never constitute concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 On the contrary the Meyers I definition in part at tempts to define when the act of a single employee is or is not concerted It is clear from the credited testimony in this case that Norris discussion with Hanna not only involved Norns complaints in respect to Barnard s conduct but similar complaints of other employees Moreover the Respond ent admitted the complaints had to do with the whole department and they didn t just have to do with Fraley testified Well he mentioned just that Barnard cussed him out and that there was other people he cusses out too Darrin Additionally Norris informed the Respondent that he was also speaking for other employees Thus Norris complaint involved a common grievance and sought the achievement of a common objective i e a change in Barnard s objectional treatment of the em ployees working under him Norris complaint represent ed the thinking of more than one employee the Re spondent acknowledged that the complaint involved more than one employee and Norris was acting on behalf of other employees and not solely on behalf of himself Thus the activities of Norns and other employees fall within the concept of concerted activities as delineated by the Board in Meyers I and Meyers II supra See also Oakes Machine Corp 288 NLRB 456 (1988) The purpose of the complaint was for mutual aid and protection in that the employees were attempting to per suade the Respondent to improve the working conditions caused by an abusive supervisor I find that Norris in his discussion with Hanna was engaged in concerted activity B The Discharge of Darren M Norris 1 Facts Norris became a probationary employee for the Re spondent on August 5 1987 He worked on the second shift in the G car department where glove boxes for the 1987 and 1988 Topaz and Tempo were assembled Norris normal working days were from Monday through Friday however sometimes mandatory over time was scheduled for him on Saturday and Sunday Additionally he worked voluntary overtime during his normal workweek Norris worked a lot of voluntary overtime and never turned down any overtime that was offered him Thus during his tenure with the Respondent he worked more than 40 hours in every week Norris was terminated on Monday September 21 1987 During the last week of his employment he worked 72 hours including Saturday the week before his discharge he worked 64 5 hours including Saturday and Sunday Norris had never missed a day of scheduled work On Wednesday or Thursday September 16 or 18 Norris was assigned mandatory overtime for Saturday September 19 and Sunday September 20 Norris com mented that it d be nice to have a weekend off here sometime soon Barnard heard the remark Of this incident Barnard testified as follows [I]t was Thursday-yeah Thursday he had con fronted me and said he-since he was working all this overtime this week that he was thinking about taking Sunday off And I told him I explained to him I said Hey this-during the week you re vol unteering to work and that s something you don t have to do I mean I can get somebody else to work during the week but Sunday I need you be cause we only have a certain amount of people to do the job The customer needs these parts and we required him to come in to work Sunday He has to k HAMILTON PLASTICS 531 be there And-well he just kind of-he laughed shrugged it off you know and went back to work, and I took that as you know he s going to come in to work and I believed he would [Emphasis added ] 024 door when heat staking Also have problem with getting hands dirty from handling screws sug gested we wash screws with MEX so we wouldn t get parts dirty Always comes up with good ideas Barnthouse s version differed somewhat from Bar nard s version [W]e were scheduled full for a weekend and Darnn on a Thursday or Friday had made a com ment to Jim Banard [sic] that he worked a lot of overtime through the week and didn t want to work the weekend or wasp t coming in I don t know ex actly what he said but that s-what I got was that he didn t want to be here or wasn t coming here and I didn t know which but at that time I asked Jim Banard [sic] to go back down and talk to Darnn to let him know he s tempo-ary When we re scheduled full because we were shorthanded I had to have everybody there and we were deal ing with a department that required about 15 people We were just getting started and I think at that time we only had about eight So Jim did talk to Damn and I think when he went back down and talked to him Darren made the comment to Jim Well he was only kidding or something of that nature [Emphasis added ] Norris worked on Saturday September 19 but on Sunday September 20 he called off His car broke down He called in and talked to Supervisor Tony Strong He told Strong that he would not get to work because his car broke down Strong advised him to try to if you can Noms call was 3 or 4 hours before his shift started On Monday morning September 21 Norris clocked in as usual About half an hour later Barnard with Strong handed Norris a termination of employment paper with the reason for termination stated as follows (G C Exh 3) Darren [sic] had been working a lot of voluntary overtime on the week 9-13-87 thru 9-19-87 but he knew it was manitory [sic] for him to work Sunday 9-20-87 Earlier that week he said something about taking Sunday off I told him he better show up that he was scheduled to work He responded like he was kidding around But 9/20/87 he called in and said his car broke down Tony Strong talked to him and said he better try and make it but he didn t Norris was a good to excellent employee On his New Employee Probationary Evaluation form his marks were either excellent or good To the question Is there a possibility of termination all answers were No On his last evaluation ( 9-13 thru 9-19 ) appears this comment Volunteers for overtime does a good job Attached to the form were these comments for the week August 7 to 15 (G C Exh 4) Has been doing excellent job Volunteers for over time Has been making lots of suggestions like using ribs we trimmed from B pillars for plastic insert for Barnard made the evaluations Barnard testified At the beginning he was excellent did a great job did every thing asked him to do and he just slowly started deteno rating as time went on 2 According to Hanna he was the person who actually made the final decision to discharge Norris The testimo ny of Hanna discloses that Barnthouse and Barnard came to him and told him that they had three employees Norris Charles Lewis and Stewart Kramer with whom they had attendance problems and they recommended that they be discharged Hanna voiced a reluctance to discharge the three employees because he was short handed and needed the employees Hanna nevertheless reviewed their evaluations When Norris case was reached Hanna was told that Norris did not appear for mandatory overtime He called in and said he had car trouble but he made the point of telling us he was not going to work scheduled overtime Several other mat ters were also mentioned (see infra) Hanna commented to Barnthouse and Barnard [W]e cant afford to let three people go Were barely keeping up with our schedules you ve got two with an attendance problem and one who told us he was going to work and when he was not going to work and to me that s an attitude problem overall [Y]ou ve got a person could be a detriment because he s also going around bragging about what he s done at other plants when he s had problems and he s also been caught-or we ve had complaints about him and the way he s talking to female supervisors-female employees 3 That s a problem more than an attendance problem Further testifying Hanna said [I]f an employee is scheduled to come to work and decides on their own he s just not going to do it then that s enough for me [I]t wasn t so much that an employee misses anytime it s when they make a decision I think this one is a detriment to Hamilton Plastics According to Hanna an employee is normally ex cused from job attendance if he has car trouble but Norris was not excused because [h]e had previously stated his position he was not coming to work that day I concluded that he had made his own deci sion not to come to work Although Hanna read from Noms termination of employment form that in re sponse to Barnard s direction to work the scheduled overtime he [Norris] responded like he was kidding around Hanna made no investigation regarding wheth 2 Barnard s testimony does not wholly gell with Norris evaluations 2 The Respondent claimed that Norris had been suspected of sabotag mg equipment at his prior place of employment and addressing an offen sive sexual remark to one of the Respondent s female employees 532 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD er Norris car had actually been inoperative nor did he inquire of Norris concerning whether he had proof that his car had broken down Hanna first testified that Norris complaint in respect to Barnard which he had addressed to him was not mentioned during the discharge discussion but later he said Barnard mentioned it but that it was not used as a position of discussion Hanna discharged Norris but retained the other two employees Later one of those employees Charles Lewis was discharged His termination of employment form reveals that prior to Norris discharge he had been absent on three mandatory workdays 9/5/87 9/12/87 and 9/20/87 These together with additional absences were cited as reasons for his discharge Norris was never counseled in regard to his absence on September 20 before he was fired nor was he given an opportunity to prove that his absence was not a delib erate absence Neither was Norris informed that if he did not work mandatory overtime he would be fired Ac cording to Barnard the other employees had been warned about their absences Barnard testified that prior to meeting with Hanna he had prepared the termination of employment forms for the three employees The forms for the other two were later destroyed According to Barnard he recommended that Norris be discharged because he told me Thursday he wasn t coming into work and he lived up to his promise and that the other two employees be discharged for absences Concerning these two employees Barnard quotes Hanna as saying [W]e could live with an attendance problem for a little while longer until we were able to drug test more employees because we were hurting for employees at that time and that was the reason he decided to keep them Norris discharge occurred around a week after Norris had discussed Barnard s conduct with Hanna and imme diately after he had committed the first arguable offense subsequent to his talk with Hanna After Norris was discharged he contacted Barnthouse about his discharge Barnthouse advised him that he was going to stick with discharge but he could talk to Hanna Of this discussion with Hanna Norris testified He just says that you know we went over it and I explained to him Well you know how can you terminate me because you know look at the eval uations I ve never called off All these other people call off every weekend on mandatory overtime and you don t fire them and you fire me You know how can you do this to me? And he says-he says Well he says 111 discuss it with Ray Newton and 111 give you a verdict and then I called him back and he says Well we re going to stick with it 2 Conclusions and reasons therefor Discrimination consists in treating like cases different ly Frosty Morn Meats 296 F 2d 617 621 (5th Cir 1961) If the Respondents witnesses are to be believed three employees were recommended for discharge be cause of absenteeism Two Kramer and Lewis were re tamed and Norris the only one who had openly engaged in concerted activities was fired Moreover Norris who was charged with only one absence was the least offend er However the Respondent points out three things that may distinguish Norris case from the cases of the other two employees Norris was suspected of sabotaging an other employers machinery Norris made an offensive sexual remark to a female employee and Norris por trayed an attitude problem reflected in Norris state ment that he didn t want to work on Sunday which he lived up to after being told to be present (R Br 9 ) Concerning the alleged sabotage and the offensive remark these were apparent afterthoughts because nei ther of these figured in Barnard s recommendations for discharge nor were they acted on although known prior to the time Norris openly engaged in concerted activi ties Again if the Respondents witnesses were to be be lieved Norris was really discharged for (as expressed by Hanna) if an employee is scheduled to come into work and decides on their own he s just not going to do it then that s enough for me [I]t wasn t so much that an employee misses anytime its when they make a decision (Emphasis added) In this respect Norris was also treated differently because Lewis once stated that he was not going to appear for mandatory overtime because his parents were taking him to Bear Lake in Michigan Lewis missed mandatory overtime but was not discharged In evaluating the real reason_ or true purpose for Norris discharge as expressed by the Respondent as the real reason or true purpose 4 it is significant that had Norris simply not shown up for mandatory overtime he would have been retained in his job but because he was heard to remark in a kidding vein that since he was working all this overtime this week that he was thinking about taking Sunday off he was sumarily discharged even though his absentee record was perfect until his ab sence on September 20 1987 Moreover Norris was dis charged without the Respondent checking with him or other sources regarding whether his automobile break down story was true 5 (Had the story been true his ab Bence would have been excused ) Indeed because the Respondent believed that Norris would appear for work Sunday it seems unreasonable that the Respondent would not have at least given him the benefit of the doubt and verified his story Thus from the foregoing account the inference lies that the Respondent was bent on discharging Norris whether his excuse had been acceptable or not or whether under its 4 [T]he real motive of the employer in an alleged § $(a)(3) violation is decisive NLRB v Brown Food Store 380 U S 278 287 (1965) It is the true purpose or real motive in hiring or firing that constitutes the test Teamsters Local 357 v NLRB 365 U S 667 675 (1961) Section 8(a)(3) prohibits discrimination in regard to tenure or other conditions of employment to discourage union membership It has long been es tablished that a finding of violation under this section will normally turn on the employers motivation American Ship Building Co v NLRB 380 U S 300 311 (1965) 5 It was said in US Rubber Co v NLRB 384 F 2d 660 662-663 (5th Cir 1967) Perhaps most damning is the fact that both [employees] were sumardy discharged after reports of their misconduct without being given any opportunity to explain or give their version of the incidents HAMILTON PLASTICS 533 policy his absence was a dischargeable offense In refer ence to the other two employees discrimination seems apparent The Respondents true purpose or real motive as expressed by the Respondent under the facts of this case is not credible Finding no plausible motive for Norris discharge and the reason advanced by the Respondent not being per suasive I conclude that the Respondents real motive was to discourage its employees from engaging in con certed activities by the discharge of Norris and that the reasons advanced for Norris discharge were pretextual 6 Additionally the Respondent was hurting for em ployees yet incongruously it discharged a good to ex cellent employee who always worked voluntary over time when asked who came up with good ideas who would have been normally excused from his absence whose supervisor believed he was coming to work and was only kidding about his absence and whose seeming ly legitimate excuse was not investigated Such action on the part of the Respondent in rejecting Norris excuse for his absence out of hand without any examination about whether the excuse was well founded or not does not withstand scrutiny As was said in NLRB v Bird Machine Co 161 F 2d 589 592 (1st Cir 1947) support for finding an unlawful motivation is augmented [when] the explanation of the discharge does not stand up under scrutiny Moreover the timing of Norris discharge shortly after he had engaged in concerted activity and immediately after he had committed the first arguable offense (an of fense only if he had lied about the breakdown of his automobile) after he had engaged in concerted activities creates a strong inference that the reason given for the discharge was not the real one Cf NLRB v Rainware 732 F 2d 1349 1354 (7th Cir 1976) On the basis of the credible facts in this case I am convinced that Norris would not have been discharged had he not engaged in protected concerted activities Cf Wright Line 251 NLRB 1083 (1980) I do not believe the Respondent when it cites any other reason for Norris discharge 7 Accordingly I find that by discharging Norris on Sep tember 21 1987 the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The Respondent is an employer engaged in com merce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of 8 [W]hen every other plausible motive has been eliminated and the reasons advanced are not persuasive the union activity may well disclose the real motive behind the employer s action Ames Ready Mix Concrete v NLRB 411 F 2d 1159 1161 (8th Cir 1969) See also NLRB V Melrose Processing Co 351 F 2d 693 698 (8th Cir 1965) Marian Lewis Inc 270 NLRB 432 (1984) ' The Board is not compelled to accept the employer s statement when there is reasonable cause for believing that the ground put forward was the employers dissatisfaction with the employees union activity [here concerted activity] Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co v NLRB 354 F 2d 707 709 (5th Cir 1966) 8 It is also significant that the Respondent operates a nonunion plant and that concerted activities of employees may be a first stept toward unionization Indeed the Respondent believes that Norris is attempting to use the NLRB as a substitute for a collective bargaining agreement at bitration procedure (R Br 11) the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act for jurisdiction to be exercised here 2 By unlawfully discharging Darren M Norris on September 21 1987 the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 3 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer tarn unfair labor practices I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de signed to effectuate the policies of the Act Having also found that the Respondent unlawfully discharged Darren M Norris and has failed and refused to reinstate him in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act I recommend that the Respondent remedy such unlawful conduct In ac cordance with Board policy it is recommended that the Respondent offer Norris immediate and full reinstate ment to his former position or if that position no longer exists to a substantially equivalent position without prey udice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed dismissing if necessary any employ ees hired on or since the date of his discharge to fill the position and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the Respondents acts here detailed by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would have earned from the date of his unlawful discharge to the date of a valid offer of reinstatement less net interim earnings during such period to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F W Woolworth Co 90 NLRB 289 (1950) with interest to be computed in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded 9 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record I issue the following recommend ed'o ORDER The Respondent Hamilton Plastics a Division of Buckeye Custom Products Mason Ohio its officers agents successors and assigns shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because he engaged in protected concerted ac tivities (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 9 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 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 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621 Interest on amounts accrued prior to January 1 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621) shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977) 10 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 534 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer Darrin M Norris immediate and full rein statement to his former job or if that job no longer exists to a substantially equivalent position without prej udice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis crimination against him in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision (b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge and notify the employee in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way (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 facility in Mason Ohio copies of the at tached notice marked Appendix 111 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9 after being signed by the Respondents author ized representative shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu tive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced or covered by any other material " 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 (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent has taken to comply APPENDIX 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 discharge or otherwise discriminate against you because you have engaged in protected con certed activities 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 Darrin M Norris who we unlawfully discharged on September 21 1987 immediate and full re instatement to his former job or if that job no longer exists to a substantially equivalent position without prej udice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his discharge less any net interim earnings plus interest WE WILL notify Darnn M Norris that we have re moved from our files any reference to his discharge and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way HAMILTON PLASTICS A DIVISION OF BUCKEYE CUSTOM PRODUCTS