Cooke'S Crating, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 22, 1988

289 N.L.R.B. 1100 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

1100 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cooke's Crating, Inc. and International Brotherhood
of Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO. Case
21-CA-25659
July 22, 1988
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
On April 6, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Jay
R. Pollack issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The Charging Party filed a brief in opposition to
the Respondent's exceptions and in support of the
judge's decision. The General Counsel filed a brief
supporting the judge's decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Cooke's
Crating, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order.
' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings . The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge 's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd . 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
As the judge discredited the testimony of the Respondent 's president
and sole stockholder, Brian Cooke, based on his demeanor, we find it un-
necessary to rely on the judge 's additional finding , in fn . 8 of the attached
decision , that an adverse inference should be drawn from the Respond-
ent's failure to call Supervisors Heiman and Aguilar and dispatcher
Drake to corroborate Cooke's testimony
Jean C. Libby, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Wendy J. Barsh, Esq. (Wohiner, Kaplon, Phillips, Vogel,
Shelley & Young), of Los Angeles , California, for the
Union.
Neil O. Andrus, Esq. (Jeffer, Mangels & Butler), of Los
Angeles , California, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAY R. POLLACK, Administrative Law Judge . I heard
this case in trial at Los Angeles, California , on February
9 and 10, 1988. Pursuant to a charge filed against
Cooke 's Crating , Inc. (Respondent) by International
Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO
(the Union) on August 21, 1987, the Regional Director
for Region 21 of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint and notice of hearing against Re-
spondent on October 29, 1987, alleging that Respondent
committed certain violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et
seq. (the Act). The complaint, as amended,' alleges in
substance that Respondent unlawfully laid off employees
Ell Clounch, Michael Milton, Robert Ott, and Daniel
Williams for 1 day and unlawfully delayed a pay increase
for employee Mark Jager in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act. Further, the complaint alleges that
Respondent independently violated Section 8(a)(1)
through its president Bryan Cooke by unlawfully threat-
ening employees, interrogating employees, and promising
employees benefits in order to discourage its employees'
union activities.
The parties have been afforded full opportunity to
appear, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. On the entire
record, from my observation of the demeanor of the wit-
nesses , and having considered the posthearing briefs of
the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTION
At all times material, Respondent, a California corpo-
ration, has been engaged in the business of storing, crat-
ing, packing, shipping, and installing works of art. Re-
spondent operates a facility located at 3124 East 11th
Street, Los Angeles, California. During the 12 months
prior to issuance of the complaint, Respondent sold and
shipped goods and products valued in excess of $50,000
directly to customers located outside the State of Califor-
nia. Accordingly, Respondent admits, and I find, that it
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The parties stipulated, and I find, that at all times ma-
terial the Union has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Issues
During August 1987, Respondent's employees became
interested in union representation. Daniel Williams, a
crater for Respondent, contacted the Union. A meeting
was set up with Bud Rymer, an organizer for the Union.
By August 17, Williams had obtained signatures from 20
of Respondent's 22 production and maintenance employ-
ees authorizing the Union to represent them for purposes
of collective bargaining . On August 18, Rymer met with
Bryan Cooke, Respondent's president and sole stockhold-
er, and presented the employee petition and a proposed
collective-bargaining agreement. The instant case arises
1 On March 11, 1988, I granted the General Counsel's motion, joined
by the other parties, to withdraw certain complaint allegations
289 NLRB No. 140
COOKE'S CRATING
out of Cooke's reaction to the petition and the Union's
demands.
Within this factual framework , the General Counsel
contends that Respondent violated Section 8(aXl) of the
Act by threatening employees , interrogating employees,
and promising benefits as an immediate reaction to its
employees' union activities . Further, the General Coun-
sel alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(aX3) and
(1) of the Act by sending home four employees on the
day after the Union's demands and withholding a pay in-
crease previously granted to an employee in order to dis-
courage its employees ' union membership and activities.
Respondent denies all such allegations.
B. The Facts
As mentioned earlier, Rymer met with Daniel Wil-
liams and several other employees on August 12. A peti-
tion authorizing the Union to represent Respondent's em-
ployees was drafted and signed by the employees. Wil-
liams took the petition home and had it typed. The typed
petition was signed by Williams and circulated among
employees on August 13. The petition was signed by 20
employees . At that time, Respondent employed 22 em-
ployees2 plus 4 foremen whose unit placement was not
litigated.
On August 18, Rymer took a copy of the signed peti-
tion and a proposed contract to Respondent's facility.
Rymer and Damaris Rosado, his assistant , went to see
Cooke at his office. Rymer introduced himself to Cooke
and handed him a business card . Rymer said he wished
to talk to Cooke about some problems concerning
Cooke's employees . Rymer showed Cooke the employee
petition and got Cooke to acknowledge that more than a
majority of the employees had signed the petition.
Rymer told Cooke that he wanted to set up a negotiation
meeting and that he wanted a committee of employees to
be included. Rymer gave Cooke a proposed collective-
bargaining agreement . Rymer said he would give Cooke
time to review the proposal before they met to negotiate.
Cooke offered to meet on the morning of August 24 and
Rymer agreed . Rymer and Rosado then left the facility-'
Shortly after Rymer's visit, Cooke went into the crat-
ing area and spoke to employees . Williams and Robert
Fenwick, another crater, testified that Cooke spoke to
employees Williams, Fenwick, Robert Ott, Rob Corning,
and Michael Milton and asked if the employees wanted
"to go Union." No one answered and Cooke said
nobody is saying anything . Fenwick then answered that
"Our names are all on the petition." Cooke told the em-
ployees that he had once helped the Teamsters Union or-
ganize a business where he had worked . That company,
according to Cooke, went out of business because of the
union . Cooke said he would not allow that to happen to
his Company.
Cooke said that he was going to have to sell the busi-
ness . According to Williams, Fenwick, Ott, and Milton,
s Not including office clerical employees and supervisors.
s The above conversation is based on the credited testimony of Rymer
and Rondo. To the extent that Cooke 's testimony differs, he is not cred-
ited I found Cooke to be most willing to adapt his testimony to suit the
perceived needs of his case . In general, I do not credit Cooke unless his
testimony is corroborated by documentary or other credible evidence.
1101
Cooke said that the Union would put him out of business
and that he "wasn 't going to die a slow death." Cooke
then said that if the employees wanted the Union then he
would have to tighten up the work force . He said that he
would have to lay off some employees and that the re-
maining employees would have to work a 40-hour
week.' Cooke told the employees that he would no
longer give time off for their other pursuits and if an em-
ployee was late 3 days, the employee would be fired.
Cooke said he would have to "hire a straw boss to make
sure that the employees were working ." Fenwich said
that the employees needed a union to help them in ob-
taining raises and better benefits . Cooke answered that he
would give benefits.
Williams asked Cooke if he had read the proposed
contract and Cooke answered that he had. Fenwick told
Cooke that it was "just a starting proposal " and that
there would be negotiations to work out something that
was fair to everyone. Williams told Cooke that the em-
ployees were not trying to put him out of business. Ott
asked Cooke to try and meet the employees half way.
Cooke answered that Ott took too long to finish a crate
and that other employees did not like to work with Ott.
Corning began discussing health benefits and Cooke an-
swered that he had helped organize an employer for the
Teamsters Union and had seen that company go out of
business. Cooke said he would not let his company die a
slow death. Milton mentioned time off and Cooke an-
swered that if the Union came in there would not be any
time off. Fenwick mentioned wages and Cooke respond-
ed that he had given Fenwick a Christmas bonus. Fen-
wick answered that he did not think the bonus was suffi-
cient. The meeting ended with Cooke leaving and saying
something to the effect that he would have to negotiate. 5
Later that same day , Cooke spoke with employee
Mark Jager . Jager had just recently been promised a
wage increase and Cooke was surprised to see his name
on the employee petition. According to Jager, Cooke
asked him what he thought "about this Union thing."
Jager answered that he would let the Union speak for
him. Cooke said that the raise that Jager was expecting
would be withdrawn . Jager answered "Okay." Respond-
ent's payroll records reveal that Jager received the
promised wage increase on August 27, retroactive to
August 10. Thus, despite Cooke's statement to Jager,
Jager's promised wage increase was not withdrawn or
delayed. 6
* Respondent 's employees were musicians and artists . One advantage
of employment with Respondent , frequently stressed by Cooke, was the
flexibility of the work schedule that allowed the employees to pursue
their artistic careers.
a The above conversation is based on the credited testimony of Fen-
wick and Williams , which was corroborated by Ott and Milton . Cooke's
account of this conversation is credited only to the extent that it is con-
sistent . Al Aguilar, an admitted supervisor , was present at the conversa-
tion but did not say anything . Aguilar was not called to corroborate
Cooke's version of the conversation.
s Jager's testimony is credited . However, the documentary evidence
reveals that Jager was incorrect about dates. I find that this does not
affect his credibility . I have used the dates established by the payroll
records.
1102 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 19, when Williams reported for work, he
was met by Cooke. Cooke referred to a list of employees
and told Williams that the other employees had seniority
over Williams. Cooke told Williams that Respondent did
not have enough work for Williams and sent Williams
home. Williams worked the next day without incident.
Williams credibly testified that during his employment
with Respondent, employees had never before been sent
home. Rather, work was found for employees to do. Ac-
cording to Williams, there was crating work to be done
on August 19.
Ell Clounch, a crater, was told on August 19 by Al
Aguilar, crating foreman,7 that there was no work and
that Clounch should talk to Cooke. Clounch asked
Cooke if there was any work and Cooke answered that
since the Union was coming in, Cooke was going to
have to do things according to the union method, i.e., by
seniority. Cooke said that Respondent had work for
three craters and that Clounch was fourth in seniority.
Clounch asked if there was trucking or any other kind of
work he could do. Cooke answered that he had a list of
all employees by department and Clounch would only be
working as a crater. Clounch left but returned to work
the next day. Prior to this incident Respondent did not
assign work based on seniority nor did Respondent re-
strict employees to a particular department . On previous
occasions when work was slow , usually in the summer,
employees were asked to volunteer to take the next day
off. However, employees had not been sent home after
they had reported to work.
When Ott reported for work, he was told by Cooke
that there was no work. Ott asked why there was no
work since there had been work left over from the previ-
ous day. Cooke answered that there was only enough
work for three or four craters. Ott said he did not under-
stand and Cooke said he was assigning the work accord-
ing to seniority. Cooke showed Ott a seniority list that
had Ott's name near the bottom. Cooke concluded that
there was no work for Ott and sent the employee home.
Ott returned to work the next day.
When Milton reported on August 19, Cooke came up
to Milton and said , "If we are going to run this place
like a union, when there is no work we are going to send
you home. There is no work for you today." Cooke
showed Milton a seniority list and said he was going to
send home Ott, Milton, and Williams. Milton said Cooke
should have given him notice so that Milton could have
arranged his schedule. Milton left the office but returned
and filled out his timecard to show 15 minutes for re-
porting to work. Milton told Cooke that if Respondent
was going to lay off anybody, Milton wanted to be the
first laid off. Cooke answered that Milton was not the
last to be hired. Milton returned to work the next day
and worked on the same project that he worked on
before this day off. Milton testified that before this inci-
dent, he had been asked on several occasions if he
wished to take the next day off because work was slow
but had never before been sent home after reporting for
work.
° The pubes stipulated that Aguilar was a supervisor within the mean-
mg of the Act.
When Fenwick reported for work on August 19, Ott,
Clounch, Milton, and Williams had already been sent
home. Fenwick went to see Cooke and said, "Bryan, I
don't think you ought to be doing this; I don't think you
ought to be laying people off; the Union will take you to
court." Cooke answered, "This is what is in the contract,
that layoffs are going to happen by seniority when there
is no work." Fenwick answered that there was nothing
in the proposed contract to that effect. Fenwick said the
contract gave the employees a 40-hour week. Cooke an-
swered that the contract was not signed. Fenwick said
he thought that they should work out the matter in a
friendly way. Cooke said he was still running the busi-
ness and the conversation ended.
C. Respondent's Defense
Cooke testified that late on the evening of August 18,
he was told by Carol Heiman, a supervisor, that there
was no crating work and that nobody told the craters
not to come in. Cooke testified that because of the ex-
citement concerning the Union, he and Heiman had ne-
glected to discuss scheduling. On the morning of August
19, Cooke obtained the crating files and discovered that
he only had enough work to keep one employee busy in
the crating department. Cooke looked at the trucking log
and found that a number of jobs were canceled or post-
poned." Cooke testified that while Respondent did not
have a strict seniority system, he generally tried to have
work for more senior employees and had the junior em-
ployees volunteer when days off were necessary.
Cooke testified that he told the employees of his expe-
rience with a company he helped organize for the Team-
sters Union. That company eventually went out of busi-
ness . Cooke denied threatening to close the business or
promising any benefits to the employees. As stated earli-
er, I credit the employees' version of the conversation
over Cooke's denials.
After consulting with an attorney, Cooke canceled the
meeting scheduled for August 24 with Rymer. As men-
tioned earlier, Respondent granted Jager the promised
wage increase as scheduled.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The statements to employees
Based on the credited testimony of Williams and Fen-
wick, I find that Cooke unlawfully interrogated employ-
ees about the Union by coupling his questions with
threats to sell the business and to impose harsher work-
ing conditions . Carpenter Trucking, 274 NLRB 300
(1985); Sierra Hospital Foundation, 274 NLRB 427 (1985).
6 Respondent produced the trucking log which revealed that jobs had
been postponed or canceled . The log did not reveal when the jobs were
canceled
Respondent did not produce any records from the crating department
to dispute the testimony of the employees that there was crating work to
be done on August 19.
Further, Heiman, Aguilar, and Paul Drake , dispatcher, were not called
to testify Respondent's failure to produce such documents and witnesses
leads to an inference that such evidence would be harmful to its case.
Martin Luther King, Sr , Nursing Center, 231 NLRB 15 in. 1 (1977); Musi-
cians Local 47 (American Broadcasting), 255 NLRB 386, 390 (1981).
COOKE'S CRATING 1103
I further fmd the threats to sell the business and the
threats of less favorable conditions and harsher working
conditions violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Williamson
Memorial Hospital, 284 NLRB 37 (1987); Continental Can
Co., 282 NLRB 1363 (1987); Brunswick Corp., 282 NLRB
794 (1987).
Although Jager eventually received his raise without
suffering any monetary loss, I fmd that Cooke 's state-
ment withdrawing the raise unlawfully placed the onus
of denying the raise on the Union . Bay State Ambulance
Rental, 280 NLRB 1079 (1986); Trover Clinic, 280 NLRB
6 (1986). Further, on August 19, Cooke violated the Act
by placing the onus of the 1 -day layoffs on the Union.
Rood Industries, 278 NLRB 160 (1986).
Respondent argues that Cooke's statements to the em-
ployees were permissible under Section 8(c) of the Act.9
Cooke was simply giving his truthful opinion of the con-
sequences of the proposed contract on his business.
The distinction between threat and prediction is not
easily recognized . The United States Supreme Court in
NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969),
recognized the right of an employer to make a prediction
about the precise effects he believes unionization will
have on his company . In such a case , however , the pre-
diction must be carefully phrased on the basis of objec-
tive fact to convey an employer's belief as to demonstra-
bly probable consequences beyond his control . That test
is applicable irrespective of the employer 's sincerity.
Here, Cooke's expression of his belief that the Team-
sters Union caused his former employer to go out of
business is permissible under Section 8(c). However,
Cooke's threats to impose harsher working conditions
and to go out of business were not predictions based on
objective facts. Rather, these were threats phrased in
terms of Cooke's choice of action if the employees
forced unionization on him . Accordingly, I fmd that
Cooke's statements violated Section 8(a)(1) and were not
privileged by Section 8(c) of the Act. See, e.g., Crown
Cork & Seal Co., 255 NLRB 14 (1981); Bacchus Wine Co-
operative, 251 NLRB 1552 (1980).
2. The 1-day layoffs
In Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d
899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), the
Board announced the following causation test in all cases
alleging violations of Section 8(a)(3) or violations of Sec-
tion 8(aXl) turning on employer motivation. First, the
General Counsel must make a prima facie showing suffi-
cient to support the inference that protected conduct was
a "motivating factor" in the employer's decision. On
such a showing , the burden shifts to the employer to
demonstrate that the same action would have taken place
even in the absence of the protected conduct. The
United States Supreme Court approved and adopted the
Board's Wright Line test in NLRB v. Transportation Man-
agement Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 399-403 (1983).
9 Sec . 8(c) provides
The expressing of any views, argument , or opinion or the dissemi-
nation thereof, whether in written, printed , graphic, or visual form,
shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under
any of the provisions of this Act . if such expression contains no
threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit
For the following reasons, I fmd that the General
Counsel has made a prima facie showing that Respond-
ent was motivated by a desire to discourage its employ-
ees' union activities . On receipt of the employee petition
and the Union's demands, Cooke immediately questioned
the employees and threatened to sell or close the busi-
ness . Further, he threatened to tighten up working con-
ditions, to impose less favorable and harsher conditions,
and to lay off employees. Shortly thereafter, he ques-
tioned Jager and, receiving no response, informed Jager
that the employee's raise had been withdrawn. Although
informing employees of the alleged lack of work on
August 19, Cooke's statements reveal his intent to drama-
tize the negative effects of unionization to the employees.
Thus, on August 19, Cooke made good on his threats of
the previous day to impose harsher conditions and to lay
off employees. Finally, the credible testimony of five
witnesses establishes that there was, in fact, crating work
to be done that day.
The burden shifts to Respondent to establish that the
four employees would not have worked on August 19,
even in the absence of their protected activities. Re-
spondent established that trucking work for August 19
was postponed or canceled . However, there is no evi-
dence to establish that Respondent could not have fol-
lowed its usual practice of asking for volunteers to take
the day off. 10 More important , the credible evidence es-
tablishes that there was crating work to be done. Re-
spondent failed to produce any records to corroborate
Cooke's denials of the employees ' testimony . Further,
neither Heiman nor Aguilar was called to corroborate
Cooke's testimony . Under the circumstances, I find Re-
spondent's lack of a credible defense further buttresses
the General Counsel's case . I, therefore, fmd that Re-
spondent has not rebutted the General Counsel's prima
facie case and that a violation of Section 8(aX3) has been
established.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Cooke's Crating , Inc. is an employer
engaged in commerce and a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union, International Brotherhood of Painters &
Allied Trades , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act by laying
off employees Ell Clounch, Michael Milton , Robert Ott,
and Daniel Williams on August 19, 1987, in order to dis-
courage its employees' membership in the Union.
4. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively
questioning employees about their union activities,
threatening to sell or close its business, threatening to
impose less favorable or harsher working conditions, tell-
ing employees that a previously granted wage increase
ro As noted earlier, Respondent failed to call any witnesses to corrobo-
rate Cooke's testimony that he did not learn of the cancellations until the
morning of August 19. Cooke is not credited on this point
1104 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was withdrawn because of the Union , and telling em-
ployees that the Union caused their layoff.
5. Except as specifically found above , Respondent did
not violate the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it take certain affirma-
tive action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent shall be ordered to make the four employ-
ees whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf-
fered by reason of the 1-day layoffs, with interest com-
puted in the manner set forth in New Horizons for the Re-
tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). See generally Isis Plumb-
ing, 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
edtt
(d) Post at its Los Angeles, California facility copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."12 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 21, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
12 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
ORDER
The Respondent, Cooke's Crating, Inc., Los Angeles,
California , its officers, agents , successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discriminating against employees in regard to
layoff in order to discourage membership in International
Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO or
any other labor organization.
(b) Coercively questioning employees about their
union activities, threatening employees with closing or
selling the business , threatening employees with less fa-
vorable or harsher working conditions, telling employees
that wage increases were withdrawn because of the
Union, telling employees that their layoffs were because
of the Union or threatening any other form of retaliation
for its employees' union activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole all four employees laid off on August
19, 1987, for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a
result of the unlawful layoff, in the manner set forth
above, in the remedy section of this decision.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the layoffs
described above, and notify each of them that this has
been done and that evidence of such unlawful layoff will
not be used as a basis for future personnel actions.
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents all payroll and other records necessary to com-
pute the backpay rights set forth in the remedy section
of this decision.
11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings , conclusions , and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against employees regard-
ing layoff to discourage membership in International
Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO or
any other labor organization:
WE WILL NOT coercively question employees about
their union activities, threaten employees with closing or
selling the business, threaten employees with less favor-
able or harsher working conditions, tell employees that
wage increases were withdrawn because of the Union,
tell employees that their layoffs were because of the
Union, or threaten any other form of retaliation for our
employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole Daniel Williams, Ell Clounch,
Michael Milton, and Robert Ott for any loss of pay they
may have suffered as a result of the unlawful layoff of
August 19, 1987, with interest.
COOKE'S CRATING 1105
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the of such unlawful layoff will not be used as a basis for
layoffs described above, and WE WILL notify each of the future personnel actions.
four employees that this has been done and that evidence
COOKE'S CRATING, INC.