Double D Mining, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1981

257 N.L.R.B. 938 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Double D Mining, Inc. and International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 627, AFL-CIO.
Cases 16-CA-9121 and 16-CA-9263
August 24, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
Upon charges filed on May 6, 1980, in Case 16-
CA-9121 and July 17, 1980, in Case 16-CA-9263,
by International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 627, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and
duly served on Double D Mining, Inc., herein
called Respondent, the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, by the Acting Re-
gional Director for Region 16, issued an order con-
solidating cases and a consolidated complaint on
September 12, 1980, against Respondent, alleging
that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended. Copies of the charges and
the consolidated complaint and notice of hearing
before an administrative law judge were duly
served on the parties to this proceeding. Respond-
ent failed to file a timely answer.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
consolidated complaint alleges in substance that
Respondent interrogated its employees about their
union activities; threatened them with various re-
prisals, including plant closure, discharge, and vio-
lence, because of their support for the Union; dis-
charged or laid off the unit employees and refused
to reinstate them because of their union activity;
and refused to bargain with the Union, though re-
quested to do so, as the duly certified collective-
bargaining representative of its employees in the
unit found appropriate. The consolidated complaint
also alleges that Respondent has refused to bargain
with the Union by unilaterally terminating the bar-
gaining unit employees and shutting down its mine
and reopening it under the operation of a contrac-
tor from out of State.
On November 5, 1980, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment based on Respondent's failure
to file an answer as required by Section 102.20 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended. Thereafter, on November 17, 1980, the
Board issued an order transferring the matter to the
Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the
Motion for Summary Judgment should not be
granted. Respondent did not file a response to the
Notice To Show Cause and, accordingly, the alle-
257 NLRB No. 136
gations of the Motion for Summary Judgment
stand uncontroverted.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides as follows:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer there-
to. The respondent shall specifically admit,
deny, or explain each of the facts alleged in
the complaint, unless the respondent is without
knowledge, in which case the respondent shall
so state, such statement operating as a denial.
All allegations in the complaint, if no answer
is filed, or any allegation in the complaint not
specifically denied or explained in an answer
filed, unless the respondent shall state in the
answer that he is without knowledge, shall be
deemed to be admitted to be true and shall be
so found by the Board, unless good cause to
the contrary is shown.
The consolidated complaint and notice of hear-
ing served on Respondent specifically states that,
unless an answer to the consolidated complaint is
filed within 10 days from service thereof, "all of
the allegations in the consolidated complaint shall
be deemed to be admitted to be true and may be so
found by the Board." According to the uncontro-
verted allegations of the Motion for Summary
Judgment and exhibits attached, a copy of the
order consolidating cases and the consolidated
complaint and notice of hearing was served on
September 15, 1980, by regular mail upon Dallis
Addis, Respondent's alleged owner, and by certi-
fied mail upon attorney Stephen Andrew, as Re-
spondent's representative. By letter of the same
date, attorney Andrew advised Addis that a timely
answer was due on or before September 22, 1980,
or summary judgment would be taken against the
Company, and that he was not in a position to file
such an answer because he had not been requested
to represent Respondent in this matter. Further, ac-
cording to the Motion for Summary Judgment,
when no timely answer was filed, counsel for the
General Counsel called the offices of both Addis
and attorney Gene (Mike) Kelly, as representatives
of Respondent, and in the call to Addis' office his
secretary was advised of the General Counsel's in-
tention to file a Motion for Summary Judgment
938
DOUBLE D MINING, INC.
unless an answer was received. On October 20,
1980, counsel for the General Counsel forwarded a
letter, via certified mail, to Addis and attorney
Kelly, requesting prompt filing of an answer.
On October 24, 1980, a letter was received from
Loretta Mapes, Respondent's personnel manager,
requesting an extension of time in which to file an
answer. By certified mail, the Acting Regional Di-
rector for Region 16 voluntarily extended such
time until the close of business on October 30,
1980, warning Respondent that, unless an answer
was received within that time, a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment would be made. Thereafter, on
November 5, 1980, no answer having been re-
ceived, counsel for the General Counsel filed the
instant Motion for Summary Judgment.
On November 21, 1980, the Board received a
letter from attorney Kelly, requesting that Re-
spondent be allowed to file its answer out of time,
because a "unique blend of circumstances" had led
to Respondent's delay in presenting its answer.
There was no affidavit of service showing service
on the parties of this letter and no other indication
that service was made. On December 3, 1980, at-
torney Kelly made an additional request for an ex-
tension of time. The Board subsequently granted an
extension of time to file an answer to December 22,
1980. No answer to the complaint was timely
filed.
As noted, Respondent did not file a timely
answer to the complaint, despite the extensions
granted by the Acting Regional Director and the
Board; nor did it file a response to the Notice To
Show Cause. No good cause to the contrary
having been shown, in accordance with the rule set
forth above, the allegations of the complaint are
deemed to be admitted and found to be true. Ac-
cordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary
Judgment.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, Double D Mining, Inc., is, and has
been at all times material herein, an Oklahoma cor-
poration, with offices located at Route 4, Box 279,
Claremore, Oklahoma, where it is engaged in the
business of strip mining. During the 12-month
period preceding issuance of the consolidated com-
' On January 15, 1980, Respondent filed a pleading entitled "Reply to
Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hear-
ing," after which counsel for the General Counsel filed a response to the
untimely reply of Respondent. By letter, dated January 30, 1981, the As-
sociate Executive Secretary advised attorney Kelly that since, the docu-
ment was received outside the extended time, it could not be forwarded
to the Board for consideration.
plaint, a representative period, Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations
shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly
to customers located outside the State of Oklaho-
ma.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 627, AFL-CIO, is now, and has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The 8(a)(5) and (1) Violations
1. The unit
The following employees of Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees
employed by Double D Mining, Inc., at its
Blue Creek No. I mine located four miles west
of Foyil, Oklahoma, excluding all other em-
ployees, office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
2. The certification
On or about March 4, 1980, a majority of the
employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit,
by a secret-ballot election conducted under the su-
pervision of the Regional Director for Region 16,
designated and selected the Union as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Respondent, and since that date the Union has
been the exclusive representaive of said employees
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 2 On
June 23, 1980, the National Labor Relations Board
certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in said
unit.
Commencing on March 4, 1980, the Union was
available and prepared to bargain with Respondent,
and on or about June 27, 1980, and at all times
thereafter, it has requested Respondent to bargain
collectively with it as the collective-bargaining rep-
' See Mike O'Connor Chevrolet-Buick-GMC Ca. Inc. et. al., 209 NLRB
701, 703 (1974), enforcement denied on other grounds 512 F.2d 684 (8th
Cir. 1975), and the cases cited at fns. 10 and II of said Board Decision.
939
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
resentative of all the employees in the appropriate
unit.
Commencing on or about March 4, 1980, and at
all times thereafter, Respondent refused, and has
continued to refuse, to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit in that, without notification to or consultation
with the Union, Respondent unilaterally, on March
4, laid off or terminated all bargaining unit employ-
ees and shut down its Blue Creek No. 1 mining op-
eration, and, thereafter, in June 1980, reopened that
mine under the operation of an out-of-state con-
tractor. Respondent also refused to bargain with
the Union when, on July 3, 1980, it advised the
Union that it would not bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
March 4, 1980, and at all times thereafter, refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit, in the manner set forth above, and that,
by such refusal, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
B. The 8(a)(3) and (1) Violations
On or about January 22, 1980, Respondent dis-
charged its employee Robert P. Tice, and, on or
about March 4, 1980, discharged or laid off its em-
ployees Bill Dewitt, Ronnie Potter, Teddy Ross,
Michall Mittrell, David Williams, Buddy Smith,
Ronald Hayworth, Roy Hey, Chris Hughes,
Samuel Adams, and Larry Nutter, and at all times
material herein has refused to reinstate them. Re-
spondent discharged or laid off and failed or re-
fused to reinstate the aforenamed employees be-
cause they engaged in activity on behalf of the
Union or in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.
Accordingly, we find that, by discharging or
laying off and refusing to reinstate the above-
named employees, Respondent has discriminated
against its employees in regard to their terms and
conditions of employment, and that, by such con-
duct, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
C. The Independent 8(a)(1) Violations
On or about December 20, 1979, and January 3
and March 4, 1980, Respondent interrogated its
employees concerning their union activities and de-
sires, and the union activities and desires of other
of its employees. On or about December 20 and 21,
1979, and January 3 and 10 and March 4, 1980, Re-
spondent threatened to close the mine down if the
employees voted in the Union, and during the
period of January 15 to 22, 1980, told an employee
of having made more arduous, onerous, and less
desirable work assignments to employees in order
to discourage them from becoming or remaining
members of the Union or giving any assistance or
support to it. On March 3, 1980, Respondent
threatened to break an employee's legs, and, on
March 4, 1980, threatened its employees with dis-
charge or other reprisals if they became or re-
mained members of the Union or gave any assist-
ance or support to it.
Accordingly, we find that by the aforesaid con-
duct Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and that, by
such conduct, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act,
we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom,
and take certain affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act. Thus, we shall
order it to restore the status quo ante by reestablish-
ing its own operation of the Blue Creek No. 1 mine
and reinstating the unlawfully discharged or laid-
off employees to their former positions or substan-
tially equivalent positions of employment, making
them whole for any losses resulting from the dis-
crimination practiced against them by paying them
backpay from the date of their unlawful discharge
or layoff to the date Respondent offers them full
and proper reinstatement. 3 Backpay shall be com-
puted in the manner set forth in F W Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and interest shall
be paid on all backpay as prescribed in Florida
' See Townhouse T V & Appliances, 213 NLRB 716 (1974).
940
DOUBLE D MINING, INC.
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977); see, gen-
erally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962).
We shall also order Respondent to recognize and
bargain with the Union as the representative of its
employees in the appropriate unit, and embody any
understanding reached in a signed agreement. Fi-
nally, we shall require Respondent to cease and
desist from in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act. By its unfair labor practices, Respondent has
shown an utter disregard of those employee rights
and the principles and purposes of the Act. Conse-
quently, we conclude that such broad injunctive
relief is necessary to fully expunge the effects of
Respondent's unlawful conduct.'
In order to insure that the employees will be ac-
corded the statutorily prescribed services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by law, we shall construe the initial year of certifi-
cation to begin on the date that Respondent com-
plies with the Order set forth below. See Mar-Jac
Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Com-
merce d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226 (1962),
enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379
U.S. 817; Burnett Construction Company, 149
NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th
Cir. 1965).
In addition to requiring Respondent to post
copies of the notice, we shall order it to mail
copies of the notice to each employee employed by
it in the appropriate unit at his last known address.
We find this requirement warranted in light of Re-
spondent's unlawful shutdown of the plant and ter-
mination of the unit employees, and the extensive-
ness of Respondent's unfair labor practices, all of
which were motivated by a desire to rid itself of
the Union. This will insure that all the employees
will be apprised of the unlawful nature of Respond-
ent's acts and assure that they will not be repeat-
ed.5
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Double D Mining, Inc., is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 627, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees
employed by Double D Mining, Inc., at its Blue
'See Hickmott Foods Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979).
'Eastern Maine Medical Center, 253 NLRB 224 (1980).
Creek No. 1 mine located 4 miles west of Foyil,
Oklahoma, excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for collective bargaining purposes
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since on or about March 4, 1980, the Union
has been the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act, and since June 23, 1980, has been
and now is the certified and exclusive representa-
tive of said unit employees.
5. By refusing on or about March 4, 1980, and at
all times thereafter, including July 23, 1980, to bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the appropri-
ate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. By unilaterally, without notification to or con-
sultation with the Union, laying off or terminating
all bargaining unit employees, shutting down its
Blue Creek No. I mining operation, and subse-
quently reopening it under the operation of a sub-
contractor, Respondent has refused to bargain col-
lectively with the Union, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in the appropriate
unit, and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. By on or about January 22, and March 4,
1980, discharging or laying off its employees
Robert P. Tice, Bill DeWitt, Ronnie Potter, Teddy
Ross, Michall Mittrell, David Williams, Buddy
Smith, Ronald Hayworth, Roy Hey, Chris Hughes,
Samuel Adams, and Larry Nutter and thereafter
failing or refusing to reinstate them because they
engaged in activity on behalf of the Union or in
other protected concerted activity, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
8. By interrogating the employees in the appro-
priate unit concerning their union activities and de-
sires, and the union activities and desires of its
other employees; by threatening to close the mine
down if the employees voted the Union in, and
telling an employee of having made less desirable
work assignments to employees in order to discour-
age them from becoming members of the Union or
giving any assistance or support to it; by threaten-
ing to break the legs of an employee; and by
threatening its employees with discharge or other
reprisals if they became or remained members of
the Union or gave any assistance or support to it,
941
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(l) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Double D Mining, Inc., Claremore, Oklahoma, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collective-
ly with International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, Local 627, AFL-CIO, herein the Union, as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees
employed by Double D Mining, Inc., at its
Blue Creek No. 1 mine located four miles west
of Foyil, Oklahoma, excluding all other em-
ployees, office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the
Union by shutting down its Blue Creek No. 1
mining operation, terminating the unit employees,
and reopening the mine under the operation of a
subcontractor, or by making any other changes in
the terms or conditions of employment of the unit
employees without first notifying and consulting
with the Union and affording it the opportunity to
bargain about those subjects.
(c) Discharging, laying off, or otherwise discrim-
inating against employees in the appropriate unit
and failing and refusing to reinstate them because
they engaged in activity on behalf of the Union or
other concerted activity for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
(d) Interrogating its employees about their union
activities and desires and the union activities and
desires of other of its employees.
(e) Threatening to close its Blue Creek No. I
mine if the employees voted the Union in.
(f) Threatening employees by telling them of
having made more arduous, onerous, and less desir-
able work assignments to its employees in order to
discourage them from becoming or remaining
members of the Union or giving any assistance or
support to it.
(g) Threatening to break the legs of any of its
employees or to engage in any other violence
against its employees because of their union or
other concerted activity for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or mutual aid or protection.
(h) Threatening its employees with discharge or
other reprisals if they become or remain members
of the Union or give any assistance or support to it.
(i) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Reestablish its own Blue Creek No. I mining
operation, and reinstate the employees who were
terminated when it unilaterally shut down that op-
eration on or about March 4, 1980.
(b) Upon reestablishment of its own Blue Creek
No. 1 mining operation, offer Robert P. Tice, Bill
DeWitt, Ronnie Potter, Teddy Ross, Michall Mit-
trell, David Williams, Buddy Smith, Ronald
Hayworth, Roy Hey, Chris Hughes, Samuel
Adams, and Larry Nutter immediate and full rein-
statement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed by them.
(c) Make the aforenamed employees whole for
any loss of earnings or benefits they may have suf-
fered due to the discrimination practiced against
them in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Recognize the Union and, upon request, bar-
gain collectively with it as the exclusive bargaining
representative of Respondent's employees in the
appropriate unit with respect to wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(e) Notify the Union before making any changes
in, or which would effect, the terms and conditions
of employment of the employees in the appropriate
unit, and afford the Union the opportunity to bar-
gain about such matters.
(f) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(g) Post at its Blue Creek No. I mine, located 4
miles west of Foyil, Oklahoma, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said
6 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
942
DOUBLE D MINING, INC.
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 16, after being duly signed by Re-
spondent's representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by Respondent for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. Copies
of the notice shall also be mailed to the last known
address of all employees in the appropriate unit.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16,
in writing within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps have been taken to comply here-
with.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bar-
gain collectively with International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 627, AFL-CIO, as
the bargaining representative in the following
appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees
employed by Double D Mining, Inc., at its
Blue Creek No. 1 mine located four miles
west of Foyil, Oklahoma, excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT discharge or lay off and
thereafter fail or refuse to reinstate our em-
ployees because they engaged in activity on
behalf of the Union or in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with the Union by shutting down our Blue
Creek No. 1 mining operation, terminating the
employees, and reopening the mine under the
operation of a subcontractor, or by making
any other changes in the terms and conditions
of employment of the unit employees without
first notifying and consulting with the Union
and affording it the opportunity to bargain
about those subjects.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees
about their union activities and desires and the
union activities and desires of other of our em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our Blue
Creek No. 1 mine if the employees vote the
Union in.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees by
telling them of having made more arduous,
onerous, and less desirable work assigments in
order to discourage them from becoming or
remaining members of the Union or giving any
assistance or support to it.
WE WILL NOT threaten to break the legs of
any of our employees or to engage in any
other violence against them because of their
union or other concerted activity for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
discharge or other reprisals if they become or
remain members of the Union or give any as-
sistance or support to it.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL reestablish our own Blue Creek
No. I mining operation and reinstate our em-
ployees who were terminated when we unilat-
erally shut down that operation on or about
March 14, 1980.
WE WILL, upon reestablishment of our own
Blue Creek No. I mining operation, offer
Robert P. Tice, Bill DeWitt, Ronnie Potter,
Teddy Ross, Michall Mittrell, David Williams,
Buddy Smith, Ronald Hayworth, Roy Hey,
Chris Hughes, Samuel Adams, and Larry
Nutter immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed by
them.
WE WILL make the aforementioned employ-
ees whole for any loss of earnings or benefits
they may have suffered due to our unlawful
discrimination against them together with in-
terest.
WE WILL recognize the Union and, upon re-
quest, bargain collectively with it as the exclu-
sive representative of all our employees in the
appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
943
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL notify the Union before making
any changes in, or which will effect, the terms
and conditions of employment of our employ-
ees in the unit described above, and WE WILL
afford the Union the opportunity to bargain
about such matters.
DOUBLE D MINING, INC.
944