David R Webb Co , Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1988

291 N.L.R.B. 236 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

236 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
David R Webb Co , Inc and Eugene McGaha Case
25-CA-18553
September 30 1988
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
On June 8 1988 Administrative Law Judge
Donald R Holley issued the attached decision The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief 1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge s rulings findings, 2 and
conclusions3 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 David R
Webb Co Inc Edinburgh Indiana its officers
agents successors and assigns shall take the action
set forth in the Order
i The Respondent has requested oral argument The request is denied
as the record exceptions and bnefs adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties
2 In sec III A par 14 of his decision the judge referred to John Cole
man The correct spelling of this supervisor s name is Coffman
The Respondent excepted to the judge s finding that employee Eugene
McGaha testified that he told Coffman that his disability might prevent
him from performing the dryer feeder job We do not rely on this finding
that we conclude is not fully supported by the record However this
does not affect the result in this case
3 In affirming the judge we note that given the poor performance of
Hill Young and McGaha in the position of feeder on the #2 vacuum
dryer the Respondent was not obliged to retain these employees in that
position However we agree with the judge that the employees perform
ance in that position which was not substantially equivalent to their pre
strike positions could not provide a basis for the Respondents failure to
continue to extend to these employees their Laidlaw rights
Walter Steele Esq for the General Counsel
Jack H Rogers Esq (Barnes & Thornburg) of Indianapo
Its Indiana for the Respondent
Eugene McGaha pro se of Nineveh Indiana for the
Charging Party
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DONALD R HOLLEY Administrative Law Judge On
an original charge filed in this case by Eugene McGaha
an individual on March 17 1987 the Regional Director
for Region 25 of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint against David R Webb Co Inc (Re
spondent) on June 25 1987 alleging in substance that
by rehiring economic strikers Alice Hill Rex Young and
Eugene McGaha in jobs other than their former or sub
stantially equivalent jobs and thereafter terminating their
employment when they were unable to perform the job
to which they had been recalled Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act Respondent filed timely answer denying it had en
gaged in the unfair labor practwes alleged in the com
plaint
The case was heard in Indianapolis Indiana on Sep
tember 28 and 29 1987 All parties appeared and were
afforded full opportunity to participate On the entire
record and after careful consideration of postheanng
briefs filed by the parties I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
Respondent a Delaware corporation maintains its
principal office and place of business in Edinburgh Indi
ana where it is engaged in the manufacture sale and
distribution of wood veneer and related products
During the 12 month period preceding June 25 1987 it
in the course and conduct of its business operations sold
and shipped products goods and materials valued in
excess of $50 000 to customers located outside the State
of Indiana It is admitted and I find that Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act
II STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION
It is admitted and I find that Chauffeurs Teamsters
Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No 135 a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Teamsters
Local 135) is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent manufactures wood veneer and other
wood products at its Edinburgh Indiana facility It em
ploys approximately 400 employees About 260 employ
ees were in the bargaining unit represented by Teamsters
Local 135 in 1986 On July 28 of that year the bargain
ing unit employees commenced what is conceded to
have been an economic strike On November 3 1986 the
striking employees through the Union offered uncondi
tionally to return to work
During the course of the strike Respondent hired nu
merous replacements and a number of striking employees
abandoned the strike and returned to work After the
strike ended Respondent without union participation
promulgated a plan for recall of striking employees for
whom no jobs were available immediately The plan in
volved creation of a preferential hiring list from which
employees would first be recalled according to qualifica
tions and seniority in their prestrike department After all
jobs in all departments were filled the recall was accom
291 NLRB No 36
DAVID R WEBB CO
plashed by consideration of qualifications of employees
and their total length of service with the Company i
By mid February 1987 only 20 to 30 employees re
mained on the preferential hinng list Alleged discnmma
tees Alice Hill Rex Young and Eugene McGaha were
concededly the three employees on the list with the most
plantwide seniority
At some unstated time before February 17 the Re
spondent s personnel manager Charles Kilpatrick con
tacted employee Hill to offer her the job of operator of
#2 vacuum dryer on the second shift The position had
been upgraded from a labor grade 1 job to a labor grade
2 job during the strike and it paid $6 09 per hour Hill
accepted the job offer and reported for work at 3 30 p in
on February 17 She was terminated at the end of her
shift on February 17 under conditions set forth infra
Hill was not called as a witness by either of the parties
during the hearing Through the testimony of Kilpatrick
it was established that Hill was approaching the age of
62 at the time of the hearing and she is 4 feet 11 inches
tall For approximately 3 to 4 years before the strike she
had been employed in a labor grade 1 job on the first
shift The precise job was that of labeler in the export
clipping and measuring department In that job she re
moved bundles of veneer from a conveyor attached a
label to the bundle and placed the bundle on a different
conveyor The job required no heavy lifting or eye hand
coordination as the bundles were simply shoved from
one conveyor to another It paid $5 91 per hour when
the strike began but was upgraded to a labor grade 2 job
during the strike Kilpatrick indicated that during her
12 to 13 year tenure with Respondent Hill had per
formed some unspecified job in the dryer department
had performed a second veneer handler job in the export
clipping and measuring department which involved
moving sheets of veneer with the assistance of another
employee from one conveyor to a second conveyor
about 3 to 4 feet distant and had been tried in a layup
job but had been disqualified from it 2
A video tape that depicts the functions performed by
the feeder of the #2 vacuum dryer was placed in the
record as Respondents Exhibit 1 Briefly the job con
lists of placing a quantity of wood veneer on a scissors
lift with the aid of a conveyor elevation of the scissors
lift through use of a foot pedal or button to the height of
4 to 4 1/2 feet and flipping individual sheets of veneer
upward with the fingers to permit a vacuum to grab the
individual sheets and affix them to a belt that moves
through the dryer
Jerry Thompson the supervisor of Respondent s
second shift testified that when Hill reported for work
on February 17 he briefed her on her starting time
breaktime punch in procedure and directed her to the
#2 vacuum dryer where he explained and then demon
strated the job she was to perform He indicated he
noted things were not going smoothly when she began
to perform and sought to improve her situation by con
structing a platform for her to stand on to compensate
1 The validity of the recall procedure is not at issue in this case
2 When Hill was disqualified on the layup job because she was unable
to perform it she was transferred to other work
237
for her lack of height Thompson testified Hill expen
enced difficulty with virtually every aspect of the job
dunng the shift He stated she was not efficiently loading
the scissors lift and she was unable to efficiently feed the
machine He indicated her failure to properly feed the
machine caused sheets of veneer to fall to the floor and
resulted in the discard of product at the other end of the
machine because sheets of veneer came out folded
Thompson claimed he had never seen an employee per
form as poorly on the machine and he indicated he re
ported Hill s deficiencies to the plant manager and to
Kilpatrick
At the end of her shift on February 17 Hill was in
structed to report to Kilpatrick When she did he told
her her performance was not satisfactory and something
would have to be done Kilpatrick testified Hill then told
him she did not like the job and would rather stay at
home with her husband and collect unemployment until
she was eligible to retire (at age 62) Kilpatrick informed
her Respondent would replace her and it would not
object to her drawing unemployment He admits Hill
was then terminated
On February 18 Kilpatrick contacted Rex Young
then the employee with the greatest plantwide seniority
on the preferential hiring list and offered him the pose
tion of feeder on the #2 vacuum dryer on the second
shift Young accepted the job offer and agreed to report
that day at 3 30 p in
Young testified he was hired by Respondent on Febru
ary 10 1975 His first job was that of flitch hanger 3 In
that job which he held for 3 to 4 years he hand cleaned
flitches with a hand planer He next worked for 3 to 4
years marking samples and measuring veneer In that job
he received logs from the vat area and affixed tickets to
them which indicated the number of board feet in each
flitch After he was disqualified in the above described
job he was transferred back to the vat department
where he performed the flitch cleaner job during the 2
to 3 years that preceded the strike As a flitch cleaner
he with the assistance of a second employee placed
flitches on a chain which acted as a conveyor and
moved flitches through a washer that resembled a car
wash Young worked on the first shift immediately
before the strike and he earned $6 02 per hour in his
labor grade 3 position
Thompson testified that when Young reported for
work on February 18 he briefed him just as he had
briefed Hill the afternoon before and he then acquainted
Young with the manner in which he was to feed the #2
vacuum dryer He testified Young loaded the scissors lift
efficiently but experienced difficulty in feeding the ma
chine He indicated that Young like Hi'l improperly fed
the machine and as a result a lot of sheets were discard
ed Thompson testified Young continued to remain ineffi
cient in feeding the machine on February 19 and there
were many discarded sheets and a lot of starting and
stopping of the machine to straighten up the messes that
resulted from improper feeding Thompson reported his
2 When a log is split in half in quarters or otherwise each individual
piece is called a flitch
238 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
observations of Youngs performance to Kilpatrick and
told the employee to contact Kilpatrick at 1 p in the
next day When Young reached Kilpatrick by phone at 2
p in the next day Kilpatrick terminated his employment
indicating he could draw unemployment
On Friday February 20 Kilpatrick contacted Eugene
McGaha and offered him the feeder job on #2 dryer on
the second shift McGaha asked if Kilpatrick thought he
could perform the work and Kilpatrick assured him he
could 4
McGaha was hired by Respondent in 1975 He worked
in the maintenance department for 3 to 4 years repairing
tuning and servicing towmotors and/or forklifts After
working on the machines he tested them Throughout
his employment he drove a forklift about once a month
to unload and warehouse acid delivered to the facility
During the 7 years preceding the strike he was classified
as a truckdnver He drove a pickup truck and flatbed
truck McGaha indicated he also substituted for the clerk
in the toolroom of the maintenance department while
driving a truck In that job he checked tools in and out
He was a licensed driver and possessed a company It
cense to drive a forklift As a driver he worked the first
shift and was paid $6 90 per hour in his labor grade 7 po
sition
Thompson testified that when McGaha reported for
work on Monday February 23 he briefed him and dem
onstrated how the feeder job on the #2 vacuum dryer
was to be accomplished He indicated that McGaha like
Hill experienced difficulty loading the scissors lift and
experienced difficulty when feeding the dryer Thomp
son claimed he went to the #2 vacuum dryer repeatedly
to explain demonstrate reexplain and redemonstrate the
job but McGaha just could not or would not do the job
McGaha testified his left arm was 15 to 20 percent dis
abled and he called John Coleman his former supervisor
in the maintenance department on Tuesday to ask if they
were setting him up to fire him indicating his disability
may not permit him to perform the dryer feeder job He
testified Coleman said he would call him back but he
never did When McGaha reported for work on Wednes
day February 25 he was told he was to see Kilpatrick
When he went to the latter s office Kilpatrick terminat
ed him indicating he could draw unemployment
While interrogating Kilpatrick as an adverse witness
counsel for the General Counsel caused Kilpatrick to
review information in the personnel files of approximate
ly 34 employees In the process he established inter alia
that employee Cindy Jackson was in Hill s job when the
strike ended and that employee Cindy Burton who had
less seniority than Hill was given Hill s prestrike job
after Hill was terminated on February 18 1987 Similar
ly the record revealed openings in Young s prestrike job
of flitch cleaner were filled by employees Howard
Tutor Jeff Taylor and Jackie Jackson on April 22 May
9 and July 22 1987 respectively 5 Finally although the
4 McGaha testified he had surgery on his left arm about a year before
the hearing and he claimed Kilpatrick was aware the arm was 15 to 20
percent disabled
5 The named employees were all junior in service to Young
records revealed that employee Larry McCallum who
was in McGaha s prestrike truckdriver job when the
strike ended remains in that job counsel for the General
Counsel sought to show that certain forklift and/or relat
ed jobs which McGaha could arguably perform were
awarded to employees with less seniority than McGaha
after he was terminated in February 1987
In support of its claim that Hill Young and McGaha
performed poorly on the #2 vacuum dryer job Re
spondent placed in evidence as its exhibits 2 through 13
portions of personnel files of employees and production
records to show that other employees including persons
allegedly placed on vacuum dryers for the first time ex
perienced better production than the alleged discrimina
tees I have reviewed each of the exhibits and see no
need to analyze them at length here Suffice it to say
they reveal that other employees placed on the #2 dryer
feeder experienced significantly higher production than
Hill McGaha and Young 6
Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsels contention in the instant case is
that the alleged discriminatees as economic strikers
were entitled by virtue of Laidlaw Corp 171 NLRB
1366 (1968) to their prestrike jobs or to substantially
equivalent jobs when vacancies occurred and that Re
spondent could not lawfully deprive them of such right
by recalling them to jobs they could not perform and
thereafter terminating them
On the other hand Respondent contends that when
economic strikers accept recall to jobs other than their
prestrike jobs they enjoy no exemption from uniformly
applicable conditions of work and forfeit their right to
future recall to their prestrike jobs or substantially equiv
alent jobs if they are unable to perform the jobs they
accept and are terminated for that reason
In Laidlaw Corp supra the Board held at 1369-1370
that economic strikers who unconditionally
apply for reinstatement at a time when their post
tions are filled by permanent replacements (1)
remain employees and (2) are entitled to full rein
statement upon the departure of replacements unless
they have in the meantime acquired regular and
substantially equivalent employment or the employ
er can sustain his burden of proof that the failure to
offer full reinstatement was for legitimate and sub
stantial business reasons
If an employer fails to sustain his burden of proof a re
fusal to reinstate employees after an economic strike con
stitutes an unfair labor practice notwithstanding the ab
sence of animus or bad faith for such conduct dis
courage[s] employees from exercising their rights to or
ganize and to strike guaranteed by §§ 7 and 13 of the
Act NLRB v Fleetwood Trailer Co 389 U S 375 378
(1967)
Although Respondent stressed the fact that the dryer
feeder job to which the alleged discriminatees were all
5 Young s statistics were markedly higher than those of Hill and
McGaha
DAVID R WEBB CO 239
recalled was a so called entry level job which individ
uals with no training should be able to perform it does
not contend the alleged discriminatees were recalled to
jobs that were substantially equivalent to their prestrike
positions Indeed I would reject such a contention if it
were advanced Thus the record reveals Young worked
in a labor grade 3 job before the strike and McGaha
worked in a labor grade 7 job prior to the strike All
three alleged discriminatees worked the first shift before
the strike In the circumstances described the dryer
feeder job on the second shift did not constitute substan
tially equivalent employment for any of the alleged dis
criminatees H & F Binch Co 188 NLRB 720 724-725
(1971) Providence Medical Center 243 NLRB 714 744
(1979)
Remaining for resolution then is whether Respondent
has shown that its failure to offer the alleged discrimina
tees full reinstatement was for legitimate and substantial
business reasons Respondent contends that it was legally
obligated to offer the alleged discriminatees the feeder
position and that once they accepted the position it
was legally entitled to treat them like it would any em
ployee placed in the job under discussion Explaining
that when employees are placed on jobs they cannot per
form efficiently employees are uniformly transferred or
terminated it claims it lawfully terminated the alleged
discriminatees
My review of Laidlaw and its progeny fails to reveal a
situation wherein the Board has decided the precise issue
posed by Respondent Respondent claims however that
the issue was decided in its favor in Weyerhaeuser Co
274 NLRB 972 (1985 ) and Lehigh Metal Fabricators 267
NLRB 568 (1983 ) In point of fact it relies on dicta set
forth in those decisions by Judge Harmatz Thus in
Weyerhaeuser supra at 974 the Judge stated
Under the Act strikers are to be treated in the same
fashion upon their unconditional offer to return to
work as would have been the case had they not
participated in a strike Absent specific evidence of
antiunion motivation economic strikers are entitled
to no more or no less They enjoy no exemption
from uniformly applicable conditions of work
which are unrelated to strike activity and which fail
to prejudice the strikers on the basis of worktime
lost due to participation in a strike
In Lehigh supra at 575 he stated
employer misgivings concerning the qualifica
tions of an economic striker are to be tested on the
job through recall with the employer later permit
ted to take appropriate action if the recalled striker
is in fact unqualified or cannot do the work
Although the above quoted comments were appropri
ately set forth in Weyerhaeuser and Lehigh Metal neither
case stands for the proposition that an employer can ex
tinguish an economic strikers right to his or her pre
strike job or to substantially equivalent position by offer
ing the striker a job he or she cannot perform and there
after terminating the strikers employee status for failure
to perform adequately Instead in Weyerhaeuser the issue
involved the rights of economic strikers versus the rights
of nonstrikers in a situation when a plant had been closed
so long that nonstriking employees contractual recall
rights had expired and the issue was whether economic
strikers enjoyed superior recall rights when the plant re
opened merely because they had engaged in a strike On
the other hand the issue in Lehigh Metal was whether
economic strikers could be deprived recall because the
employers subjective view was that they would be
unable to perform available work because of changes in
the skill level of such work
Patently the above quoted remarks extracted from
Weyerhaeuser and Lehigh were made in a context where
in the right of economic strikers to their prestrike jobs
was under discussion The comments are clearly inappli
cable here where recall was to a lesser job that was not
substantially equivalent to the prestrike jobs held by the
alleged discriminatees
There may conceivably be circumstances in which an
employer would be justified in terminating an economic
striker who had been recalled to a job other than his or
her prestrike position but the facts in the instant case fail
to establish that Respondent terminated Hill Young and
McGaha for legitimate and substantial business reasons
The reason assigned for the termination of each of the
employees was failure to perform the dryer feeder job to
Respondents satisfaction Respondent concedes the em
ployees could have refused recall to the job under dis
cussion without losing their employee status Moreover
it is clear that by accepting and subsequently leaving a
job that was not substantially equivalent to their pre
strike positions at an employer other than Respondent
the employees would have retained their status as Re
spondent employees and they would have been entitled
to their prestrike positions when they became available
In the circumstances described I find Respondent has
failed to sustain its burden of proving that Hill Young
and McGaha were deprived of their right to full rein
statement for legitimate and substantial business reasons
Although I have rejected Respondents contention that
it could in effect treat the alleged discriminatees as new
employees in the factual situation presented I note the
instant record affirmatively reveals Respondent treated
the alleged discriminatees discriminatorily Thus as
noted supra the record reveals that during the period
preceding the strike both Hill and Young were assigned
to jobs which they failed to perform satisfactorily They
were disqualified on those jobs and were thereafter trans
ferred to work they could perform Obviously Hill and
Young were treated differently in February 1987 and no
explanation was offered for what would appear to be a
failure by Respondent to follow its past practice when
regular employees were placed on jobs they were unable
to perform Although McGaha was not shown to have
been disqualified on any job before the strike he testified
he was partially disabled when he was recalled to the
dryer feeder job and he claims he told Supervisor Cole
man his disability might prevent him from performing
the dryer feeder job Additionally McGaha claimed Kil
patrick was aware of his disability In the circumstances
described it would appear Respondent was aware
240 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McGaha would be unable to perform the dryer feeder
job to supervisions satisfaction The fact that McGaha
was the third person recalled to the job after two re
called strikers had failed to satisfactorily perform lends
substance to McGaha s assertion to supervision that he
was being set up when he was recalled to the dryer
feeder job
In sum I find that in the circumstances presented in
the instant case Respondent did not fulfill its Laidlaw
obligations by recalling the alleged discnminatees to jobs
that were not substantially equivalent to their prestrike
jobs and terminating them when they were unable to
perform satisfactorily I find as alleged that by terminat
ing the employment status of Hill Young and McGaha
on February 17 19 and 25 1987 respectively and
thereby terminating their preferential recall rights Re
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 David R Webb Co Inc is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and
(7) of the Act
2 Teamsters Local 135 is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 By engaging in the unlawful acts described in sec
tion III above Respondent has engaged in and is engag
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
4 The above described unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer
tarn unfair labor practices it shall be recommended that
it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the pole
cies of the Act
Having found that Respondent discriminated against
Alice Hill Rex Young and Eugene McGaha by terms
nating their employment status and preferential recall
rights and having found that the prestrike positions held
by Hill and Young became vacant after Respondent en
gaged in the unlawful conduct described I shall recom
mend that Respondent offer Hill and Young immediate
and full reinstatement to their prestrike positions without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privi
leges As the record fails to reveal that McGaha s pre
strike position became vacant before the time the hearing
was held in this case I shall recommend that Respondent
be required to offer McGaha immediate and full rein
statement to his prestrike position if a vacancy in such
position has occurred since the hearing here was held
without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges If no such vacancy has occurred in McGaha s
prestrike position I recommend Respondent be required
to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to a sub
stantially equivalent position of employment Respondent
will be required to make each of the alleged discnmina
tees whole for any loss of pay they suffered as a result of
the discrimination practiced against them from the date
they should have been reinstated to the date of valid
offers of reinstatement The date McGaha should have
been offered reinstatement shall be left for resolution at
the compliance stage of this proceeding Loss of backpay
and interest shall be computed in the manner prescribed
in New Horizons for the Retarded 283 NLRB 1173
(1987) 7
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record I issue the following recommend
ed8
ORDER
The Respondent David R Webb Co Inc Edin
burgh Indiana its officers agents successors and as
signs shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Recalling economic strikers to jobs that are not
substantially equivalent to their prestrike positions and
terminating their employment status and preferential
recall rights when they are unable to perform the jobs to
which they are recalled
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with re
straining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following action necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act
(a) Offer Alice Hill and Rex Young immediate and full
reinstatement to their prestrike positions of employment
and offer Eugene McGaha immediate and full reinstate
ment to either his prestrike position or to a substantially
equivalent position of employment in each case without
prejudice to the employees seniority or other rights and
privileges and make them whole for the discrimination
practiced against them in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of this decision
(b) Remove from its files all reference to the dis
charges of Alice Hill Rex Young and Eugene McGaha
and inform the named employees that such records will
not be used as the basis for future action against them
(c) Preserve and on request make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying all pay
roll records social security payment records timecards
personnel records and reports and all other records nec
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order
(d) Post at its Edinburgh Indiana facility copies of the
attached notice marked Appendix 9 Copies of the
r See generally Isis Plumbing Co 138 NLRB 716 (1962) In accordance
with the decision in New Horizons for the Retarded interest on and after
January 1 1987 shall be computed at the short term Federal rate for
the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1987 amendment to 26 U S C
§ 6621 Interest on amounts accrued prior to January 1 1987 (the effec
tive date of the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621) shall be computed
in accordance with Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977)
8 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 put
poses
9 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
DAVID R WEBB CO 241
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 25 after being signed by Respondents authorized
representative shall be posted by Respondent immediate
ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered defaced or covered by any other maters
al
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re
spondent has taken to comply
A4ENDIX
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
WE WILL NOT recall economic strikers to jobs that are
not substantially equivalent to their prestrike positions
and terminate their employment status and preferential
recall rights when they are unable to perform the jobs to
which they are recalled
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 offer Alice Hill and Rex Young immediate
and full reinstatement to their prestrike positions of em
ployment and offer Eugene McGaha immediate and full
reinstatement to either his prestrike position or to a sub
stantially equivalent position of employment in each
case without prejudice to the employees seniority or
other rights and privileges and make them whole for the
discrimination practiced against them in the manner set
forth in the remedy section of this decision
WE WILL remove from our files all reference to the
discharges of Alice Hill Rex Young and Eugene
McGaha and inform the named employees that such
records will not be used as the basis for future action
against them
DAVID R WEBB CO INC