Coastline Coal Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 1, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 737 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

COASTLINE COAL CORPORATION
Coastline Coal Corporation and Sanah Arnett and
Charles Bailey. Cases 9-CA-13256 and 9-CA-
13359
February 1, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On October 16, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Robert A. Giannasi issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Coastline Coal Corpora-
tion, Salyersville, Kentucky, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order, except that the attached
notice is substituted for that of the Administrative
Law Judge.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the
clear preponderance of all o the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Produc Inc., 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States of America
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity
to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
247 NLRB No. 100
has found that we violated the National Labor
Relations Act, and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT terminate or discriminate
against employees in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any terms or conditions of
employment because they have engaged in pro-
tected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees with
regard to their protected concerted activities or
those of other employees or threaten to discharge
employees who engage in protected concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT offer benefits to employees for
withdrawing charges filed with the National
Labor Relations Board or refusing to cooperate
with the Labor Board by testifying at a Board
hearing or in any other manner.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
WE WILL offer Charles Bailey and Sanah
Arnett full and immediate reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if such positions no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions of employ-
ment, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and WE
WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings
or benefits they may have suffered as a result of
their discriminatory discharges, plus interest.
COASTLINE COAL CORPORATION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. GIANNASI, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard on July 17 and 18 in Salyersville, Kentucky.
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(aXl) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, by
threats and interrogations concerning employee strike activi-
ty and by the discharge of employees Sanah Arnett and
Charles Bailey for engaging in protected concerted activity;
i.e., "talking about going out on strike." The complaint was
amended at the hearing to include an allegation that
Respondent also violated Section 8 (aXl) when, 3 months
before the hearing, it offered Bailey reinstatement if he
withdrew his charge against Respondent and failed to testify
in support of Arnett's charge. Respondent denies the
substantive allegations of the complaint. The parties submit-
ted post-hearing briefs.
Based on the entire record in this case, including the
testimony of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following:
737
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Kentucky corporation, is engaged in the
mining of coal at its facilities located in and around
Salyersville, Kentucky. During a representative I year
period immediately prior to the issuance of the complaint
Respondent sold and shipped goods valued in excess of
$50,000 from its facilities in and around Salyersville directly
to points outside the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Accord-
ingly, I find, as Respondent admits, that Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent operates strip mines in the Salyersville area.
Its principal officers are Paul Salyer, president, and his wife
Marcella, secretary-treasurer and bookkeeper. Its offices are
located near the Salyers' home and Respondent's shop or
garage building, which are in turn located some distance
from the minesites. Several employees work at the shop or
garage building.
In spring 1978 Respondent opened a new strip mine called
the Middlefork mine. At that time it also operated the so-
called Dutton mine, which became "mined out" in Septem-
ber and October 1978. Employees at the Dutton mine were
transferred to the Middlefork mine. Among the last five or
six employees transferred from the Dutton mine in mid-
October were Wayne Conley, Sanah Arnett, Charles Bailey,
Ronnie Russell, and Foreman Virgil Shepherd. All were
assigned to work on the first shift under the supervision of
Foreman Larry Hall.
At the Middlefork mine Shepherd worked as a loader
operator, but he continued to receive a foreman's wages and
was allowed to use a company-owned truck. Arnett, Bailey,
and Russell worked together as a separate crew. Arnett and
Bailey were rock truckdrivers, and Russell was a heavy
equipment operator. Russell's job was to load rocks and dirt
from one of the mine's pits onto the trucks of Arnett and
Bailey. This procedure exposed the earth for the mining of
the coal. There were two other rock truckdrivers on the first
shift, Ray Helton and Luther Marshall, although Marshall
often drove a bulldozer, and President Salyer testified that
"just about anybody on the job can drive the rock truck" if
someone is absent.
Sometime in mid- or late October, after the transfer of the
Dutton employees, the employees talked about the need for
higher wages and made complaints about the status of
Shepherd. Some wanted Shepherd to be their foreman, and
others complained about his use of the company-owned
truck. The conversations were interspersed with talk about
the possibility of striking. Foreman Hall was present during
some of these conversations, and he learned about other such
' Hall denied the statements attributed to him by Bailey and Russell. I
credit Bailey and Russell, who impressed me as reliable and honest witnesses.
Their testimony on these issues withstood cross-examination. Hall did not
impress me as a reliable witness. He was often evasive on crucial issues and
was pinned down only when confronted with statements made in his pretrial
conversations through employee Wayne Conley, one of the
Dutton transferees. Hall admitted overhearing Arnett stat-
ing in one of these conversations that the men should be
earning more money, and that they should stick together
and strike to get it. Bailey had also spoken in an employee
group about the need for raises. Hall also testified that he
was told by Conley that the Dutton transferees-essentially,
Bailey, Arnett, and Russell-were talking about going on
strike because they wanted Shepherd as foreman. Hall told
Paul Salyer about this conversation shortly before the latter
went on a hunting vacation about November 1, 1978. Conley
also told Hall that the Dutton men threatened to go on strike
to get higher wages.
On one occasion in late October, Hall asked Bailey if he
had heard anything about any of the boys from Dutton
striking to get Virgil Shepherd as the foreman. Bailey said he
had not. Hall then told Bailey, "Well, the first man that goes
on strike is fired."'
On the morning of November 1, 1978, the first day of Paul
Salyer's vacation, Russell, Arnett, and Bailey spoke about
asking for a raise. Later Russell, who acted as spokesman,
asked Hall about the raise. Arnett and Bailey were also
present during this conversation, which took place at a
coalpit where the crew was working. At one point Bailey
actually came up and joined in the conversation. Hall said he
would get in touch with his principals and let them know
something later in the day. Hall spoke to Marcella Salyer
and returned to the pit about 3 o'clock. He told Russell, in
the presence of Bailey and Arnett, that Mrs. Salyer said that
"the ones that wants to work for what they're making now
can work, and those who don't can go home." He also said
that Respondent could not give the employees a raise at this
time. Russell then quit, left the mine and went home.2
Arnett and Bailey continued to work. In a long distance
telephone call Marcella Salyer told her husband of the
request by Bailey, Russell, and Arnett for a raise and the talk
of strike activity. Although she was an evasive and reluctant
witness on this point, she did testify that she had the
impression that these three employees wanted higher wages
and wanted to go on strike. She also testified that she
assumed she mentioned this to her husband. In addition, she
mentioned the complaints about Shepherd's use of the
company-owned truck, and at her husband's suggestion she
ordered Shepherd to "park the truck."
B. The Discharges
Paul Salyer returned from his hunting trip on Sunday,
November 12, 3 days earlier than planned. The next
morning, November 13, Arnett and Bailey, both of whom
had been employed since 1977, were fired. The testimony as
to what happened on the morning of November 13 is in
sharp dispute, but the following is based on the composite
credible testimony, taking into account the demeanor of the
affidavit. His demeanor also suggested a lack of candor. For example, he often
failed to answer questions in a straightforward manner and repeated questions
of mine and of the General Counsel before proceeding to answer them.
'These three employees had also requested a wage increase while they were
still working at the Dutton mine I month before.
738
COASTLINE COAL CORPORATION
witnesses, the probabilities, and the inherent reliability of all
of the testimony.'
On Friday November 10, the four rock truckdrivers on
the first shift were told that there would be no work for them
on Saturday, a normal workday for them. One of the rock
truckdrivers-not Bailey or Arnett-reported for work
anyhow and was permitted to work.
On Monday, Arnett and Bailey reported for work shortly
before 7 a.m. They arrived together in Bailey's car. Luther
Marshall, another rock truckdriver, testified that they were
present when he arrived at the jobsite. Ray Helton, the
fourth rock truckdriver, told Arnett and Bailey that he was
going home because there was no work. It appears, however,
that Helton worked that day and did not go home. In any
event, Hall told Arnett and Bailey that it was a slow day,
and that he had no work for them. He said, however, that he
would check to see if he could find work. According to Hall,
he left to check the far pit and determined that the rock
trucks could work there and came back and told Arnett and
Bailey to go there to work.'
Arnett testified that he understood Hall to have directed
him and Bailey to work at the near pit. He and Bailey then
drove their rock trucks to the near pit and waited there a few
minutes. There was no dirt or rock to be loaded there,
however, because a road was being built down to the pit.
Hall conceded that Bailey and Arnett did get in their trucks
that morning. After waiting some 15 or 20 minutes in their
trucks at the near pit, Arnett and Bailey decided that there
was no work and that they should go home.
Hall testified that he assigned Marshall and Helton to the
near pit and they worked there that day. Helton did not
testify, but Marshall testified that he believes he worked at
the far pit. Hall also said that he assigned Marshall and
Helton first because they approached him for work first that
morning.
I reject Hall's testimony. It is inconsistent with the
testimony of Arnett and Bailey that Helton at one point
mentioned he was going home and there was no work. It is
also inconsistent with Luther Marshall's testimony that he
worked in the far pit, and that he arrived on the jobsite after
Bailey and Arnett. In addition, Hall's testimony that he had
Bailey and Arnett wait while he checked the far pit was
based on his alleged need to see if water had seeped into that
pit over the weekend. But Hall's testimony on this point is
uncorroborated. Paul Salyer himself testified that Hall never
mentioned anything to him about checking water in the pit.
While Hall was at the far pit evaluating the situation, he
told Shepherd, who was working there, that he would have
"to go back and see if he could get hold of" Bailey and
Arnett because "they might have left by then." I credit
'I found Hall and the Salyer to be the least reliable witnesses. They were
evasive even when confronted with their pretrial ffidavits Therefon I do not
rely on their testimony where they conflict with those of the other witneses.
Salyer was initially intent on establishing that he never learned of strike talk
on the pan of the three Dutton employees from his wife while he was on
vacation. This is contrary to Mn. Salyer's reluctant admission, but it is also
contrary to a position statement given by Respondent to the Regional
Director on December 18, 1978, shortly ter the events herein. In that
statement Respondent stated, "During the first week of November, he [Mr.
Arnett] was involved in a strike attempt along with two other former Dutton
employees. These employees demanded higher wages and that Mr. Shepherd
again be their supervisor."
I generally regarded Arnett and Bailey as reliable witnesses although their
Shepherd's testimony, which was not controverted, on this
point. Hall's remarks to Shepherd support the testimony of
Arnett and Bailey that, at best, Hall's work instructions
were equivocal, and that he had indicated that there might
not be work for Bailey and Arnett.
Bailey and Arnett parked their trucks and left word with
the two mechanics, Marshall and Tackett, to tell Hall that
they were going home. As they were leaving in Bailey's car
they encountered Hall, who had been at the far pit. Arnett
and Bailey testified that both Bailey and Hall stopped their
vehicles and Arnett told Hall that they were going home,
and Hall nodded in assent. Hall testified that the vehicles
passed each other, and Arnett simply waved as Bailey drove
down the road off the minesite. The two mechanics testified
that they did not see the vehicles stop, although I do not
believe that they were in a position to see everything that
happened when the two vehicles crossed. Bailey and Arnett
testified that they left the mine shortly after 8 a.m. The
mechanics and Hall say that it was closer to 7:30 a.m.
Hall made no effort to stop Arnett and Bailey or to recall
them to work. Nor did he obtain replacements. Two hours
later, about 10 a.m., Paul Salyer showed up at the mine and
inquired about the rock truckdrivers. After talking with Hall
and others he decided to assign two shop employees, White
and Jordan, to the rock trucks, and he decided to fire Bailey
and Arnett. He testified that he stayed at the mine for about
40 minutes then went home where he dispatched the shop
employees to the mine and directed that the final checks for
Bailey and Arnett be prepared. Respondent's records show
that White did not work at the mine on November 13.
Hall delivered their final checks to Bailey and Arnett that
evening and also called them to notify them of their
discharge. In his telephone conversations Hall said that he
had told Salyer that he did not need the trucks that morning,
that he had nothing for the drivers to do, but that Slayer said
that he did not need the two drivers.
Neither Arnett nor Bailey had ever been criticized for bad
work performance during their period of employment with
Respondent. It is also uncontradicted that in the past when
there had been no work for the drivers they would not get
paid. However, if they were assigned work and simply
waited in the truck without having work to do, they would
get paid so-called sitting time. Bailey and Arnett were not
paid for November 13.
Salyer testified that Respondent has been in operation
since 1972 or 1973. He had never fired an employee before
he fired Arnett and Bailey, and he acknowledged that he
kept two employees after they had damaged their trucks and
one had had serious absenteeism and tardiness problems.
Arnett himself left work once and was absent for 4 days
testimony was not mutually corroborative on all points. In assessing the
testimony of the other witnesses I found Luther Marshall and Virgil
Shepherd to be candid and honest witnesses. I found the two mechanics, Guy
Marshall and Dee Tackett, not to be reliable witnesses in describing the
circumstances of the departure of Arnett and Bailey on the day that they were
fired. Tackett and Marshall contradicted themselves as to whether the Arnett
and Hall vehicles were headed towards each other. My view of their
testimony, considering also their demeanor, was that they really did not see
much of what happened that morning.
There is testimony that there were two pits being worked at the
Middlefork mine, one known as the near pit and the other as the far pit or the
"pit around the hill." Neither was visible from the parking lot or staging area
where employees congregated before work to get their job assignments.
739
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
when he only had permission to be absent I day. He was not
fired or disciplined. Salyer also specifically acknowledged
that Arnett was a good truckdriver.
C. Post-Discharge Events
There is testimony from Carlos Crager, who stated that he
was at Rice's Truck Stop in Salyersville on many occasions
with Paul Salyer and others drinking coffee and chatting.
Salyersville is a city of about 500 people. Crager testified
that, on one occasion at the truckstop in late November or
the first of December, Salyer said that he "let a couple of
men go ... when he got back from vacation" because they
"refused to work and [were] trying to strike."
I credit Crager, who impressed me as a candid and reliable
witness. As I have indicated, Salyer was generally an evasive
and unreliable witness. His testimony on this particular
point was also unreliable. He first denied that he talked at
the trucktop about firing two employees who went out on
strike; he later testified that he may have engaged in a
hypothetical discussion-wherein he jokingly said that he
would fire employees of his who struck-which, incidental-
ly, reveals his bias and animus against people who strike or
talk about striking. At another point he said that he did not
recall having such a conversation, although he testified he
did frequent the truckstop, and that Crager may have been
present on some of those occasions. Rice attempted to
corroborate Salyer's denial but, based on his demeanor and
overall testimony, I reject his testimony as well. Actually,
Rice's testimony is quite revealing and tends to corroborate
Crager's. Rice testified that Salyer did mention firing Arnett
and Bailey, but that he simply said that he fired them for
"leaving the hill" without permission. He volunteered that
he remembered the incident because of a recent case
involving an employer in the locale who had gotten in
trouble with the Board for firing or laying off employees
after a strike. That Rice would have volunteered this
information as an insight to his thought processes suggests
that, contrary to his denials, strike activity was articulated
by someone, probably Salyer, as Crager testified.
Sometime in April 1979, after the issuance of the
complaint, Bailey received word, over his CB radio, to see
Larry Hall. That same day he went over to the mine to see
Hall. Hall told him that if he dropped his case he and Paul
Salyer would put him back to work. He said that this action
would make Arnett's case weaker. Bailey responded that
even if he dropped his case he would have to appear as a
witness in Arnett's case. Hall replied, "Well, if they can't
find you, then you can't appear as a witness." Bailey
refused.'
1II. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Based on the credited testimony set forth above I find that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(X) of the Act by the
following conduct of Foreman Larry Hall:
(1) Interrogating employee Bailey concerning his protect-
ed concerted activity or that of other employees; i.e.,
conversations he or others had had about striking.
' The above is based on the testimony of Bailey, whom I credit, over Hall,
who testified to a different account of this conversation. As I have mentioned
earlier I found Bailey to be a more reliable and honest witness than Hall.
(2) Threatening that any employee who struck would be
fired.
(3) Telling Bailey that he would be reinstated if he
withdrew his charge against Respondent, and that he should
not testify against Respondent in a Board hearing.
I also find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act when it discharged employees Bailey and Arnett
because they had talked about striking or attempted to
strike.
The evidence is overwhelming that Bailey and Arnett,
along with Russell, were instrumental in asking for higher
wages and in suggesting that employees strike to get higher
wages. The talk of strikes was prevalent at the Middlefork
mine in late October, and it came primarily from the former
Dutton employees who also wanted Shepherd to replace
Hall as their supervisor. There is really no doubt that Hall
and the Salyers knew about the strike talk and that it came
primarily from Russell, Bailey, and Arnett.
The evidence is also overwhelming that Respondent did
not think kindly of striking employees. Paul Salyer himself
testified that he jokingly mentioned in a conversation at
Rice's Truck Stop that he would fire striking employees.
Hall also threatened that striking employees would be fired.
Moreover, based on the testimony and demeanor of both
Salyers and Hall, I found that they were very much
concerned over strike talk and possible strike activity at the
Middlefork mine in late October and early November 1978.
After Russell quit the remaining Dutton employees who
had been involved in the attempt to get higher wages, even to
the point of striking, were Arnett and Bailey. Moreover, they
were the only remaining former Dutton employees who had
agitated-threatened to strike-to have Shepherd replace
Hall as foreman. This was a fact known by Hall and
undoubtedly colored his entire relationship with them, as
well as his testimony. The two men were fired precipitously
on November 13, 1 day after Salyer returned from a hunting
trip, during which he had been informed of the serious strike
talk which had been attributed to Russell (who had quit),
Bailey and Arnett. The timing of Respondent's conduct thus
supports the inference that the employees were fired for their
strike talk.
This inference is strengthened by the credited testimony
that Salyer admitted shortly after the discharges he fired the
two employees for attempting to strike at Rice's Truck Stop.
Salyer's letter to the Board concerning Arnett is equally
enlightening. Salyer stated in a list of reasons why he
believed Arnett to be an unsatisfactory employee that
"during the first week of November he [Arnett] was
involved in a strike attempt along with two other Dutton
employees. These employees demanded higher wages .... "
It is evident from the letter that Arnett and Bailey incurred
Salyer's disfavor by both the strike attempt and the request
of a raise. Moreover, Hall himself had threatened that
striking employees would be fired. Finally, Hall's attempt,
shortly before the hearing in this case, to get Bailey to drop
his case and not to testify on Arnett's behalf lends further
support to the finding that the employees were fired for
engaging in protected activity.
740
COASTLINE COAL CORPORATION
Moreover, although the circumstances of their leaving the
Middlefork mine on November 13 were unclear, I find that
Bailey and Arnett would not have been discharged but for
their protected activity. Salyer had never before fired
anybody, even though some employees had committed
serious derelictions. Both employees had good work records.
And even though they left the worksite about 7:30 or 8 a.m.,
Respondent made no attempt to call them to get them back
to work. Hall's work instructions to them were ambiguous at
best. He at first told them he did not have any work for
them. Later when he found work for them he told Shepherd,
in effect, that he had to catch them before they left, thus
indicating he expected that they would leave because of his
earlier instructions to them. Indeed, Respondent's allegation
that their presence on the job was necessary is rendered
doubtful because nothing was done to replace them until
Paul Salyer came to the site at 10 a.m. Hall did not call
Salyer to complain about Arnett and Bailey leaving or to ask
for replacements, nor did he use any other employees on the
rock trucks despite Salyer's testimony that "anyone" could
drive the trucks in a pinch. In these circumstances, Salyer's
testimony that his decision to fire Arnett and Bailey was
based on the fact that he could not let the expensive rock
trucks sit idle is unpersuasive. Moreover, Bailey and Arnett
had left the jobsite on other occasions when there was no
work without repercussions. Thus, it is clear that Respon-
dent seized upon Arnett and Bailey leaving the job as a
pretext to mask its real purpose in discharging them-to rid
itself of employees who had spearheaded talk of striking to
get higher wages.
Respondent's argument that the two men were fired for
leaving work without permission is unpersuasive. As I have
indicated, Hall's instructions to Bailey and Arnett were
ambiguous. There was, in fact, no work for the men. Luther
Marshall and Helton, the other rock truckdrivers, apparent-
ly worked at the far pit. The near pit was not ready for the
rock trucks. Hall and Salyer testified that White and Jordan
drove the rock trucks of Bailey and Arnett that morning, but
their testimony is not corroborated. Respondent's own
records show that White did not work at the mine, and they
do not show that Jordan drove a rock truck. Neither of these
employees testified. In view of the unreliability of the
testimony of Hall and Salyer on other issues, I cannot accept
their testimony concerning whether work was available and
whether White and Jordan performed such work on Novem-
ber 13. In any event, even under Hall's and Salyer's account,
Hall did nothing until 10 o'clock, and the two shop
employees did not show up at the mine until noon. Surely,
there was time enough to call Bailey and Arnett and have
them report back to the mine. Respondent, however, was not
interested in retaining these employees, but was interested
only in establishing a pretext whereby it could discharge
them for engaging in strike talk.
See, generally, Isis Plumbing d Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules
and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interrogating employees about their protected
concerted activities and by threatening to discharge employ-
ees who engaged in protected concerted activities, Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By offering to reinstate employee Bailey if he withdrew
his charges against Respondent and declined to testify in a
Board hearing, Respondent violated Section 8(aXI) of the
Act.
3. By discharging employees Charles Bailey and Sanah
Arnett because they had been engaged in protected concert-
ed activities or believed they were engaged in such activities,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. The above violations are unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
I shall order Respondent to cease and desist from the
conduct found unlawful herein and to post an appropriate
notice. I shall also order Respondent to offer employees
Sanah Arnett and Charles Bailey full and immediate
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other benefits, rights, and privileges, and
make them whole for all losses of earnings and benefits
caused by Respondent's unlawful termination, to be comput-
ed as provided in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest to be computed as provided in Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).'
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act I issue the
following recommended:
ORDER'
The Respondent, Coastline Coal Corporation, Salyers-
ville, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Terminating employees or discriminating against them
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment because they have engaged in
protected concerted activities.
(b) Interrogating employees about their protected concert-
ed activities or those of other employees.
(c) Threatening to discharge employees who engaged in
protected concerted activities.
(d) Offering benefits to employees for withdrawing
charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board or
refusing to cooperate with the Board by testifying at a Board
hearing or in any other manner.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights set forth in Section 7 of the Act.
of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
741
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Charles Bailey and Sanah Arnett full and
immediate reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make them whole for any loss of earnings or benefits they
may have suffered as a result of their discriminatory
discharges in the manner set forth in the remedy section
herein.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents, for its examination and copying, all
payroll and other records necessary or useful in order to
analyze and determine the amount of backpay due under
this Order.
' In the event that 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
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant To a Judgment
(c) Post at all of its facilities in the Salyersville, Kentucky,
area copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by Respon-
dent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
742