Seminole Mfg Co.

SEMINOLE MFG CO 365 Seminole Manufacturing Company and James Larry Richardson. Case 26-CA-10243 26 September 1984 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER On 29 December 1983 Administrative Law Judge Lowell Goerlich issued the attached deci- sion The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief, the General Counsel filed cross-ex- ceptions and supporting and answering briefs 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, cross-exceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rul- ings, findings, and conclusions as modified 2 We adopt the judge's recommended Order in its entirety, including the provision directing the Re- spondent to make the 13 pressers whole by paying them backpay for any earnings lost as a result of the Respondent's unlawful discharge of them from the date of the unlawful discharge to the date of an offer of reinstatement Abilities & Goodwill, 241 NLRB 27 (1979), enf denied on other grounds 612 F 2d 6 (1st Cir 1979) 3 In accordance with our normal practice, we defer to subsequent compli- ance proceedings the question whether the Re- spondent at some later date tolled its backpay li- ability to any of the pressers by offering them rein- statement to their former positions, without preju- 'The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied as the record and the briefs of the parties adequately present the issues 2 The discharge of the pressers occurred on 12 May 1983 We hereby correct the typographical errors in the judge s decision placing the dis charge on 12 March 1983 In addition, we disavow as unnecessary to our decision the following findings of the judge (1) The finding "In the first place the Respondent offered no credible proof that the pressers knew that if they walked off their jobs in a group, the Respondent under its policy would consider them as quits Thus It may not be construed that by walking out they knowingly brought themselves within the policy JD sec II par 12 (2) The finding Moreover, it is unreasonable to assume that em ployees, some with long service, would have surrendered their jobs so quickly over a grievance of a seemingly minor nature' 'bid (3) The finding "Obviously employees who would have quit their jobs would not have sought help from the Board to restore those jobs on the ground that they had been unlawfully discharged ' JD sec II, par 15 (4) The finding "Moreover, had the Respondent accepted the stat utory demands of Section 7 of the Act, which it rejected, the walk out of the pressers would not have occurred Thus any inconven ience to the Respondent was the result of its own misconduct for which it ought not to be excused" JD sec II, par 20 3 Chairman Dotson dissents He would overrule Abilities & Goodwill In his view, an unlawfully discharged striker must unconditionally re quest reinstatement in order to tngger an employer s backpay obligation He would therefore follow the Board rule as it existed prior to Abilities & Goodwill and as set forth in Bartlett-Collins Co, 230 NLRB 144 (1977) dice to their seniority and other rights and privi- leges 4 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Seminole Manufacturing Company, Columbus, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order 4 We note, however, that the Respondent's offer in July 1983 to reem ploy the pressers in other jobs at a different rate of pay did not constitute valid offers of reinstatement The judge's recommended Order and his discussion of the remedy reflect a recognition that the Respondent did not offer full reinstatement to the pressers at that time To the extent that the finding at JD sec II, par 5, may Imply the contrary, we disavow that implication DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge The charge in this case filed by James Larry Richardson, an individual, June 6, 1983, was served on Seminole Manu- facturing Company, the Respondent, by certified mail on the same date A complaint and notice of hearing was issued June 30, 1983 In the complaint it was alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), by discharging 11 em- ployees because they participated in a work stoppage May 12, 1983 1 The Respondent filed a timely answer denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged The matter came on for hearing October 24, 1983, at Aberdeen, Mississippi Each party was afforded full op- portunity to be heard, to call, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, 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- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT AND 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 Columbus, Missis- sippi (the Respondent's facility), has been engaged in the manufacture of trousers Annually, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations described above, sold and shipped from its Columbus, Mississippi facility products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Mississippi Annually, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations described above, purchased and ' An amendment was allowed at the heanng to Include two additional employees, Earl Honeycutt and John Rogers 272 NLRB No 70 366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD received at its Columbus, Mississippi facility products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Mississippi. The Respondent is now, and has been at all times ma- terial herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES First: The General Counsel alleges in his complaint and amended complaint that the Respondent discharged 13 employees for participating in a work stoppage May 12, 1983. The facts are as follows: The alleged discharg- ees were all pressers. As pressers they were required to repress trousers which had been rejected by the inspec- tors for faulty workmanship other than that caused by their faulty workmanship. For the repressing of these trousers the pressers received no compensation. Since they were paid on a piecework basis the repressing of the trousers resulted in less earnings for the pressers. The pressers protested to management against this policy many times but were unsuccessful in getting the situation adjusted, even though James High, the chairman of the board, had been contacted. Thus, May 12, 1983, the pressers met in the men's bathroom of the plant at 12:15 p.m. to discuss what measures should be taken. At this meeting the pressers decided that they would try to talk to management as a group about their grievance and, if this were not accomplished, they would "leave work to show that we were serious." At 1 p.m. the pressers pro- ceeded to the office of Eddie Will Johnson, sewing room supervisor. They waited about 5 minutes for her appear- ance When Johnson appeared she asked, "Who called this meeting?" A presser answered, "We did." According to James McCafferty, a presser, she then said, "Well I can't talk to you. You'll have to go back to work. I'll call you in one at a time." Someone said, "That's the problem now, Eddie Will, this one-at-a-time business. We want to talk in a group." Johnson responded, "Well, if you can't go back to work then that's it." 2 The 13 press- ers left the plant. "Everybody cheered." Johnson report- ed the incident to Reynolds. After the pressers walked out it was immediately de- cided to call management and "see if they wouldn't really want to talk" Presser James Larry Richardson phoned Supervisor Selma Shaw. Shaw said that he did not want the pressers to quit. Richardson replied, "We don't want to quit. We hadn't quit." Shaw said his "hands were tied." Richardson responded, "Well, we just want somebody to talk to us." Shaw said he would talk to Johnson and that Richardson should call him back in a few minutes. When Richardson called Shaw 2 Robert E Reynolds, vice president of manufacturing, testified that Johnson reported to him Reynolds testified: She said that as she walked in the door of the office she ask that [sic] who had called the meeting One of the pressers said that they had She said that her response to that was that she had no knowledge of such a meeting and they should go back to work One of the press- ers responded by, "It's not going to be like that" She said, "Well, you know we can't talk to you as a group because there's too much stopping the production We'll have to get you-all one or two at a time and see what the problem is You-all go back to work" And she turned and left at that time Went back to the sewing room again he said that Johnson would talk to them one or two at a time. Richardson reported the conversation to the other pressers and it was decided that they needed to go to higher authority Presser McCafferty phoned Reynolds. McCafferty described the conversation as follows: A. I—Herman McManus and myself then re- turned into the store and I called the Company and asked for Mr. Reynolds. And when he answered, I told Mr Reynolds, I said, "I'm sure you've heard what happened in the sewing room by now." He said, "Yes." I said, "All we want, Mr. Reynolds, is somebody to sit down and discuss our problem with us." And he told me that when we went out the door we quit our jobs. And I said, "Mr. Reynolds, we have no intentions of quitting our jobs. We just want somebody to sit down and talk to us." He said, "As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to talk about." I thanked him and that ended the con- versation.3 On the same date (May 12, 1983) the Respondent en- tered on each alleged dischargee's Employee Action Report "vol quit . . . walked off job during work hours made no effort to return. Thus marked voluntary quit." (R. Exh. 3.) The Respondent made no attempt to contact the pressers until after the charge was filed in this case.4 While thereafter the alleged dischargees did not again contact the Employer, an unfair labor practice charge was filed. After the charge was filed the Respondent sent a similar letter to each alleged dischargee offering him reinstatement without prejudice to his seniority or other privileges. A preferential hiring list was set up. None of the alleged dischargees had informed the Re- spondent that he had quit or intended to quit his press- er's job. The Respondent immediately commenced replacing the pressers. All were replaced by May 16, 1983. How- ever, since the unfair labor practice charges were filed, some of the pressers have been reemployed by the Re- spondent pursuant to its offer of reinstatement. Second: Section 7 of the Act guarantees that "Employ- ees shall have the right . . . to engage in . . . concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection" The discharge of work- ers who exercise these rights violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, which forbids employers "to interfere with, re- 3 Reynolds testified concerning the conversation A Mr McCafferty—When I received the phone call he said that his name was Tommy McCafferty, did I know who he was And I said, "Yes, Tommy I do know you" He said, "Are you aware that you don't have some of your pressers 9" And I said, "Yes, I do I'm aware of it" He said, "Well, I want to come over and talk to you about it" And I said, "Tommy, when you walked out like you did, we have to assume you quit ' S And he said, "Quit9 What do you mean?" And I said, "Well, when anybody walks out the plant like they did, we classify them as having quit." He said, "Well, hell then, I quit" And he hung up 4 Reynolds testified that the Respondent's policy was that if "an em- ployee walks off his job and leaves the plant during working time" after clocking in, "We assume they've quit" Reynolds also testified that the Respondent had not made a decision to terminate the alleged dischargees "We didn't have to make It They walked out" SEMINOLE MFG CO 367 strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guar- anteed in section 7" When employees in a group peace- fully leave their jobs in protest against an employer's working conditions (there being no contractual inhibi- tion), their action in this regard is protected against dis- charge by Section 7 of the Act NLRB v Washington Aluminum Co, 370 U S 9 (1962) "It is well settled that employees have the right to leave work in support of a grievance pertaining to terms and conditions of employ- ment" Ontario Knife Co, 247 NLRB 1288, 1289 (1980) In NLRB v Phoenix Life Ins Co, 167 F 2d 983, 988 (7th Cir 1948), it was said A proper construction is that the employees shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection even though no union activity be involved, or collective bargaining be contemplated In Phillips Industries, 172 NLRB 2119, 2128 (1968), it was said, "Concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid and protection include the presentation of grievances and a temporary stoppage of work to present griev- ances" Thus, if the Respondent discharged the 13 pressers March 12, 1983, after they left the plant in a statutory protected protest over working conditions, the Respond- ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act While the General Counsel claims that the pressers were discharged for engaging in activities protected by the Act, the Respondent argues that "The employees were not discharged but assumed by the employer to have quit" For this proposition the Respondent appar- ently relies primarily on the case of Pink Supply Corp, 249 NLRB 674 (1980) As noted above, under the Re- spondent's alleged policy, it was assumed that an em- ployee had quit if he walked off his job and left the plant during working time after he had clocked in 5 As stated in the Respondent's brief, the Respondent seeks to apply this policy in order to avoid a finding that it discharged the pressers "Acting within its policy of treating all em- ployees who, without notice, abandon and walk off their jobs as having quit, Respondent promptly assumed at that time that the employees had voluntarily ceased their employment, and thus the said employees were assumed to have quit " 6 Even though the policy existed 7 and was valid, there existed no credible support for the Respond- ent's assumption that the pressers who left their jobs in a group in protest over working conditions of which the Respondent was cognizant actually quit In the first place, the Respondent offered no credible proof that the pressers knew that if they walked off their jobs in a group, the Respondent under its policy would consider them as quits Thus it may not be construed that by walking out they knowingly brought themselves within 5 This was the first time this policy had been applied to a group walk out 6 Elsewhere in its brief the Respondent has stated, The policy of Re spondent with respect to an employee who walks off his job and leaves the plant during working time is that the employee is assumed to have quit' 7 There may be some doubt whether the policy actually existed since there is no credible proof that such policy was known to the pressers the policy Moreover, when they phoned the Respondent after leaving the plant, they advised the Respondent that they had not quit 8 Indeed, the fact that, after the press- ers had left the plant, they placed phone calls in which they sought to discuss the reason for their walkout with management clearly demonstrates that they were looking forward to a return to their jobs and were not quitting Their quitting would have been in contradiction of their expressed desire after they walked out to settle their grievances with the Respondent Moreover, it is unrea- sonable to assume that employees, some with long serv- ice, would have surrendered their jobs so quickly over a grievance of a seemingly minor nature These employees were inexperienced, and without union guidance and, as the employees in the Washington Aluminum case, "took the most direct course to let the Company know" In this they may not be faulted See also NLRB v Trumbull Asphalt Co, 327 F 2d 841, 843 (8th Or 1964) Any rea- sonable person cognizant of the facts disclosed in the un- controverted record must have concluded that the press- ers were engaging in a work stoppage and not a mass quitting Hence, I find no factual basis for the Respond- ent's assumption Thus if there be an assumption, it must arise from the arbitrary application of the rule that if an employee walked off his job during working hours he was assumed to have quit Nevertheless, the Respondent is not helped by such rule or policy Such rule is not unlike the rule in the Washington Aluminum case which the Supreme Court struck down The Supreme Court held that a plant rule which forbade employees from leaving their work in a group protest over working con- ditions without the permission of their foreman collided with the employees' rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act Likewise, the Respondent's policy of treating employees as quits because they engaged in a lawful work stoppage is at odds with the dictates of the Act and, as it was applied to the pressers, was invalid 9 The fact that the Respondent had no reasonable basis for concluding that the pressers had quit and drew its as- sumption to that end from an invalid shop policy or rule distinguishes the instant case from Pink Supply Corp The Pink Supply Corp case is further distinguishable in that in that case it was found that the employer had pressed for the employees to return to work Here the Respondent's response was not an invitation to return to work but a statement to them which clearly implied they were off the Respondent's payroll Not until unfair labor practice 8 The Respondent s claim that the pressers quit is not helped by the testimony of Reynolds, if credited, to the effect that McCafferty made the remark, Well, hell then, I quit" for such remark would strengthen a finding that neither McCafferty nor the other pressers had Intended to quit when they left the plant McCafferty's retort was apparently in ac- commodation to Reynolds' statement that the pressers were being class' fled as "having quit" It is obvious that McCafferty accepted Reynolds' remarks as tantamount to discharge 9 In respect to a protected walkout the Board opined in Ontario Knife Co, supra at 1289, an employer may not lawfully discipline an employee for breaking a company rule concerning leaving work without perms sion for to allow it would abrogate the statutory nght to withhold serv ices in support of a grievance" The same reasoning applies if an employ er were to discipline employees for not following a unilaterally imposed gnevance procedure prior to engaging in a strike 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD charges were filed alleging unlawful discharges did the Respondent invite the pressers to return to work As the Board stated in Ridgeway Trucking Co, 243 NLRB 1048, 1049 (1979) The test for determining "whether [an employ- er's] statements constitute an unlawful discharge de- pends on whether they would reasonably lead the employees to believe that they had been dis- charged" and "the fact of discharge does not depend on the use of formal words of firing It is sufficient if the words or actions of the employ- er would logically lead a prudent person to believe his tenure has been terminated "[See also C J Kreh- biel Co, 227 NLRB 383, 384 (1976), and NLRB v Hilton Mobile Homes, 387 F 2d (8th Or 1967) ] Not only did the words chosen by the Respondent carry a clear implication that the pressers were severed from its payroll, but thereafter an unfair labor practice charge was filed alleging that the pressers had been dis- charged on May 12, 1982 Obviously employees who would have quit their jobs would not have sought help from the Board to restore those jobs on the ground that they had been unlawfully discharged Their subsequent conduct supports a finding that they accepted as a fact of life that they were discharged Additionally, the words and actions of the Respondent would logically have led a prudent person to believe that the jobs of the pressers had been terminated 10 This instant case is similar to the case of Toledo Com- mutator Co, 180 NLRB 973 (1970), cited by the General Counsel In such case, the employer advised the employ- ees that if an employee walked out it would be consid- ered "that the employee has quit" As in the instant case the employees walked out in order to bring pressure on the Respondent to act on their complaints It was found that the Respondent "was not warranted in assuming, as it contends it did, that because these employees walked out before the end of their shift without permission, they were quitting their jobs" 180 NLRB at 977 The same is true in the instant case See also ABC Concrete Co, 233 NLRB 1298 (1977), B & P Motor Express, 171 NLRB 1289 (1968) First National Bank of Omaha v NLRB, 413 F 2d 921 (8th Cir 1969), Top of Waikiki, 176 NLRB 76 (1969), Hale Mfg Co, 228 NLRB 10 (1977) I find that the Respondent's action taken May 12, 1983, as detailed, was tantamount to discharge and con- stituted the discharges of James Larry Richardson, James D McCafferty, Robert Jacobs, Billy Wright, Emmett Gilliam, Billy Allen, Herman McMann, Donald E Bowles, Bobby Martin, Alcurtis Haristron, Ocie L James, Earl Honeycutt, and John Rogers, all of whom engaged in protected concerted activity Any other interpretation of the Respondent's conduct would be unrealistic and at odds with the realities of the industrial world 10 The fact that the Respondent s employees received no formal notice of discharge is immaterial if they could logically infer that their employ ment status had been terminated by the Employer C J Krehbzel Co 227 NLRB 383, 384 (1967) The Respondent's defense that it has met all rights and obligations imposed upon it by law and has no further responsibility or obligation to the dischargees is immate- rial since the Respondent did not commence replacing the pressers and did not offer them reemployment until after they were discharged Likewise, the Respondent's defense that it could have discharged the employees in any event because the em- ployees chose "an unreasonable method of expressing their protest and therefore the employees' action was un- protected," is without merit Washington Aluminum Co, supra See also First National Bank of Omaha v NLRB, 413 F 2d 921, 923, fn 1 (8th Cir 1969) " Moreover, had the Respondent accepted the statutory demands of Sec- tion 7 of the Act, which it rejected, the walkout of the pressers would not have occurred Thus any inconven- ience to the Respondent was the result of its own mis- conduct for which it ought not to be excused 1 2 By discharging the 13 above-named pressers March 12, 1983, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and co- erced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein 2 By unlawfully discharging James Larry Richardson, James D McCafferty, Robert Jacobs, Billy Wright, Emmett Gilliam, Billy Allen, Herman McMann, Donald E Bowles, Bobby Martin, Alcurtis Haristron, Ocie L James, Earl Honeycutt, and John Rogers March 12, 1983, for engaging in a lawful work stoppage, the Re- spondent 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 THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act It having been found that the Respondent unlawfully dis- charged James Larry Richardson, James D McCafferty, Robert Jacobs, Billy Wright, Emmett Gilliam, Billy Allen, Herman McMann, Donald E Bowles, Bobby Martin, Alcurtis Haristron, Ocie L James, Earl Honey- cutt, and John Rogers March 12, 1983, and has since failed and refused to reinstate them to their former posi- tions or equivalent positions in violation of Section " Dobbs Houses v NLRB, 325 F 2d 531 (5th Cu- 1963), cited by the Respondent, concerned an entirely different fact situation than the instant case and presents no controlling precedent here " It was said in NLRB v Holcombe Armatures, 325 F 2d 508, 511 (5th Cir 1963), Even upon more careful reflection they [the strikers] might not have acted as they did, the wisdom or un wisdom of their conduct is not a test" SEMINOLE MFG CO 369 8(a)(1) of the Act, it is recommended that the Respond- ent be ordered to remedy such unlawful conduct In accordance with Board policy, it is recommended that the Respondent be ordered to offer the above-named employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions," without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, dismissing, if necessary, any employees hired on or since the date of their discharges to fill either of said positions, and to make them whole for any loss of earn- ings they may have suffered by reason of the Respond- ent's acts herein detailed, by payment to them of sums of money equal to the amounts they would have earned from the date of their unlawful discharges to the date of an offer of reinstatement, less net earnings during such period, with interest thereon, to be computed on a quar- terly basis in the manner established by the Board in F W Woolworth Go, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) 14 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed" ORDER The Respondent, Seminole Manufacturing Company, Columbus, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Discouraging concerted activities of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging its employees for engaging in a lawful work stoppage (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 affirmative action which will ef- fectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer James Larry Richardson, James D McCaf- ferty, Robert Jacobs, Billy Wright, Emmett Gilliam, Billy Allen, Herman McMann, Donald E Bowles, Bobby Martin, Alcurtis Hanstron, Ocie L James, Earl Honeycutt, and John Rogers immediate and full rein- statement to their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, discharging, if necessary, any employees hired to replace them, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's unlawful discharge of them in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy" 13 "All discriminatees have an absolute legal right to restoration to their former status and pay, Hydro-Dredge Accessory Go, 215 NLRB 138, 139 (1974) Thus, although some of the discnminatees have returned to work, the 'within" language is used Mission Rubber Go, 202 NLRB 33 (1973) 14 See generally Isis Plumbing Go, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 15 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 (b) 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 (c) Expunge from the files of the Respondent any ref- erence to the discharges of James Larry Richardson, James D McCafferty, Robert Jacobs, Billy Wright, Emmett Gilliam, Billy Allen, Herman McMann, Donald E Bowles, Bobby Martin, Alcurtis Hanstron, Ocie L James, Earl Honeycutt, and John Rogers and notify them in writing that this has been done and that evi- dence of these discharges will not be used as a basis for future discipline against them (d) Post at its facility in Columbus, Mississippi, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix " 16 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 26, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re- spondent immediately 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 the Respond- ent 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 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other than those found in this Decision i6 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 Na tional Labor Relations Board' shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation al 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice WE WILL NOT discourage concerted activities of our employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by dis- charging them for engaging in a lawful work stop- page WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec- tion 7 of the Act 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ?RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL offer James Larry Richardson, 'James D. McCafferty, Robert Jacobs, Billy Wright, Emmett Gilliam, Billy Allen, Herman McMinn, Donald E. Bowles, Bobby Martin, 'Alcurtis-fratis- tron, Ocie L. James, Earl Honeycutt, and John Rogers immediate and, full reinstatement to their former, jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub- stantially equivalent jobs; discharging, If necessary, any employees hired to replace them; WE WILE re= store their seniority and other rights and priVilegeS previously enjoyed;_and WEI WILL pay. .them +back- pay they. lost , because' we. 'discriminatorily /dis- bliargedythem; with-interest. .0 ' WE WILL eX0irigë bur' files any" feference tb'the diSaiaiges Of tile aboVenanied" eniployees and "WE iOLL noti0thein in writing that this has been done and that evidence these will not be Used as a basis for ftitUre diSCipline against. them. SEMINOLE MANOFACTIJRING COMPANY