Alaska Glass and Millwork, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 16, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 785 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

ALASKA GLASS AND MILLWORK , INC. 785
Alaska Glass and Millwork , Inc., and Local Union
No. 1281 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America , AFL-CIO. Case
19-CA-3367
October 16, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On July 18, 1967, Trial Examiner David
Karasick issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in cer-
tain other alleged unfair labor practices and recom-
mended dismissal of those allegations of the com-
plaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a sup-
porting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner except as modified
below.
In December 1965, or January 1966, all four of
the Respondent's employees signed authorization
cards for the Charging Union. On January 13,
1966, the Union filed a petition seeking a represen-
tation election with the Seattle, Washington, Re-
gional Office of the Board. Al Buza (hereafter Bu-
za), Respondent's president and brother of em-
ployee Walter Buza (hereafter Walter), was away
when this took place. When he returned and Walter
told him of these events, Buza told the employees
in no uncertain terms that he was against the Union
and would do all in his power to keep it out. As
found by the Trial Examiner, between January 17
and March 1, the Respondent engaged in extensive
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Walter was laid off by the Respondent on March
10 because his poor installation had caused an ex-
pensive piece of thermopane glass to crack and he
had attempted to evade responsibility by offering an
implausible excuse. Walter was recalled to work on
April 12. When he returned to the shop, he found
Buza and their father waiting for him. ,They accused
him of having been the instigator of the union move-
ment among the Respondent's employees, and the
leader responsible for the Respondent's trouble
with the Union.
On May 8, 1966, Walter entered a bid for supply-
ing surveyors' stakes to the State of Alaska. The
Respondent also bid for the contract. The record
shows that the brothers had bid against each other
on this contract for a number of years, had often
discussed it, and that there was friendly competition
between them to see who would get it. On various
occasions in the past, each had won the contract.
Before this year's bidding, Buza even wished his
brother good luck.
On May 10, Walter was awarded the contract.
On May 11, Walter, while using the Respondent's
telephone to transact business having to do with the
contract, was overheard by Buza, who discharged
him on the asserted grounds that he was competing
with the Respondent and that he was conducting his
personal business on the Respondent's time.
The Respondent contends that Walter's
discharge was motivated solely by his competitive
bid and his use of Respondent's time to conduct
personal business. Despite the established history
of competitive bidding, and Buza's knowledge that
Walter would make a bid, Buza did not ask him to
withdraw from the bidding; rather, he wished him
luck. Under these circumstances, we agree with the
Trial Examiner that Walter's discharge was not
motivated by his submission of a competitive bid.
Although Walter was in fact conducting his per-
sonal business on Respondent' s time , we cannot
agree with the Trial Examiner that this single in-
cident was the true motivating factor in Buza's ac-
tions. Here the record amply ;demonstrates Buza's
deep-seated animus towards %•the Union, and
towards Walter as the supposed irstigator Wand
leader of union activity, throughout the period prior
to the discharge. While the matter of the telephone
call may have triggered Buza'a action, we are con-
vinced that this essentially trivial incident would
not have provoked such an extreme response if it
had not been for Buza's resentment over Walter's
union activities. It was simply seized upon as a pre-
text to discharge Walter for his union activity. We
find, accordingly, contrary to the Trial Examiner
and in view of the Respondent's extensive other un-
fair labor practices, that the actual motivation for
the discharge of Walter Buza was Respondent's
desire to retaliate against Walter for supporting the
Union, and that such discharge thereby violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We hereby adopt the Trial Examiner's recom-
mended Conclusions of Law, with the following
modification:
167 NLRB No. 112
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In Conslusion 3, the word "and" after Nelson,
and add after Robert Cunningham "and Walter
Buza."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Alaska Glass and Mill-
work, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as herein modified.
1. Replace the "and" between William Nelson
and Robert Cunningham in paragraph 2(a) of the
Recommended Order with a comma and add "and
Walter Buza" after Robert Cunningham.
2. Replace the "and" between Robert Cun-
ingham and Louis Montgomery in paragraph 2(b)
of the Recommended Order with a comma and add
"and Walter Buza" after Louis Montgomery.
3. Replace the "and" between William Nelson
and Robert Cunningham in paragraph 2(d) of the
Recommended Order with a comma and add "and
Walter Buza" after Robert Cunningham.
4. Add to the first paragraph of the Appendix,
between "1966," and "or equivalent jobs," the fol-
lowing:
"and to Walter Buza the job as carpenter which
he held before he was discharged on May 11,
1966,"
5. Delete the period after "1966" in the second
paragraph of the Appendix and add the following:
"and give Walter Buza whatever backpay he has
lost because of his discharge on May 11, 1966."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID KARASICK, Trial Examiner: This proceeding
under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
herein called the Act was heard in Anchorage, Alaska,
on February 28 and March 1, 1967, pursuant to due
notice. A complaint, issued on Januar" 25, 1967, based
upon a charge and amended charge fileu on April 14 and
May 23, 1966, respectively, by Local Union No. 1281,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, alleged in sub-
stance that Alaska Glass and Millwork, Inc., herein
called the Respondent, had engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.
Upon the entire record in the case, my observation of
the witnesses, and consideration of briefs filed by the
General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges, and the answer of the Respond-
ent admits, that the Respondent, and Alaska corporation
engaged in the production of doors, windows, and other
millwork products in Anchorage, Alaska, purchased
materials in excess of $50,000 from suppliers located out-
side the State of Alaska during the year 1966 and is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
A. The Issues
The primary issues in this case are:
1. Whether the Respondent unlawfully laid off em-
ployees William Nelson, Robert Cunningham, and Louis
Montgomery from February 16 to February 21, 1966.'
2. Whether the Respondent unlawfully reduced the
hours of work of Nelson, Cunningham, and Montgomery
from February 22 to March 1.
3. Whether the Respondent unlawfully discharged
Nelson and Cunningham on March 1.
4. Whether the Respondent unlawfully laid off Walter
Buza from March 10 to April 12 and thereafter dis-
criminatorily discharged him on May 11.
5. Whether the Respondent, in January and February
1966, unlawfully interrogated and threatened its em-
ployees and subjected them to more onerous working
conditions because of their union membership and activi-
ties.
B. The Facts
The Respondent has operated a millwork business in
Anchorage, Alaska, since 1959, first as a partnership con-
sisting of -Al Buza and his wife Mary and later as a cor-
poration of which they are the principal officers and
stockholders.
In December 1965, or January 1966, all four of the
Respondent's employees who worked in the shop signed
union authorization cards. These employees were Walter
Buza, a brother of Al Buza,2 Robert Cunningham, Louis
Montgomery, and William Nelson. On January 13, 1966,
the Union filed with the Regional Office of the Board,
located in Seattle, Washington, a petition seeking an elec-
tion.
On January 14, Buza, the Respondent's president, left
Anchorage for a business trip which took him outside the
State of Alaska until February 14. According to the un-
denied evidence, prior to his departure on January 14, Al
Buza had told the employees that Roy Weaver, an em-
ployee who worked in the office, would be in charge of
the business during Buza's absence with full authority to
hire and discharge the employees. On January 17, a copy
of the Union's petition was served on the Respondent.
Shortly thereafter, Roy Weaver called a meeting of all the
shop employees. At the meeting, Weaver stated that the
Respondent had been informed that the employees had
All dates hereafter refer to 1966, unless otherwise indicated
L Al Buza will be referred to hereafter as Buza and his brother as Walter
Buza The latter 's connection with the Respondent was solely that of an
employee
ALASKA GLASS AND MILLWORK, INC. 787
joined the Union, said that they were making a big
mistake, and further stated that if the Union represented
the employees they would lose the benefits of a health in-
surance plan which was then in effect, as well as a profit-
sharing plan which the Respondent was proposing to
adopt. He also asked the employees why they had joined
the Union, and Nelson, Cunningham, and Montgomery
each responded by explaining why he wished to have the
Union represent him.3 Walter Buza was not questioned
at that time but shortly thereafter he told his brother that
he also had joined the Union.
Shortly after this meeting, according to the undenied
testimony of employee Robert Cunningham, Weaver told
Cunningham that the employees would lose the insurance
benefits they were then enjoying if they went union,
asked Cunningham how he thought it would be better to
have the Union, and in addition asked Cunningham if he
was still going to vote for the Union.
On Monday evening, February 14, Buza returned to
Anchorage. The next morning he appeared at the shop.
On that day or shortly thereafter he wa; told by his
brother, Walter Buza, that the employees had signed
union cards. During the morning Buza spoke to the em-
ployees. He held in his hand certain papers which he had
received from the Board.4 With some profanity, he told
the employees that he would never sign a contract with
the Union Buza on this occasion also stated that in the
event the employees did succeed in getting the Union to
represent them that he would not use union men; that, if
the Union failed to supply him with qualified employees
he could hire anyone; and that the Respondent would
determine the qualifications of the employees by requir-
ing them to set up and run a drum sanding unit in the
shop, a piece of machinery which had not previously been
used. He also stated that they had previously had a union
in the shop which they had voted out and that he had beat
the Union before and he would beat it again.5
Employee Robert Cunningham testified without con-
tradition that on numerous occasions after February 15,
Buza stated that if the employees wanted to be hard about
it and go union that he could be just as hard as they could,
could do more than they could, and that on one occasion
when they asked for their back wages, Al Buza stated,
"You do all you think you can do and I'll show you that
you can't do anything and I'll win."
On the day of his return from his trip or the day
thereafter, Buza notified the employees that they would
no longer be entitled to two 15-minute coffeebreaks which
they had previously enjoyed at 10 o'clock and 3 o'clock
each day. Cunningham asked Buza why he had changed
his mind about the coffeebreaks since he previously had
said he felt the employees did more work of better quality
when they had a short break. Buza replied that the cof-
feebreaks were costing him money; that the law did not
require coffeebreaks; that just because the employees
signed a card with the Union did not give them any spe-
cial rights; and that if the employees wanted to make it
hard on him, he could make it hard on them."
Buza also told the employees that by March 1 they
would have to buy certain tools for use in their work,
which until that time had been provided by the Respond-
ent. In his testimony, Buza estimated that the hand tools
which he required the employees to purchase would cost
approximately $25, but Cunningham testified he spent
$100 in buying the tools which were needed. In any
event, as noted hereafter, Cunningham and Nelson were
laid off for 2-1/2 days, from February 16 to 21. Between
that time and March 1, their hours of work were reduced.
After coming to work on March 1, having in the mean-
time purchased the tools which Buza required, they were
informed at the end of the day that they were being
discharged.
Shortly after Buza returned from his trip, a chair, which
first appeared in the front office of the shop and later in
the hallway leading to the warehouse, was placed in a
position where it could be seen by customers and em-
ployees. On the chair was a sign which stated "Donated
to tired picket walkers by working non-union workers."
The chair and sign remained on display for a week or
more.
On one occasion, after Buza's meeting with the em-
ployees on February 15, according to the undenied
testimony of employee Louis Montgomery, Buza told
Montgomery that the employees were making a big
mistake, that he felt they should have consulted him be-
fore signing union authorization cards, and that if they
wanted more money they should have asked him for it.7
On another occasion, according to the undenied
testimony of Montgomery, Buza told a customer of the
Respondent in Montgomery's presence that Buza was
strictly against the Union or anyone who worked for the
Union and that he would not have a union member work-
ing for him, and on still another occasion he told a
customer that certain products which had been ordered
were not ready because his "left-handed Union mem-
bers" could not get them out.
On Wednesday, February 16, a hearing was held on
the Union's petition for an election. Late in the morning
on that day, Buza came in the shop where the men were
working, shut down the compressor, and told Mont-
gomery, Cunningham, and Nelson that they were being
laid off until the following Monday morning because of a
lack of work. He also told the three employees that they
could pick up their checks on Friday" and advised them
3 The foregoing findings with respect to Weaver's statements are based
upon the undemed testimony of Cunningham, Montgomery, Nelson, and
Walter Buza Weaver was not called as a witness by the Respondent and
no showing was made that he was unavailable.
A hearing on the Union's petition was scheduled to be held on the fol-
lowing day, February 16
5 Buza admitted having spoken to the employees on this occasion and
he did not deny the specific statements attributed to him as set forth
above.
8 The foregoing testimony of Cunningham was in substance cor-
roborated by Louis Montgomery who was present at the time the conver-
sation occurred Employee William Nelson testified that he had asked
Buza why the coffeebreaks had been discontinued and the latter had
replied that it was his prerogative to do so Buza testified that the em-
ployees had abused the privilege of coffeebreaks by extending the time to
20 or 25 minutes instead of 15, that he previously warned them "mostly
before" he left on his trip, and that he discontinued the privilege of cof-
feebreaks when he learned from his wife, upon his return, that abuse of the
privilege had continued If it were true that Buza had previously warned
the employees, as he testified, it is not reasonable to believe that they
would have asked for an explanation for his action nor is it reasonable to
believe that he would not at that time have referred to his prior warning
Yet Buza did not deny having made the statements attributed to him by
Cunningham, Montgomery, and Nelson Accordingly, I credit their
testimony as above set forth
The exact date of this conversation is not shown in the record
3 The Respondent's workweek ended on Thursday and the employees
were paid on Friday
310-541 0 - 70 - 51
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to "think it over."9 Of the four shop employees, only
Walter Buza remained at work. From February 15 to
March 1, Cunningham worked only 3 days. When he
complained that he was not earning enough money to sup-
port his family, Buza replied, "Well, you know what you
can do about it."
On February 28, the Regional Director issued his
Decision and Direction of Election, in which provision
was made for a mail ballot on March 30.10 On the same
day, February 28, Russell Feagin, an employee who had
left the Respondent's employment in November in an-
ticipation of being inducted into the military service and
who thereafter was rejected, returned and was hired by
the Respondent.
On March 1, Nelson and Cunningham received payroll
checks which stated that they were being discharged due
to lack of work. Cunningham testified that he asked Buza
how long the layoff would be; that Buza first evaded the
question, asked Cunningham if he could read, and
referred him to the notation on the payroll check; and
that , when Cunningham persisted in seeking an answef,
Buza angrily replied, "Yes, damn it, it's permanent." Nel-
son testified without contradiction that he asked Buza
why he was being let go and Buza replied that he had
bought a new bi-fold machine to take Nelson's place."
On March 8, the Respondent sent letters to Nelson and
Cunningham, giving them until the close of business on
March 10 to decide whether they wished to accept tem-
porary jobs in the Respondent's warehouse at a reduced
wage rate of $3 per hour.12 Both employees accepted and
reported for work at the warehouse on March 11. On
March 10, Walter Buza was laid off.
On March 21, an inspector from the Wage and Hour
Division of the Department of Labor appeared at the
Respondent's office for the purpose of inspecting its
books following a request which had been made by Cun-
ningham. Each of the employees was interviewed and
shortly thereafter Buza gave Cunningham and Nelson
their paychecks, told them that he had no time to "mess"
with them, that he had business in front working with the
Wage and Hour man, and that they were discharged.
After Nelson and Cunningham had been terminated on
March 21, according to the undenied testimony of Mont-
gomery, Buza complained that it had been "dirty" of the
employees to bring in the Wage and Hour inspector;
stated that it had cost him $2,000 in attorney's fees and in
backpay which was due the employees; and further stated
that as soon as the trouble with the Union was over, Nel-
son, Cunningham, and Montgomery were out, that the
State of Alaska was not big enough for all four of them
and that Buza was not leaving. 13
In response to a call from the Respondent, Walter Buza
returned to work on April 12. Upon his arrival at work,
he found that his father, who did not live in Alaska, was
in the shop. In a conversation between the three men,
Walter Buza was accused by his father and brother of
having instigated the union movement among the em-
ployees He admitted that he had signed a union
authorization card but denied that he had influenced the
other employees or that he was their leader. Walter Buza
continued to work until May 11. On May 11, Buza over-
heard Walter Buza taking an order for surveyors' stakes
on the Respondent's telephone. Walter Buza had previ-
ously bid upon and had been awarded a contract for sup-
plying such stakes to the State of Alaska. Buza accused
his brother of being in competition with him and of con-
ducting his business on Respondent 's time and , at the end
of that day, discharged him.
On May 26, Montgomery voluntarily quit his job and
a few days later14 the Respondent hired Floyd Braun to
replace Montgomery. In August or September, the
Respondent hired Bill Gifford.
C. Concluding Findings
1. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The evidence, for the most part undenied, shows that
the Respondent was strongly opposed to the Union and
when it learned that the employees had become union
members and a petition for an election had been filed on
their behalf, it not only threatened them with loss of em-
ployment benefits but actually deprived them of such
benefits and otherwise engaged in conduct designed to
discourage the employees in their adherence to the
Union. Weaver's statements to the employees shortly
after January 17 that they were making a big mistake in
joining the Union and if they chose it to represent them
they would lose the benefits of the health insurance plan
they were then enjoying as well as the profit-sharing plan
which the Respondent proposed to adopt; his conversa-
tion with employee Robert Cunningham in which Weaver
threatened a similar loss of benefits and in addition inter-
rogated Cunningham regarding the Union and the manner
in which he intended to vote;15 Buza's statements to the
employees on February 15 that he would never sign a
contract with the Union, that he had beat the Union be-
fore and he would beat it again, that in the event the em-
ployees did succeed in having the Union represent them,
he would deprive them of employment by requiring
qualifications for employment which had not previously
been imposed upon them; his statement shortly thereafter
" The foregoing findings are based upon the testimony of Montgomery
Buza did not deny that he had told the employees at the time they were
laid off to " think it over "
10 Apparently this was the date upon which ballots were to be received
by the Regional Director
I I Buza testified that when he gave the two employees their checks he
told them that he could not foresee enough work, that Cunningham asked
why; and that Buza replied , " I just don 't see this much business from what
I can gather from my banker and builders , this is going to be an awfully
tight year." Cunningham's testimony as to his conversation with Buza is
more in keeping with the explosive and irritable nature of Buza 's conduct
as shown elsewhere in the record than is Buza's tempered and polished
version of what occurred In addition, Buza did not deny having told Nel-
son that he was being replaced by a bi-fold machine and he admitted that
he had never ordered such a machine . For the foregoing reasons , and upon
the record as a whole, I find that on March 1 Buza made the statements
attributed to him by Cunningham and Nelson as above set forth
12 When they were terminated on March 1, Nelson and Cunningham
had worked as carpenters at a wage rate of $5 per hour According to Al
Buza , an inventory of the warehouse was needed in order to provide col-
lateral for his bank account which was overdrawn , and Nelson and Cun-
ningham were hired for this purpose because Buza had been advised by
his attorney that he had to offer these jobs to them before hiring other em-
ployees for that purpose
13 Buza knew that the Respondent was not complying with the provi-
sions of the Wage and Hour law for he admitted that he had previously
been so informed by other employees in the area
Between June 3 and 5
The Respondent denies that Weaver was a supervisor In light of the
uncontradicted evidence that the employees were told that Weaver was
empowered to hire and discharge and that he was being placed in full
charge of the shop during the absence of Buza, the statements made by
Weaver to the employees regarding the Union are attributable to the
Respondent
ALASKA GLASS AND MILLWORK, INC.
to employee Louis Montgomery in which Buza told
Montgomery that the employees were making a big
mistake, that they should have consulted him before sig-
ning union authorization cards, and that if they wanted
more money they should have asked him for it, and his
statement to one of his customers in Montgomery's
presence that Buza was strictly against the Union or any-
one who worked for the Union and that he would not
have a union member working for him; and his statement
to Montgomery that as soon as the trouble with the Union
was over, Nelson, Cunningham, and Montgomery were
out, that the State of Alaska was not big enough for all
four of them , and that Buza was not leaving constituted
unwarranted intrusions upon the right of the employees
to freely choose and support a labor organization and vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The evidence does not show who placed the chair car-
rying a sign "Donated to tired picket walkers by working
non-union workers" in a prominent position where it
could be seen by both the customers and the employees.
But the evidence is undenied that the chair and sign
remained on display for a week or more where it could be
seen plainly by everyone, including Buza. The ridicule
which Buza directed against the Union and the em-
ployees by the statement contained on the sign was of the
same character as his statement to a customer in the
presence of Montgomery that certain products which
have been ordered were not ready for delivery because
"his left-handed Union members " could not get them out.
But the sign carried, in addition to ridicule, an implied and
unlawful threat that equated union membership with loss
of employment, a threat which was reinforced by the
layoff of Montgomery, Nelson, and Cunningham on
February 16, the subsequent reduction in their hours of
work, and the discharge of Nelson and Cunningham on
March 1 . By these acts as well , the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
In addition the Respondent resorted to other efforts to
discourage the employees from pursuing their interest in
the Union. A day or two after he returned from his trip,
Buza abruptly abolished the coffeebreaks which the em-
ployees had previously enjoyed each day. When asked for
an explanation by employee Cunningham , Buza stated
that the law did not require him to give the employees cof-
feebreaks; that the employees did not have any special
rights merely because they signed cards with the Union,
and that if they wanted to make it hard on him, he could
make it hard on them . In addition , Buza set a deadline of
March 1 as the date upon which the employees would be
required to buy tools which until that time had been pro-
vided by the Respondent. And when Cunningham and
Nelson, who had worked only 3 and 2 days, respectively,
between February 16 and March 1, came to work on the
latter date with the tools which Buza had required, he in-
formed them that they were being discharged. The
discharge of the two employees occurred the day after the
Regional Director had issued his Decision and Direction
of Election in the representation proceeding . Buza's un-
denied statements to Cunningham regarding the elimina-
tion of the coffeebreaks for the employees leave no doubt
that he was resorting to such action as retaliation against
the employees because they had joined the Union. Both
his requirement that the employees furnish their own
tools by March 1 and the elimination of coffeebreaks
were calculated to impress upon the employees that con-
tinued adherence to the Union would result in more
onerous working conditions . Both were , therefore , unlaw-
789
ful attempts to coerce the employees and violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Discrimination
The General Counsel contends, and the Respondent
denies, that the layoff of Nelson, Cunningham, and Mont-
gomery from February 16 to 21; the reduction in their
hours of work thereafter to March 1; the discharge of
Nelson and Cunningham on March 1; the layoff of
Walter Buza from March 10 to April 12 and his sub-
sequent discharge on May 11 were discriminatory.
a. The layoff of February 16
As noted above, Nelson , Cunningham , and Mont-
gomery were laid off on February 16 and were not re-
called to work until February 21. At the time of their
layoff they were told by Buza that it was because of a lack
of work and he advised the employees to "think it over."
The layoff occurred on the same day a hearing was held
on the Union's petition for an election and the day after
Buza had spoken to the employees and told them that he
would never sign a contract with the Union ; that the
Respondent had previously had a union in the shop and
had voted it out ; that he had beat the Union before and he
would beat it again ; and that in the event the employees
did succeed in having the Union represent them, the
Respondent would not use union men since the Union
would have to supply qualified employees and the
Respondent would require new qualifications for employ-
ment which it had not previously demanded.
In its brief, the Respondent contends that the three em-
ployees were told to go home at noon , Wednesday,
February 16, and to return the following Monday
because Buza had determined that he could not designate
any more work to them until he was able to discover what
had to be done in order to rectify the customer complaints
regarding work which had been performed in his absence.
Buza testified that the work which had been done for five
or six of his customers had been "fouled up "; that he had
inspected some of the jobs on Tuesday night and on Wed-
nesday morning (February 15 and 16 ) and saw that he
"was in for a good project to figure out what we had to
do", and that the men were sent home in order to give him
"time to find out what I had to do to cure these ailments."
There is no evidence that Buza told the employees that
their work had been faulty or that their layoff was in any
way related to the performance of their duties. Absent
such evidence , his undenied statement to the employees
at the time he laid them off to "think it over " would have
been meaningless in the context of his explanation of the
reason for the layoff . Nor did Buza explain how he was
able to rectify the purportedly poor work about which he
testified without the assistance of the employees whom
he had laid off. I find it difficult to believe that if , on Wed-
nesday morning, Buza was as uncertain as he professed to
be regarding what had to be done "to cure these ailments"
that he would have sent the men home until the following
Monday morning instead of telling them that he would
notify them as soon as he again needed their services.
There is nothing to show that, in the state of uncertainty
in which he professed to be, he would have any way of
knowing that from Wednesday noon to Monday morning
would be too long or too short a period of time in which to
accomplish his purported purpose. I was not impressed
with Buza 's demeanor as a witness . I found his testimony
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to be vague, evasive, and at times contradictory. 16 For all
of the foregoing reasons, I do not credit his testimony re-
garding the layoff. On the contrary, I find that he laid off
Nelson, Cunningham, and Montgomery from February
16 to 21 for the purpose of illustrating to the employees,
as he had stated to them on the prior day, that their jobs
would be vulnerable if they continued their union mem-
bership. His statement to the employees at the time they
were laid off to "think it over" obviously referred to the
declarations of union opposition which he had stated on
the previous day. At that time, he told the employees that
if they chose the Union to represent them, he would
eliminate employment of union members by requiring the
employees to meet qualifications which had not previ-
ously been required. Thus, he made it clear that con-
tinued adherence to the Union would place the jobs of the
employees in jeopardy. Accordingly, I find that the layoff
of Nelson, Cunningham, and Montgomery from February
16 to 21 violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
b. The reduction in hours of work and the discharges of
March 1
Following their return to work on February 21, the
hours of work performed by Nelson, Cunningham, and
Montgomery from that time until March 1 were reduced.
From the beginning of the year, with the exception of the
week ending February 10,17 all of the employees had
worked substantially a 40-hour week or more. But for the
week ending February 24, Montgomery and Nelson each
worked 16 hours while Cunningham worked 8 hours.
From that time until March 1, Cunningham worked 16
hours and Nelson and Montgomery each worked 8 hours.
When Cunningham told Buza that he was not making
enough money to support his family, Buza replied, "Well,
you know what you can do about it."
The Respondent contends that the hours of work were
reduced and that Nelson and Cunningham were
discharged on March 1 because the Respondent's gross
sales took a drastic decline at that time; that the Respond-
ent's bank account was seriously overdrawn; that the
outlook for home building upon which the Respondent
primarily relied for its business did not look good for the
year 1966; and that the Respondent's banker advised
Buza to terminate some of his employees.
According to Maurice Othik, the Respondent's banker,
he told Buza that he was concerned with the overdrawn
state of the Respondent's account. He advised Buza, he
testified, as follows: "that it was possible that he was
going to go back to the shop and do more work himself,
and to terminate some of his employees during this period
of time when work was slack, and one thing and another."
16 At one point in his testimony, Buza denied that he had known in
November 1965, when Feagin left the Respondent's employment, that
Feagin was expecting to be inducted into the military service Buza had
earlier testified, however, that Feagin had left in November "on account
of the draft" plus the fact that his mother was ill.
17 During that week , Walter Buza worked 39-1/2 hours , Montgomery
and Nelson each worked 18 hours plus 112 hour overtime, and Cun-
ningham worked 10 hours This was 4 days before Buza returned to
Anchorage and after the Respondent had been informed that the Union
had filed its petition for an election
18 These figures are based upon cash and charge sales of the Respond-
ent and do not include products sold at wholesale. If wholesale income
were also included the figure for the 3 months would be $73,782 54 in
1966 and $71,521 60 in 1965 While it is true, as the Respondent con-
tends , that its books show that sales for the entire year were substantially
below those of 1965, the fact remains that in January, February, and
Whatever representations the Respondent may have
made to his banker, the business records of the Respond-
ent do not support its assertion that its gross sales "took a
drastic decline in the spring of 1966," as it contends in its
brief. These records indicate that for the months ofJanu-
ary, February, and March 1966, the gross sales of Re-
spondent were $67,262.32 which was slightly more than
the gross sales for the same period of time in 1965 when
the figure was $66,869.52.18
As for its bank account, the evidence shows that on
February 28, 1966, the Respondent had to its credit a
balance of $1,537.39. On March 1, the day on which Nel-
son and Cunningham were discharged, a check was
drawn in the amount of $14,280.62 and on March 31,
another check was drawn in the amount of $13,087.44.
Mary Buza, secretary and bookkeeper of the Respond-
ent, testified that these amounts represented purchases
which had been made by Buza and that they had probably
been made during the preceding 60-day period. The
Respondent did not show what these purchases were,
when they had been made, or the necessity for the checks
being drawn for them at those times. The account
remained overdrawn through May when the overdrawn
balance was $4,708.83. The state of the account after that
time is not shown in the record.
The record further shows, however, that the Respond-
ent's bank account was frequently overdrawn during the
period of the past 3 years, that in November 1965 it was
overdrawn in an amount even greater than that of March
1966;19 that despite this condition of the Respondent's
bank account in November 1965, the Respondent did not
lay off any of its employees; that, on the contrary, Buza
assured employee William Nelson in January 1966, that
he could rely upon being regularly and fully employed
thereafter; and that no employees had been laid off in
1965 when gross sales for the same period of time were
substantially the same. Not only had Buza told both Nel-
son and Montgomery in July 1965, that the shop em-
ployees would be working steadily at least 40 hours each
week and again made such a statement to Nelson in
January 1966, but he admittedly had told the employees
that they might work on the new building which he was
then planning to construct if work in the shop became
slack.
The evidence thus does not provide support for the
Respondent's contention that the hours of work for Nel-
son, Cunningham, and Montgomery were reduced and
that Nelson and Cunningham were discharged because of
a serious decline in its business as reflected by its bank
statements and its sales records. But even if that were
true, the countervailing evidence in this record convinces
me that the records so advanced by the Respondent were
March of 1966, when the events here in question occurred , its assertion
that its business had declined is not supported by the evidence . Despite its
contention in this regard, the record shows that between June and August
1966 the Respondent constructed a new building adjoining its premises
According to Buza, he and his wife, as distinguished from the Respondent
corporation, erected the new building The record shows, however, that
Buza and his wife and the Respondent are one and the same With the ex-
ception of some qualifying shares held by their attorney , they are the sole
stockholders of the Respondent and are in active control of its business in
all its phases , including labor relations
19 On November 23, 1965, the Respondent 's bank account was over-
drawn in the amount of $18,130 75 and at the end of,that month it was
overdrawn in the amount of $12,312.73 The account remained in an over-
drawn condition through December 22, at which time it was overdrawn in
the sum of $2,462.11.
ALASKA GLASS AND MILLWORK, INC.
pretexts and that the true reason for the reduction in
hours of work and the discharge of Nelson and Cun-
ningham was the union membership and activities of the
employees.
After Buza's admonition to "think it over" apparently
had not diminished the employees' interest in the Union
following the layoff of February 16, he reduced their
hours of work in the apparent hope that one or more of
them might be sufficiently discouraged to quit, as he
revealed when Cunningham complained that he was not
earning enough to support his family and Buza replied,
"Well, you know what you can do about it."
Thus, the record shows that the Respondent was
hostile to the Union; that it threatened the employees
with loss of benefits and loss of their jobs, deprived them
of coffeebreaks, and required them to furnish tools which
the Respondent had previously supplied in an effort to
dissuade them from continued adherence to the Union;
that on February 16, the day after Buza told the em-
ployees he would never sign a union contract and that he
would not employ union men and the day the hearing on
the Union's petition for an election was held, he laid off
all the employees for 2-1/2 days, except his brother who
was retained to handle deliveries and oddiobs; that when
he laid them off, he admonished them to "think it over";
that thereafter, he reduced the hours of work of Mont-
gomery, Nelson, and Cunningham; that on February 28,
the day the Regional Director issued his Decision and
Direction of Election providing for a mail ballot on March
30, the Respondent hired Russel Feagin2"and on the fol-
lowing day it abruptly discharged Nelson and Cun-
ningham; that Buza was equivocal and evasive in
response to Cunningham's questions concerning the
length of the termination and that he falsely told Nelson
that he was being replaced by a bi-fold machine; that after
Nelson and Cunningham had been rehired as temporary
warehousemen on March I 1 and thereafter on March 21,
9 days before the mail ballot was to be held, Buza told
Montgomery that as soon as the trouble with the Union
was over, Nelson, Cunningham, and Montgomery were
out, that the State of Alaska was not big enough for all
four of them and that Buza did not intend to leave.
In consderation of the foregoing facts and on the record
as a whole, I find that the Respondent reduced the hours
of work of Louis Montgomery, Robert Cunningham, and
William Nelson from February 21 to March 1, 1966, and
that it thereafter discharged Robert Cunningham and Wil-
liam Nelson on March 1, 1966, because of their union
membership and activities and thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.21
c. The layoff and the subsequent discharge of Walter
Buza
Walter Buza was laid off by the Respondent on March
10, was recalled to work on April 12, and was finally
discharged on May 11
Buza testified that shortly before March 10, a piece of
thermopane glass which cost approximately $145 and had
10 Buza testified without denial that Feagin returned to work following
a leave of absence which had been granted in November The record
shows that the Respondent knew that Feagin had not joined the Union
together with the other employees since he was not in the State of Alaska
at the time The General Counsel has made no showing nor does he con-
tend that Feagin's employment on February 28 was motivated by dis-
criminatory considerations The matter was not litigated and thus is not an
issue in this case
791
been installed by Walter Buza cracked; that Buza, in han-
dling the customer's complaint, asked his brother if he
could help him with some sort of explanation; that Walter
Buza replied by saying that the glass had cracked because
"a bunch of drunks live there and threw a beer bottle
through it"; that Buza himself replaced the glass and
when he removed the damaged pane he found that it had
been improperly installed; and that because of this Walter
Buza was laid off.
Walter Buza did not deny the testimony of his brother
regarding the thermopane glass. He testified that at the
time he was laid off in March, he was accused by his
brother of "messing around setting up machinery for
competitors"; that he was told by Buza that he would
receive a letter the next day as to the reason for his ter-
mination ; and that he never received such a letter. It ap-
pears that Walter Buza was confusing this conversation
with the one which occurred at the time of his ultimate
discharge on May 1 1 There is no evidence which would
explain Buza's reference to competitors at the time the
conversation in question occurred in March. Nor is it
clear why Buza would have said he would send a letter
explaining the-reason for the termination when he had al-
ready said that it was because Walter Buza had been
rendering assistance to the Respondent's competitors,
unless it was intended that such a letter would provide
confirmation of the assigned reason for the separation
from employment.
Upon this state of the record and the failure of Walter
Buza to deny or explain his brother's testimony concern-
ing the thermopane glass, I do not believe that the
General Counsel has proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that the layoff of Walter Buza on March 10,
1966, was unlawful.
As noted above, when Walter Buza was recalled to
work on April 12, he was accused by both his brother and
his father of having been the instigator of the union move-
ment among the Respondent's employees and at that time
he told them that he had joined the Union, having previ-
ously so informed his brother in February. He continued
to work for the Respondent from April 12 to May 11.
On May 8, he entered a bid for supplying surveyors'
stakes to the State of Alaska. The Respondent also had
bid for this contract. The bids were open on May 10 and
Walter Buza was awarded the contract. On May 11, he
used the Respondent's telephone for the purpose of tak-
ing an order for a supply of surveyor's stakes pursuant to
the contract. Buza overheard the telephone conversation
and saw him writing the order. According to Walter Buza,
his brother told him that he was being terminated because
he had bid on the contract for surveyor's stakes in com-
petition with the Respondent and because he was con-
ducting his personal business on the Respondent' s time.
Buza testified that when he confronted his brother with
the fact that he was conducting his personal business on
the Respondent's time that Walter Buza replied that he
had been sent that morning to install a folding door for
one of the Respondent's customers and that if he had
made the telephone call from there that Buza would never
21 In view of this conclusion , I do not regard it necessary to determine
whether the subsequent employment of Nelson and Cunningham as tem-
porary warehousemen at a lesser rate of pay than they had been receiving
as shop employees on March I I and their subsequent discharge on March
21 constituted further unlawful acts on the part of the Respondent, either
on the theory that such conduct was discriminatory or that it infringed
upon protected concerted activities , since the remedy in any event would
be the same
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have known about it. According to Buza his brother then
asked, "what is the difference if I call from your
showroom?" The testimony of Buza regarding the events
of May I I was not denied. The General Counsel sought
to show that prior to the admission of bids, the Respond-
ent knew that Walter Buza intended to bid upon the con-
tract in question and raised no objection to his doing so.
Assuming that to be a fact, however, the evidence
nevertheless shows that Walter Buza was using the
Respondent's time and facilities for the purpose of con-
ducting his personal business. The record does not show
how long a time was taken for this purpose, but assuming
that the time consumed was little, I do not believe that the
Respondent was unjustified in objecting to such conduct
and in taking the action which it did. The discharge oc-
curred the day before the certification of the result of the
election was issued and at a time when the Respondent
certainly knew that the Union had won the election. The
discharge of Walter Buza, therefore, would no longer pro-
vide a means of defeating the Union. His discharge may
have been a punitive act of retribution visited upon him
by his brother in anger over the Union's victory. But if it
was, such an inference on this record seems to me to be
no more valid than the equally strong and incompatible
inference that Buza was irritated by his brother's action
in conducting his personal business on the Respondent's
time, was further irritated by his undenied remark con-
cerning the use of the Respondent's telephone and, in a fit
of irritation and anger, responded by discharging him.
On the record thus made, despite the clear evidence
that the Respondent believed that Walter Buza was a
leader of the union movement and that it resented what it
believed he had done in that regard, I do not believe that
the General Counsel had proven by a preponderance of
the evidence that the motivating cause of Walter Buza's
discharge was the union animus of the Respondent rather
than the reason asserted by Buza. Accordingly, I find that
the discharge of Walter Buza by the Respondent on May
I i , 1966, did not violate the Act.
IV THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent unlawfully laid
off Louis Montgomery, William Nelson, and Robert Cun-
ningham from February 16 to 21, 1966, reduced their
hours of work from February 21 to March 1, and
discharged Nelson and Cunningham on the latter date.
The record shows that at the time of the hearing the
Respondent employed in its shop operations Russell
Feagin, who was rehired on February 28, 1966, Floyd
Braun who was hired early in June 1966, and Bill Gifford
who was hired in August or September 1966.22 Under
these circumstances, I shall recommend that the Re-
spondent offer to William Nelson and Robert Cunning-
ham immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions of employment as car-
penters dismissing, if necessary, all persons now em-
ployed by the Respondent in its shop who were not em-
ployees on March 1, 1966, and, if after such dismissals
have been made, sufficient jobs are not available, place
22 Gifford, who was hired when only two other employees worked in
the shop, was characterized by Buza as a foreman but his status was not
the remaining unlawfully discharged employee or em-
ployees on a preferential hiring list in order of seniority.
I shall further recommend that the Respondent make
whole Montgomery , Nelson , and Cunningham for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the un-
lawful layoff from February 16 to 21 1966, and by
reason of the unlawful reduction in their hours of work
from February 21 to March 1, 1966, by payment to each
of them the sum of money equal to the amount that each
would have normally earned during each of those periods.
In addition Nelson and Cunningham shall be made whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of
the Respondent 's unlawful action in discharging them on
March 1 , 1966, by paying to each of them the sum of
money equal to the amount each would have normally
earned as wages from March 1, 1966, to the date of the
offer to him of reinstatement , less his net earnings during
said period . Backpay shall be computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest at the rate
of 6 percent per annum shall be added to backpay to be
computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 1 shall also recommend
that the Respondent preserve and, upon request, make
pertinent records available to the Board and its agents.
The unfair labor practices committed in this case strike
at the very heart of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg.
Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4). The inference is therefore
warranted that the Respondent maintains an attitude of
opposition to the fundamental purposes of the Act
designed to protect the rights of the employees . It will ac-
cordingly be recommended that the Respondent cease
and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the fol-
lowing conclusions of law.
1. The Union is, and has been at all times material to
the issues in this proceeding, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Respondent is, and has been at all times materi-
al to the issues in this proceeding, an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating with respect to the hire, tenure,
terms or conditions of employment of Louis Mont-
gomery, William Nelson, and Robert Cunningham and
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization,
the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(A)(3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this
litigated at the hearing If an issue as to his status should apse, it may be
resolved upon compliance.
ALASKA GLASS AND MILLWORK, INC.
proceeding, I recommend that the Respondent, Alaska
Glass and Millwork, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with loss of benefits should
they join or assist a union.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of employment
because of their union membership or activities.
(c) Threatening to refuse to recognize or bargain with
a union lawfully entitled to recognition.
(d) Imposing upon employees more onerous working
conditions because they join or assist a union.
(e) Unlawfully interrogating employees with respect
to their union membership, activities, or sympathies.
(f) Discouraging membership in any labor organiza-
tion by laying off employees, reducing their hours of
work, discharging them, or in any other manner dis-
criminating against them, or threatening to do so, in re-
gard to hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condi-
tion of employment, except as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
(g) In any other manner interfering with , restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer William Nelson and Robert Cunningham im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions of employment as carpenters,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, dismissing , if necessary, all persons now em-
ployed in the Respondent's shop who were employed
after March 1, 1966, and, if after such dismissals have
been made sufficient jobs are not available, then place
the remaining discriminatees on a preferential hiring list
in order of seniority.
(b) Make whole William Nelson, Robert Cunningham,
and Louis Montgomery for any loss of pay suffered by
each of them in accordance with the method set forth in
the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due.
(d) Notify William Nelson and Robert Montgomery if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(e) Post in conspicuous places at its place of business
at Anchorage, Alaska, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted, copies of the at-
tached notice23 as an appendix. 24 Copies of said notice to
be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 19 of
the National Labor Relations Board, shall, after being
duly signed by an authorized representative of the
Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter
in such conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
793
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 25
23 Since notices are customarily framed in the language of the statute
and because of their technical nature are often difficult for employees to
understand , I am recommending that the notice in this case embody the
simplified form which appears in Appendix A
24 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
25 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read " Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL offer immediately to William Nelson and
Robert Cunningham the jobs as carpenters they held
before they were discharged on March 1, 1966, or
equivalent jobs, without loss of seniority or any other
rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, all per-
sons in the shop who were hired after they were
discharged and, if after such persons have been
dismissed , sufficient jobs are not available, then
place their names on a preferential hiring list in order
of seniority.
WE WILL give William Nelson and Robert Cun-
ningham whatever backpay each has lost because of
his discharge on March 1, 1966.
WE WILL also give William Nelson, Robert Cun-
ningham, and Louis Montgomery whatever backpay
each has lost as a result of his being laid off from
work from February 16 to 21, 1966, and in addition
whatever backpay each has lost by reason of the
reduction in hours of work of each of them from
February 22, 1966, to March 1, 1966.
All our employees have the right to join or assist,
or not to join or assist, Local Union No. 1281,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-C IO, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT question our employees about their
union sympathies or activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or threaten to discharge
any of our employees, give them less employment,
discontinue any employment benefits or privileges,
make their working conditions more difficult, or in
any other way discriminate against them because
they have engaged in union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten or refuse to recognize or
bargain with Local Union No. 1281, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AFL-CIO, or any other union which is lawfully enti - United States of their right to full reinstatement upon ap-
tled to recognition . plication in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
ALASKA GLASS AND MILL - amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
WORK , INC. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
(Employer) days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Dated By If employees have any question concerning this notice
(Representative ) (Title) or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, 327 Logan
Note: We will notify William Nelson and Robert Cun- Building, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone
ningham if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the 583-7542.