New River Industries, Inc.

NEW RIVER INDUSTRIES 773 New River Industries, Inc. and Jeanie Simpson. Case 11-CA-13071 September 24, 1990 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND °VI/UT On May 7, 1990, Administrative Law Judge Robert T Wallace issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting bnef 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 bnef and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findmgs, 1 and conclusions 2 and to adopt the recommended Order ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the admimstrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, New River Industries, Inc , Radford, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings 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 Thy Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings Members Cracraft and Devaney agree with the judge's conclusion that the Respondent discharged employees Smith and Simpson because they had engaged in protected concerted activities and because the Re- spondent mistakenly believed they had engaged in union activities The discharges thus violated both Sec 8(a)(1) and Sec 8(aX3) With regard to the latter violation, Members Cracraft and Devaney particularly rely on the judge's findings that the Respondent Interrogated Smith and Simpson about the notation to "vote union" on the letter critical of the Respond- ent's policy on matters involving terms and conditions of employment and that the Respondent's records of the discharges referred to the letter as posted "on a locked bulletin board," where the copy of the letter with the union notation was found Member Oviatt agrees with the judge's conclusion that Smith and Simpson were discharged in violation of Sec 8(aX1) for engaging in pro- tected concerted activities He therefore finds it unnecessary to pass on the 8(aX3) violation, as the remedy remains the same Paris Favors Jr, Esq , for the General Counsel J Hamilton Stewart II, Esq and Jack C Clary, Esq (Og- letree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart), of Greenville, South Carolina, for the Respondent DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT T WALLACE, Administrative Law Judge Upon a charge filed by Jeanie Simpson on November 28, 299 NLRB No 119 1988, a complaint was issued on January 10, 1989, and the case was tried by me in Radford, Virginia, on June 5 and 6, 1989 The basic question is whether New River Industries, Inc (Respondent or NRI) unlawfully dis- charged employees Simpson and Edward Smith Based on the entire record, mcludmg my observation of the witnesses and after due consideration of briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent,' I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT NRI has its sole plant in Radford, Virginia, where it manufactures and markets, nationwide, acetate fiber products such as suit luungs and bridal satins It admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act Employees at the Radford plant have never been rep- resented by a union and NRI's personnel director (W- ham Bryant) states that his Company is opposed to unionization For many years, NRI was a subsidiary of Burlington Industries, a large textile producer It became independ- ent in July 1988 and promptly thereafter sought an ar- rangement with its principle supplier of acetate yarn (Hoechst Celanese Textile Fibers Group) whereby the latter would supply the bulk of its acetate requirements and, in return, would allow employees of NRI to partici- pate in periodic inspections at Hoechst Celanese produc- tion plants in Virgmia "and South Carolina to assure qual- ity control Negotiations were successful, and in mid-October sev- eral large (4'x 15') banners celebrating the event were displayed in NRI's plant and each of its employees was given a memento pocket flashlight bearing the logo "NRI-Hoechst Celanese" On October 28, they were again advised of the arrangement in a notice posted on bulletin boards throughout the plant The notice read as follows NOTICE NEW RIVER INDUSTRIES TO CERTIFY PLANTS OF HOECHST CELANESE CERTIFICATION IS THE FORMATION OF A PARTNERSHIP OF TRUST AND OPEN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE BUYER AND SUPPLIER NEW RIVER INDUSTRIES AND HOECHST CELANESE HAVE REACHED AN UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT WHEREBY, WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP, PROBLEMS MAY BE SOLVED, PREVENTED OR ELIMINATED THEREBY ASSURING SUPERIOR QUALITY, CONTROLLED COST AND CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY SPECIFIC ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED TO MEET THE ABOVE GOALS Respondent's unopposed request for several editorial changes in the transcript is granted 774 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A FORMAL SIGNING OF THIS MUTUAL AGREEMENT WILL BE HELD ON NOVEM- BER 3, 1988, AT THE NEW RIVER INDUS- TRIES PLANT CERTIFICATION OF HOECHST CELANESE SHOULD HAVE POSI- TIVE EFFECTS ON OUR OPERATION AT NEW RIVER INDUSTRIES BY INSTALLING CLOSE COMMUNICATION, FASTER RE- SPONSE TIME TO PROBLEM AREAS AND A GENUINE UNDERSTANDING OF EACH COMPANIES [SIC] CONCERNS IN RECOGNITION OF THIS CERTIFICA- TION, SOME TYPE OF REFRESHMENT WILL BE SERVED TO OUR EMPLOYEES ON THEIR RESPECTIVE SHIFTS NOVEMBER 9TH AND 10TH In accordance with that notice, officials of the two companies met and signed a "Certification Philosophy" in the offices of NRI on November 3 with approximately 22 executives of each in attendance, and, on November 9 and 10, NRI employees were each given a ticket enti- tling them to an ice cream cone redeemable at the com- pany lunchroom The ticket did not indicate the name of the donor NRI claims it was Hoechst Celanese Edward Smith, a supply room counter attendant, re- ceived his ticket on Thursday, November 10, from his supervisor (Bob Cullaty) who told /inn that the ice cream was being furnished by "the Company" Later that day Smith and about five other NRI em- ployees discussed the situation in the hallway leading to the supply room They knew the treat was connected with the agreement involving Hoechst Celanese but as- sumed it had been provided by NRI A number of wry comments were exchanged wherein they voiced feelings of bemg "belittled" One (Terry Lytton—an employee with 15 years' service) gnped that "the Company ought to give us more than just a ticket for a cone of ice cream" Then someone suggested writing a letter "thanking the Company for everything they've done for us" Smith un- dertook to do so, and he sought and received input in the drafting process from others including an employee with 24 years' service (Rosco McPealc) who suggested adding reference to "computer expenses" He viewed the situation as "funny" because "[we] was working twelve hour shifts having a rough time in the mill efficiency was low and everybody was straining to keep up then the Company comes along and buys us a cone of ice cream and we didn't think it was appropriate "3 Smith took his handwritten draft, edited to reflect comments he had received, to the supply room clerk (Jeanie Simpson) and asked her for assistance in obtain- ing a typewritten copy On reading the letter, she laughed and agreed to type it because it expressed how 2 From his office across the hall from the supply room, group leader Gary Sutphin heard the employees laughing and saying they didn't want the ice cream He told Smith how correctly to spell "Milliken" but claims he does not recall being shown a draft of the letter the employees really felt about things "3 About 5 15 p m she gave the finished copy to Smith and went home Smith then posted it near the supply room on an open bulletin board which had frequently been used by em- ployees for notices of sale of personal items (automobiles, tires, etc ) and for other purposes, e g, posting of car- toon characters containing superimposed handwritten names of employees, including supervisors 4 Before post- ing the letter, however, Smith made three copies in case the original was removed As posted, the letter read as follows The employees of NRI would like to express their great appreciation of the 52 flavors of left over ice cream from the closed Meadow Gold Plant It has boosted our moral [sic] tremendously Several employees were heard to say they were going to work harder together, and do better so we could have some more old ice cream We realize what a tremendous sacrifice this has been for the management and will be long remem- bered We hope this has not cut into computer ex- penses Many feel this almost out does [sic] the company punc [sic] this sumner [sic] 5 We are also glad the Milliken employees enjoyed this immensely 6 They said they have never seen employees treated like this We sincerely appreciate all the sacrifices man- agement has made for us and anticipate the Thanks- giving and Christmas, New Year Employee Appre- ciation Day combination dinner 7 On returning to work on the next day (Friday, No- vember 11), the letter had been removed and Smith posted another on the same board The first had been turned over to the production manager (Vice President Larry Maust) about 10 a m that day and in midafternoon Maust was given another copy found m a glass-encased locked bulletin board reserved for official notices 8 A third letter was found on Monday in the same locked bulletin board It was identical to the other letters except for a handwritten note at the bottom reading "United NRI Workers Vote Union on January 1 1'9 3 Simpson's ticket had been left on her desk without explanation She opted not to use it 4 On one occasion Smith altered a posted photograph of an employee receiving a 10-year certificate from company officials by inserting the caption "Roanoke Valley Gay Alliance" Although his involvement was widely known, no disciplinary action was taken 5 No picnic was held that summer Respondent explains that former employees of a competitor (Milliken & Co) were present at the plant during 1988 as its paid consultants 7 Employee appreciation days had been eliminated 8 About 520 p m on Friday, Supervisor Bob Cullaty discovered ves- tiges of the letter on a ribbon in the supply room typewriter 9 I have credited Smith's testimony that he posted letters only on the open employee bulletin board and was not responsible for the handwrit- ten addendum Maust claims that he viewed the letter with that adden- dum as not significantly different from the others and that, in conse- quence (but after showing it to Financial Officer James Lawrence and Personnel Director William Bryant), he threw It away The designation "United NRI Workers" is wholly fictitious and no meeting was held on January 1 NEW RIVER INDUSTRIES 775 On Tuesday morning (November 15), Finance Officer Lawrence and Supervisor Cullaty began interrogations starting with supply room employees After group leader Sutphin denied any involvement, they proceeded to question Simpson about 10 a m Upon being told by Cul- laty that the letter had been traced to the supply room typewriter, she admitted typmg it He then asked if she had made the handwritten notation Simpson inquired "What notation'?" When he told her it involved "union activities," she responded "No" Cullaty next asked at whose request she typed the letter On perceiving her re- luctance to answer, he said "if you don't tell us who did it, its going to hurt your chances of a promotion" Law- rence added "Do you want to be the scapegoat for it all9" With that Simpson admitted typing the letter at Smith's request but denied any other involvement Cul- laty replied that the letter was "derogatory" and told her she could be termmated for typing it Lawrence instruct- ed her to return to her duties, adding that "they would get back with [her] " He then bnefed Maust on the inter- view About 11 45 a m, Simpson was called back to Culla- ty's office where he told her "they" had decided to fire her for violatmg Plant Rule 4, which he proceeded to read 10 After doing so, he went with her to the person- nel office where she signed a number of exit forms and then he escorted her through the plant to her work area and stood by while she "got her stuff and went out the back door" A contemporaneous NRI record shows Simpson as Being dismissed for gross violation of Plant Rules, particularly 4, which included typmg a notice that was then posted on a locked bulletm board The notice was unauthorized, was disruptmg to the work force and was derogatory and undermining to management and fellow employees At the time of her discharge, Simpson had worked at the plant for 15 years She had never received a warning or reprimand, and Maust regards Simpson as having been "a good employee" Minutes after the initial interview with Simpson, Smith was called at his home 11 and asked to report to the plant immediately He did so, arriving at Cullaty's office about 12 15 p m on November 15 Lawrence was present while Cullaty conducted the interview He showed Smith a copy of a letter identical to that posted on the open bulletin board and asked what he knew about it Smith admitted his own involvement and, on being pressed, that of Simpson And when Cullaty inquired whether anyone else was involved in helping or giving him "ideas that may have had something to do with that 1° The rule is as follows General Conduct—Consideration of the rights of co-workers re- quires that employees conduct themselves in a respectable and order- ly manner Fighting, mjuniig other individuals, sexual harassment, in- subordination or using abusive or threatening language directed to- wards superiors, co-workers Or other individuals is not to be tolerat- ed This is also inclusive of "horse-play" and other objectionable, unsafe, Illegal, dishonest or fraudulent acts Violation constitutes a basis for disciplinary action, including munediate ternimation I Suuth had been off duty since 8 p m on Friday [the letter]," Smith replied that "he pretty much did it himself" Cullaty then asked whether he had put a copy In a locked bulletin board and written anything on the bottom about "NRI Workers or Union" Smith answered "no" to both questions At that point, Lawrence inter- vened and told him he was terminated under Rule 4 be- cause "the letter was derogatory and undermining to management" A "Termination Record" of NRI dated November 15 shows him as discharged because— Eddie wrote a notice [or Letter] and posted it on the Bulletin Board The notice was disruptive to the workforce—it was undermining to management and fellow workers It contained untruths or half truths and a bulletin board was broken into to post the notice Violation of plant rule #4 Smith worked for NRI for 10 years During that time he did not engage in activity on behalf of any union, but his group leader Sutphin heard him talk "union" to other employees from time to time and as recently as Septem- ber 1988 Earlier that year when Smith wore a gift T- shirt bearing a union logo, Cullaty told him he didn't like his wearing it on the job, and, in October, Cullaty asked him if there was any truth to rumors that he was holding union meetings at the plant, addmg that the Company could do whatever had to be done and didn't need a middleman 12 Over the years, the only action taken against Smith under NRI's progressive disciplinary system" was a written counseling (not a reprimand) issued by Cullaty On April 26, 1988, for being inattentive to his duties and for writing an unnecessary work order 14 About 2 weeks before his discharge, Smith had a pic- ture taken with Cullaty and Personnel Director Bryant on the occasion of his being given a 10-year service award and a pen After the ceremony, Finance Officer Lawrence invited /inn into his office and, after thanking him for doing a "good job and helping the Compa- ny out," handed him a $20 bill, urged that he use it to take Mrs Smith out to dinner, and cautioned him not to tell anyone else about this gift On November 10, several hours before Smith posted the letter, Cullaty gave him a written evaluation of the work he performed over the previous 6 months Therein, after exhorting him to demonstrate more initiative, Cul- laty rated his performance as "Good Solid" or 3 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "marginal" and 5 being "outstanding" 12 The October incident is the basis for an amendment to the complaint alleging unlawful interrogation I find it neither threatening nor unduly intrusive Accordingly, the allegation is disnussed Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), affd 760 F 2d 1006 (9th Or 1985) 13 Except for circumstances encompassed by Rule 4, employees of NRI must have at least four reprimands before being terminated for mis- conduct 14 Smith had signed and submitted a maintenance work order calling for adding to the supply room a screened-m patio complete with lawn furniture 776 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Analysis A strong prima facie case has been made that Simpson and Smith were discharged for engaging in protected ac- tivity Production Manager Maust testified that he decided to terminate anyone involved with the letter shortly after he first read it on Friday morning, and that the subse- quent posting of copies in a locked bulletin board was not significant because of the earlier decision 15 Instead, he claims that "our whole concern" with the letter was that it would offend Hoechst Celanese because they were responsible for the ice cream treat He views the letter as directed against (a "shot" at) that company and as "demeaning and degrading" to It The firings were necessary, in his opinion, because the letter undermined the spirit of trust essential to maintaining a special "part- nership relationship" with Hoechst Celanese as NRI's sole source of raw yarn acetate," a commodity for which industry demand far exceeds supply He states that if they [Hoechst Celanese] would have seen that notice [letter], I'm sure they would have had severe questions, knowing them, about how much trust and openness really exist between these 2 organiza- tions I felt it threatened the whole security of what we were attempting to do [in the certification proc- ess] Other NRI executives reiterate Maust's asserted con- cern and one (Financial Officer Lawrence) voiced an- other that the reference in the letter to "Milliken em- ployees was unfounded [and tended] to drive a wedge between our employees and their's e, former Milliken & Co employees who were providing training service at the NRI plant as its paid consultants] " I find these reasons entirely pretextual First, despite banners and meetings commemorating the certification of Hoechst Celanese, the only notice ex- plaining that event to rank-and-file employees did not identify that company as being the donor of any treat, and I find that most employees, including alleged chscn- mmatees Smith and Simpson, reasonably assumed that the free ice cream cones were provided by NRI Ac- cordingly, there is no reason to believe that the letter was anything other than what It plainly is, to wit critical of NRI for curtailing and eliminating employee's bene- fits And the reference to former Milliken's employees is not directed against them but, rather, indicates that at least some of them sympathized with NRI employees Second, neither Smith nor Simpson was told on being discharged that they had offended Hoechst Celanese or the Milhken consultants On the contrary, contemporary termination records maintained by NRI show both as 15 He explains that no damage was done to the bulletin board since the latches are easily opened with a knife 18 The only document ("Certification Philosophy") reflecting the ar- rangement between NRI and Hoechst Celanese does not specify pi lice or duration Neither does it say that Hoechst Celanese is a sole source nor does it require purchase of any particular volume being discharged for actions "derogatory and undermin- ing to management "17 In light of their longevity and overall good perform- ance as employees, I conclude that the real reason for the discharges was to punish Smith and Simpson for their participation in preparing and posting a letter voic- ing complaints against NRI policy on matters clearly re- lating to terms and conditions of employment, thereby to deter other employees from pursumg similar complaints The fact that the letter is couched in terms of Ironic or satiric humor does not, in itself, operate to remove other- wise applicable protection under the National Labor Re- lations Act Pontiac Osteopathic Hospital, 284 NLRB 442, 452 (1987) And, in my judgment, the sarcasm in the letter does not exceed permissible bounds American Hos- pital Assn, 230 NLRB 54 (1977) In its bnef, however, NRI argues that Smith and Simpson were not engaged in "union" or "other concert- ed activities" and so are not protected under the Act I disagree As early as Friday evening NRI officials learned that the letter had been typed on the supply room typewriter Yet they did not deem the situation serious enough to interview supply room personnel on the next regular work day (Monday) Instead, they began to do so on Tuesday and after another letter had been posted con- taining an extra element, i e, the handwritten notation "United NRI Workers Vote Union on January 1" And that addendum was very much in the mind of Supervi- sors Cullaty and Lawrence since they inquired about it in their interrogations of Smith and Simpson on Tuesday, and both were aware of the antiunion stance of NRI I conclude that the hope of stifling an moment drive for unionization did indeed play a significant role in the de- cision to fire the two employees The circumstance that no union drive or meeting had been scheduled or even contemplated by employees is ir- relevant Discrimination to suppress perceived protected activity is unlawful even though prompted by an em- ployer's mistaken belief that such activity was going on Gulf- Wandes Corp, 233 NLRB 772, 778 (1977), enfd relevant part 595 F 2d 1074 (5th Cir 1979), and cases cited, Crucible, Inc , 228 NLRB 723, 729 (1977), and cases cited, Hedison Mfg Go, 249 NLRB 791, 808-809 (1980), enfd 643 F 2d 32 (1st Cir 1981) But even if there were no union activity, the dis- charges nevertheless are unlawful because NRI officials knew or should have known that the posting involved concerted action Jim Causley Pontiac, 263 NLRB 942 (1982), enfd 722 F 2d 322 (1983) At the very least those officials knew that two employees participated in prepa- ration of the letter, i e, Smith and Simpson Moreover, the letter itself speaks on behalf of "employees of NRI," uses the word "we" five times, and expresses how "many" felt about benefit curtailments Asserted reliance by NRI officials on declaimers by Smith and Simpson that anyone else was involved is mis- placed It is to be expected that employees under mterro- 17 These records also recite that the letter was "posted on a locked bulletin board," a circumstance which, as noted above, Maust deems in- sigmfIcant NEW RIVER INDUSTRIES 777 gation may not volunteer to place others in peril of disci- plinary action 18 By opting not to pursue their investiga- tion, the officials also chose not to inform themselves of possible complicity of other employees For example, had they pressed group leader Sutplun further they would have learned that a number of employees had gathered near the supply room on the day before the letter was found on the bulletin board and openly de- clined to accept the free ice cream cones Also, Smith told them he had not posted the letter in a locked bulle- tin board or made any addendum to it, and no attempt was made to pursue those matters CONCLUSIONS OF LAW For the reason stated, I find that Smith and Simpson were discharged for union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and for other concerted activi- ties in violation of Section 8(a)(1) I also find that Respondent NRI is not shown to have violated the Act in regard to any other matter alleged in the complaint, and, as it relates to any other matter, the complaint is dismissed REMEDY In addition to the usual cease-and-desist order and re- quirement for notice posting, my order will require Re- spondent to offer unconditional remstatement to Smith and Simpson and to make them whole for all wages and benefits lost as a result of their unlawful discharges, in accordance with the formula set forth in F W Wool- worth Go, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as provid- ed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) See generally Isis Plumbing Go, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) On these facts, analysis, and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended'° ORDER The Respondent, New River Industries, Inc , Radford, Virginia, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Discharging or otherwise discnmmatmg against employees because they engage in activity on behalf of any union or otherwise engage in protected concerted activity (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer Edward Smith and Jeanie Simpson immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if no longer in existence, to substantially equivalent jobs, with- 18 Smith's response to Cullaty's question whether anyone else was in- volved falls short of a denial According to Cullaty, Smith replied "I pretty much did It myself" 12 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 pur- poses out prejudice to their seniority and other nghts and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the unlawful discrimination practiced against them in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this deci- sion (b) Expunge from its files any references to the dis- charges of Edward Smith and Jeanie Simpson and notify them in writing that this has been done and that their discharges will not be used against them in any way (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records and reports and all other records required to ascertain the amount, if any, of backpay due under this order (d) Post at its facility in Radford, Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "2° Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being signed by the Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con- secutive 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 (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 2° 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" 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 Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec- tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect- ed concerted activities WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against you for supporting umonization WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights guaranteed under the Act 778 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL offer Edward Smith and Jeanie Simpson im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if no longer in existence, to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the unlawful discrimination m firing them WE WILL expunge from our records any references to the firing of Edward Smith and Jeanie Simpson and will notify them, in writing, that this has been done and that their being fired will not be used against them NEW RIVER INDUSTRIES, INC