Forest Industries Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 1092 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Forest Industries Company and Communica-
tions Workers of America . Case 15-CA-2657
May 26,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On October 4, 1966, Trial Examiner Arthur M.
Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
further found that Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommended dismissal as to them.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications:
We agree with the Trial Examiner that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by its
application of a no-solicitation rule prohibiting
solicitation during "working hours." As illustrated
by Assistant "Foreman Cooksey's disciplinary
treatment of employee McMillan for distributing
union leaflets on his own time with the admonition
that the prohibition against solicitation during
working hours "meant 24 hours a day," Respondent,
at least in this instance, interpreted and applied the
rule in an unlawful manner. However, we do not
agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent, in
the circumstances of this case, violated Section
8(a)(1) by denying the Union's request for an equal
opportunity on company time and premises to reply
to Respondent's coercive antiunion speeches. The
record in this case does not reveal that the
Respondent -through its published rules or
otherwise, seriously impaired the Union's
opportunity to engage in organizational activity at
the plant site .2 Apart from the incident involving
McMillan, there is no evidence that the Respondent
disciplined or prevented other employees from
soliciting for the Union on nonworking time. Indeed,
several employees testified that they had solicited
for the Union on nonworking time while at the plant.
Accordingly, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's
finding that the Respondent violated the Act in this
respect.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, Forest Industries Company, Forest,
Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein
modified:
1. Delete the following clause from paragraph 1(a)
of the Recommended Order:
"... refusing to afford to the Union an equal
opportunity on company time and premises to
answer its coercive captive audience speech and the
representations of `And Women Must Weep' ..."
2. Delete paragraph 2(b) from the Recommended
Order, and renumber paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d)
consecutively.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant
complaint be dismissed to the extent that it alleges
unfair labor practices not found herein.
' These findings and conclusions are based, in part, upon
credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner , to which the
Respondent has excepted, alleging that the Trial Examiner was
biased and prejudiced. After a careful review of the record, we
conclude that the Trial Examiner 's credibility findings are not
contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence.
Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing those findings.
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d
362 (C.A. 3). We reject the charge of bias and prejudice on the
part of the Trial Examiner.
2 Cf. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 145 NLRB 846, enfd. as
modified 339 F.2d 889 (C.A. 6).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner: Upon an
amended charge filed on January 12, 1966, by the
Communications Workers of America (herein called CWA
or the Union), the complaint herein issued on January 31,
1966, and was amended on April 25, 1966, alleging that
Forest Industries Company (herein called Respondent or
the Company) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called
the Act). The alleged 8(a)(1) violations included
discriminatory application of a no-distribution rule,
interrogation of employees as to their protected activities,
creation of the impression of surveillance, solicitation of
employee withdrawal from the Union, the required viewing
by employees of the movie "And Women Must Weep," the
refusal to afford to the Union equal opportunity on
company time and premises to answer an unlawful captive
audience speech and the representations of that movie,
164 NLRB No. 145
FOREST INDUSTRIES CO. 1093
and other acts of interference. Section 8(a)(3) was alleged
to have been violated by the assignment of three-named
employees to less desirable work assignments and
subjecting those employees to ridicule and embarrassment
after they wore union emblems at work. Respondent
denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
All parties participated in the hearing conducted by me
at Forest, Mississippi, on June 1 and 2 and July 19 and 20,
1966, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. Oral
argument was waived and briefs were filed by all parties.
Based on the entire record in the case, on my reading of
the briefs, and from my observation of the witnesses and
their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged, the answer did not controvert,
and I find that Forest Industries Company, a subsidiary of
Sunbeam Corporation, is, and has been at all times
material herein, a Mississippi corporation with its
principal office and place of business in Forest,
Mississippi, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of clocks, food mixers, and related
products for Sunbeam Corporation.
During a representative 12-month period Respondent
manufactured, sold, and shipped from its Forest,
Mississippi, plant finished products valued in excess of
$50,000 to points outside the State of Mississippi. During
the same representative period Respondent, in the course
and conduct of its business operations, purchased
materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped
to its Mississippi plant from points outside that State.
Respondent 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 meets the
Board's standards for asserting jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Communications Workers of America is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Respondent 's Plant and Operations
Respondent ' s plant is located approximately 3 miles
east of the town of Forest on Highway 80, a heavily
traveled route between Meridian and Jackson,
Mississippi . Forest , the county seat of Scott County, had a
population in the 1960 census of 3,917. At the time of the
events herein Respondent employed over 800 persons who
traveled considerable distances, in some cases 35 miles or
more, to and from work.
The plant, built by a bond issue floated by Scott County
and owned by the county, is on a land area of 40 acres and
has 176,000 square feet under one roof.
The work force, some 65-70 percent of whom are
women, are obtained by the Company through the
Mississippi Employment Service and are required to
furnish Respondent with reputable references. The
operation is on a three-shift basis around the clock, but
approximately two-thirds of the workers are employed on
the first shift, from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., with a half-hour
lunch period and 12-minute breaks in the morning and
afternoon.
The plant property is set back about 50 yards from
Highway 80 and is reached by two access roads or
driveways leading off from the highway. Respondent, in
operation since the latter part of 1962, manufactures small
appliances and clocks.
B. Employees Meet to Discuss Concerted Efforts for a
Wage Increase: Respondent Reacts.
On or about April 25, 1965,1 a group of Respondent's
employees met by prearrangement at the American
Legion Lake. No union personnel were present and indeed
the word "union" was not mentioned. After general
discussion of a proposal that the men in the plant get
together to ask for a raise and walk out of the plant
together to get it, those in attendance agreed to meet
again.2
1. Paul instructs the supervisors
Within a day or two of this meeting at the American
Legion Lake, Charles Paul, Respondent's executive vice
president and general manager ,3 learned of the employees'
activities and immediately called a meeting of the
supervisors. Paul instructed the supervisors" to go out
among the employees and discover who was involved.
Under the impression that a union organizing campaign
had begun, Paul directed that the employees be told
Respondent did not want a union in the plant. The
supervisors were furthered ordered to report to Paul on
their soundings of employee sentiment toward a union.
Leadman Bright testified that pursuant to Paul's
instructions he spoke about the Union to most of the 100
employees he supervised and reported daily to Paul the
results of his inquires among the employees and his
findings as to who was for or against a union.
The alleged incidents of unlawful interrogation
hereinafter discussed are considered in light of Paul's
instructions to the supervisory staff. Holiday Inn of
Charleston, 147 NLRB 693; Sunbeam Plastics
Corporation, 144 NLRB 1010.
Unless otherwise indicated all dates herein were in 1965.
s This account of the meeting at the Legion Lake is based on
the testimony of Franklin Saterfiel Saterfiel and his wife Lottie,
both present employees of Respondent, were reluctant witnesses
for General Counsel It was their refusal to appear pursuant to
subpena which necessitated the continuance from June to July to
enable General Counsel to obtain a court order enforcing the
subpenas theretofore served on the Saterfiels . In crediting that
testimony of the Saterfiels adverse to Respondent , I have taken
into account their extreme reluctance to appear and so testify and
the fact that at the time of the trial they were in Respondent's
employ and therefore, in a sense , testifying under peril of repnsal.
Federal Envelope Company, A Division of Nationwide Papers
Incorporated, 147 NLRB 1030, 1036.
3 Between the hearing dates in June 1966 and those in July,
Paul was promoted to a position within the Company's
organization in Chicago and was no longer in the position
described
4It was stipulated that leadmen Jimmy Gibbs and Harvey
Budges were supervisors at all times material herein.
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Paul addresses the employees
During the afternoon of April 28, the employees working
the first shifts were assembled and addressed by General
Manager Paul. What Paul said on that occasion is in sharp
dispute.
Employee Franklin Saterfiel and his wife Lottie testified
Paul said he didn't want a union at the Company and, if
the employees valued their jobs with Respondent, not to
sign a union card. Lottie further testified that Paul said if
they were visited by union agents to report such calls to
their foreman or to the personnel manager.
Respondent introduced the text of a speech which Paul
identified as the one he delivered on April 28. At that time
I stated to the parties that I would rely on the proffered
text as being the one delivered to the employees to the
same extent that my examination of the record indicated I
could rely on Paul's testimony. As noted, I find that Paul's
testimony is unworthy of belief. Moreover, in his
identification of the text Paul stated he was sure of the
date on which he delivered that speech only because of the
date typed on the copy by his secretary. He was sure
however, that the speech was one prepared for delivery to
the employees by Kullman and Lang, Respondent's
attorneys, which he read in the plant. Assuming that the
speech introduced was one which Paul read to the
employees, that text does not rebut the Saterfiels'
testimony which I credit, for several prepared speeches
were read by Paul during the 2-week period before
May 12. General Counsel subpenaed all such speeches.
Respondent produced only the one in question while
stating there were others. It was wholly within
Respondent's power to produce the other written texts to
establish that the remarks attributed to Paul by the
Saterfiels were not in fact spoken. Respondent's
unexplained failure to adduce this material evidence
warrants the inference that had the texts of the other
speeches been introduced, they would not have supported
Paul's denials. N.L.R.B. v. Wallick and Schwalm
Company, et al., 198 F.2d 477, 483 (C.A. 3); Bechtel
Corporation, 141 NLRB 844, 853, footnote 9.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by Paul's threats voiced to the assembled
employees. Poray, Inc., 160 NLRB 697.
3. "And Women Must Weep"
On the day following Paul's coercive speech, the
employees were called to the lunchroom during working
hours where they were shown the movie "And Women
Must Weep ." On this occasion the male and female
employees on the first shift viewed the film separately.
The picture was shown to those employed on the second
and third shifts as well.
No extended discussion by me of this movie is needed at
this late date. The Board and Trial Examiners before me
have fully detailed this movie and I concur in and adopt
their description. See Carl T. Mason Co., Inc., 142 NLRB
480; Plochman and Harrison-Cherry Lane Foods, Inc.,
140 NLRB 130; Southwire Company, 159 NLRB 394;
Hawthorn Company, A Division of Kellwood Company, 166
NLRB No. 20. Moreover, in Southwire Company, supra,
the Board held that in the circumstances of that case, i.e.,
in the context of other violations of the Act, the showing of
the film violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The
circumstances of this case are the same and I find that by
showing the movie, "And Women Must Weep," in the
context of its other unfair labor practices, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Acts
C. The Union's Campaign Begins
The first union sponsored employee meeting was held
on Sunday, May 2, in a privately owned pine thicket some
12 to 15 miles north of Forest. Approximately 37
employees, all of whom signed union authorization cards,
attended. A six-man employee steering committee to
coordinate the organizing campaign was selected.
On May 10 a meeting was held at the Forest home of
Billy Pace, vice president of the CWA local in Meridian,
Mississippi, and a Southern Bell Telephone Co. employee.
This was a steering committee meeting attended by only
five employees and called to discuss organizing plans.
The Union on May 12 wrote to Respondent advising that
it was engaged in an organizational campaign among the
employees, protesting the showing of "And Women Must
Weep" and demanding equal time on company time and
premises to answer the representations made at captive
audience meetings of the employees, including the movie.
The union letter concluded that the Company was surely
aware that it would be "impossible" for CWA to locate all
of the employees for that purpose. The Company never
replied to this letter.
The next union meeting was held on May 13 at the home
of Franklin Saterfiel near Lake, Mississippi, in Newton
County, about 12 to 13 miles from the Forest area. At this
meeting the Union's letter of May 12 requesting equal time
was read to the 15 employees in attendance.
The following day leadman Harvey Bridges asked
Lottie Gibbs7 if there had been a big crowd at the union
meeting. Lottie replied she didn't know what Bridges was
talking about and went on to say that what she did after
leaving Respondent's plant was her own business. Bridges
insisted he had been told she was at the meeting. As noted,
the circumstances of Lottie Gibbs Saterfiel's appearance
in this proceeding adds to the value of her testimony.
Moreover, based on my observation of her demeanor while
5 General Manager Paul estimated that two -thirds of the total
working force was employed on the first shift I accept this figure
as being accurate though the manner in which Paul gave this
evidence was symptomatic of the evasive nature of his testimony
Paul's testimony was "grossly confusing , self-contradictory,
equivocal , evasive , and in part false " Tom Johnson , Inc., 154
NLRB 1352 For example, Paul testified that he "officially"
learned of the organizing campaign when he received a union
letter dated May 12 but admitted having been informed of the first
employee meeting the day after it was held Paul first testified he
did nothing in response to the employees interest in organizing
until after May 12 and then admitted making a number of
speeches before that date, showing the movie "And Women Must
Weep" and speaking to the assembled supervisors about the
Union on a number of occasions Moreover, during his two
sessions on the witness stand Paul 's demeanor did not evoke in
me a feeling of confidence in his veracity Accordingly, I attach no
weight to controverted testimony on his part unless it has the
strongest corroboration, Tidelands Marine Service, Inc., 140
NLRB 288, 299, enfd 338 F 2d 44 (C A. 5)
6 Accordingly, I do not deem it necessary for me to here
determine whether the screening of the film, standing alone,
violates the Act Nor do I pass upon the historical accuracy of the
events depicted in the movie
' Lottie Gibbs marriage to Franklin Saterfiel took place
subsequent to the events herein
FOREST INDUSTRIES CO. 1095
testifying I find her a credible witness. In addition, Lottie's
account of the incident is consistent with Bridges'
description of his conduct in carrying out Paul's
instructions to sound out employee sentiment on the
Union. Accordingly, I find that Bridges unlawfully
interrogated Lottie as alleged. The Rangaire Corporation,
157 NLRB 682.
The Union showed "Anatomy of a Lie," a movie
prepared as an answer to that shown by the Company, to a
meeting on May 18 attended by 58 employees at Golden
Lake, a county lake and picnic area about 25 miles north of
Forest. In addition, after a general discussion of the
organizing situation, a number of the employees present
signed a letter to be sent to Respondent, listing the
signatories as members of the Union 's organizing
committee.
Organizer J. B. Hanna and three aids attempted a
leaflet distribution at Respondent's plant on May 21. As
noted the plant is reached from Highway 80 by means of
two driveways from the main road. The union
representatives stationed themselves on public property
on either side of the driveways as employees droves into
the plant and attempted to pass leaflets through the car
windows to the occupants. Soon thereafter uniformed
plant guards9 placed trash cans on company property on
either side of the driveways and stationed themselves
alongside urging the employees to throw the leaflets away.
In addition a trash can was placed alongside the path
leading from the employee parking lot to the plant. The
leaflet distribution continued as the first-shift employees
left. At that time a traffic jam developed on the driveways
leading to the highway and as the guards directed traffic
Hanna heard them tell employees to run him over if he was
in the way saying he had no business there. Despite the
unfavorable circumstances a good number of employees
took leaflets.
Franklin Saterfiel was employed in the paint shop,
supervised by Foreman Billy Gordy. Some time before
May 26, Gordy gave Saterfiel a disciplinary warning10 for
failing to blow off mixer bases before painting. At that time
Gordy commented he knew Saterfiel felt he was being
picked on. Saterfiel replied that Respondent had been
doing so ever since the union campaign began. Gordy then
asked, "What about the Union?" Saterfiel denied knowing
anything about the Union, to which Gordy replied, "I'll bet
you don't." Thereafter, Saterfiel testified, his work was
watched more closely. Saterfiel testified to this
conversation. Gordy did not appear. I find the events
occurred as described by Saterfiel.
On May 26 the Union held a meeting at
Earl Davis Pond, about 13 miles from Forest. The meeting
place was reached by going "down a gravel road until you
reach the property, and go into a pasture and big lake area,
cattle ranch."i i Certain of the 50 employees in attendance
added their names to the organizing committee list
compiled at the Golden Lake meeting and additional
authorization cards were signed.
The morning after the meeting at Earl Davis Pond,
Foreman Gordy came to Saterfiel and asked, "Did you go
to the Union meeting last night where the people got drunk
and signed something they didn't know they signed?"
That same morning in a different part of the plant leadman
Jimmy Gibbs, after employee Pauline Culpepper denied
knowledge of a union meeting the night before, asked,
"You don't remember attending a meeting last night
where everybody got drunk and signed things they didn't
know about, and a man got shot?" Culpepper again denied
having attended the meeting. In Saterfiel's case a
discussion ensued with Gordy concerning things being
said about the women who had attended the union meeting
in the course of which both alluded to the fact they had
loaded guns at home. In further conversation with
Culpepper, Gibbs said he and Paul and at least 25 others
knew that she had been at the meeting. Gibbs then asked
if Culpepper wouldn't go to Paul and tell him she had not
been at the meeting. She replied she had nothing to tell
Paul. Gordy did not testify, and Gibbs explained that he
had been told by another employee of Culpepper's
attendance at the meeting and questioned her out of
"personal curiosity." As noted, Saterfiel's evidence
against Respondent carries additional weight because of
the circumstances of his appearance in this proceeding.
The similarity in the manner of interrogation by Gordy and
Gibbs supports an inference of planned inquiry by
Respondent. In view of Paul's instructions to the
supervisors to interrogate systematically the employees on
union sentiment , I find Gibbs' claim that he spoke to
Culpepper to satisfy his own curiosity incredible.
Moreover, Culpepper impressed me as earnestly
recounting the events as she recalled them and I credit her
in all respects. I find that Gordy and Gibbs unlawfully
interrogated employees concerning union meetings and
created the impression of surveillance of their protected
activities . J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc., 157 NLRB 869.
The Union held its next meeting on May 31 at the home
of Billy Pace, who had moved from Forest to the Hillsboro
community some 15 miles away. At the meeting
W. O. Stanley, the Union's state director, announced that
he had mailed the list of the organizing committee with 51
names to Respondent. At the request of some of the
employees green and white CWA buttons, slightly over an
inch in diameter, were distributed and extra pins were
given to members of the steering committee for
distribution to employees not present at that meeting. The
union representatives advised the employees to all put the
buttons on in the plant at the same time.
D. The Events of June 1
1. James McMillan puts union leaflets on workbenches
and receives disciplinary warnings
The first shift was scheduled to start work at 7 a.m. The
morning of June 1, James McMillan punched his timecard
about 6:38 a.m. and started placing union leaflets on the
clock lines which were not working at that time. Assistant
Foreman Jimmy Cooksey, who had been following
McMillan, picking up the leaflets as he did so, advised
s For all intents and purposes automobiles are the only means
employed by the working force for travel to and from work
0 The guards are supplied to Respondent by the Jackson Patrol
Service on a contract basis
10 The complaint alleged that Respondent instituted an
employee warning system and maintained and enforced the
warning system all to discriminate against union adherents and to
discourage union activity The evidence indicates that the
warning system predated the Union's campaign and was not
adopted to combat or undermine the Union Accordingly, I shall
recommend dismissal of this allegation The Rangaire
Corporation, supra Use of warnings as a means of harassment of
union adherents is subsumed by the 8(a)(3) violations, infra
' 1 Testimony of organizer Hanna.
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McMillan to read the bulletin board and said he imagined
that after doing so McMillan would himself pick up the
union literature. McMillan agreed that he had better read
what was posted.
On the bulletin board at that time was a notice which, in
one form or another had been posted since early in 1963.
This notice read:
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
This is a reminder of a Company rule against
solicitations during working hours.
During working time our employees are not
permitted to sell anything, to distribute literature or
other matter, to make collections, to engage in any
kind of solicitations, or in any way to interfere with
the work of other employees.
McMillan returned and after telling Cooksey he had
read the notice asked from what time he received pay.
Cooksey replied 7 a.m. McMillan then pointed out that the
notice referred to working hours and Cooksey answered,
"We work out here 24 hours a day." McMillan repeated he
was only paid 8 hours and Cooksey insisted the plant runs
24 hours a day. After Cooksey again stated the notice
meant 24 hours a day when it referred to working time, he
gave McMillan a disciplinary warning for distributing
union literature during working hours.
Later that day McMillan was called to the timeclock.
Cooksey pointed to a sign above the clock instructing
employees not to punch in earlier than 15 minutes before
starting time and asked why McMillan had done so.
McMillan explained that he always clocked in on arrival at
the plant. Cooksey then gave McMillan a disciplinary
warning for punching in early. McMillan testified he had
punched his timecard that early many times prior to this
occasion but had never received a warning before.
In addition to the notice on the bulletin board, since the
plant opened Respondent has had several signs posted
next to the driveways leading to the plant which read:
Outside Solicitations, Selling and Distribution of
Printed Matter Are Not Permitted on Company
Property.
Company Vice President Charles Paul testified that the
inside and outside rules applied equally to prohibit
employees from distributing union literature on company
property, whether it be production area or parking lot. 12
Respondent's "rule against solicitations during working
hours" violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Campbell Soup
Company, 159 NLRB 704. As shown by the application of
the rule to McMillan's activities the prohibition is so broad
as to interdict protected acts of employees during their
own nonworking time because some others may be at work
some other place in the large plant. Thus the rule applies
to all employee solicitation at any time and is, therefore,
presumptively unlawful. Republic Aviation Corporation v.
N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793.
While an employer may reasonably prohibit distribution
of union literature in working areas at any time (Stoddard-
Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615), McMillan was
disciplined, not because he placed union material on
tables in a working area, but because he did so at a time
when other employees were working at other places in the
plant . Accordingly, I find that the rule was enforced in
order to interfere with the employees ' activities under
Section 7 of the Act. Cf., The E. W. Buschman Company,
Incorporated , 153 NLRB 699; Delta Sportswear, Inc., 160
NLRB 300.
2. Paul posts the list of employee union organizers and a
number of employees wear their CWA buttons
On June 1, Paul posted throughout the plant copies of
the Union's letter of May 27 listing the names of the
organizing committee. Alongside each copy of the union
letter Respondent placed a notice signed by Paul advising
that "[n]o employee is going to receive any preferred
treatment just because the union names him on the
`organizing committee."' The notice continued that any
employee who failed to comply with company policy or did
not properly perform his duties would be subject to
discipline, including discharge.
That same day a number of employees began wearing
the union buttons which had been distributed at the union
meeting on May 31.
The events of that day and the next demonstrated that
for some employees having their names on the Union's
letter and the wearing of a CWA button did indeed mean
receiving "preferred treatment."
a. Pauline Culpepper
Pauline Culpepper, employed by Respondent since
April 1964, started wearing her CWA button on June 1. In
addition, her name appeared in the list of union organizing
committee members posted by Charles Paul that morning.
Shortly after she donned her union pin leadman Gibbs
commented he didn't think Culpepper had anything to do
with the Union. She replied her name was on the bulletin
board in the list posted by Paul. Gibbs then said this was
no joke.
That day Culpepper, as she had since first been hired by
Respondent, was cleaning and placing the clocks in
inserts, the operation immediately preceding boxing. At
times in the past Culpepper had fallen behind the flow of
work and had been given help to catch up. She had never
received a disciplinary warning for failure to keep up with
the assembly line. On June 1, however, when a number of
clocks accumulated at her work station Culpepper was
taken by a circuitous route which led her past the
employees on two production lines to Foreman
McMurphy's desk where she received a disciplinary
warning McMurphy commented there had never been
trouble with her work before and asked, "What's on your
mind, Pauline. What's wrong with you today."
The following morning Culpepper again wore her CWA
button. While she had almost caught up with her work, the
boxer who took the cleaned clocks from Culpepper had
fallen behind. At this point Gibbs told Culpepper to
exchange jobs with the boxer. Culpepper could not keep
up with the new job of tagging and boxing the clocks. In
addition, Gibbs helped the woman who took over cleaning
the clocks so that the cleaned clocks piled up at
Culpepper' s station for tagging and boxing. Thereafter,
Gibbs again took Culpepper to McMurphy's desk for a
talking to and later Paul, McMurphy, and the plant
12 See N L.R B v LeTourneau Company of Georgia, 324 U.S
793
FOREST INDUSTRIES CO. 1097
superintendent came to the line where Paul asked
Culpepper if there was any special reason she was behind
in her work. Culpepper was taken by Gibbs to McMurphy
a second time that morning. After being subjected to a
bullying conversation and receiving another disciplinary
warning from McMurphy, Culpepper was taken to the
personnel office and again asked what was bothering her
that day. This harassment ended only when Culpepper
was called home by her daughter later in the morning.
b. Lottie Gibbs Saterfiel
Lottie Gibbs (Saterfiel) was among those wearing a
union button on June 1. Prior to that time, when Lottie
Gibbs had been transferred from her regular job
assembling directional controls it had been to fill in for an
absent employee. In the days following June 1 she was also
transferred but on these occasions no one was missing
from work. Thus, shortly after putting on her CWA pin
Lottie Gibbs was reassigned at leadman Bridges' direction
to the Denison gear machine and the woman then working
there was placed on Lottie Gibbs' regular job. Whereas
Lottie Gibbs' usual assignment was performed while
seated, the Denison gear machine had to be tended while
standing, was a "dirty" job at which the operator was
spattered with black grease, and required the lifting of
heavy trays of parts. Though she had never worked on the
Denison before, Lottie Gibbs was given no instruction in
its operation and was called to Foreman McMurphy's desk
the following morning and warned that if she did not make
production she would be given a disciplinary warning.
Lottie Gibbs made the required production.
During the days that followed, Lottie Gibbs was moved
each day to a different job although these transfers was not
required by employee absences.
While wearing her CWA button Lottie Gibbs was asked
by McMurphy what it was she had on her mind. The same
question was directed to Pauline Culpepper by McMurphy
after she put on her union insignia.
On June 9, shortly after Lottie Gibbs was transferred to
the repair table, leadman Bridges asked why she didn't
"get out of that mess." Bridges asked Lottie to permit him
to throw her CWA button in the garbage and to make an
appointment for her to see Paul so she could "get out of it"
and not lose her job. Lottie Gibbs refused to see Paul.
c. Jean Weaver
Jean Weaver, described by leadman Bridges as having
always been a good employee, also put on a CWA pin on
June 1.13 Shortly after her pin appeared Weaver was
transferred to the Ferguson assembly machine. It appears
that Weaver was used by Respondent from time to time to
fill in for absent employees. However, on June 1 when
Weaver was moved to the Ferguson she replaced an
employee then working on the job. Weaver stayed on the
Ferguson until she missed tightening a screw at which
point she was taken by leadman Bridges to Foreman
McMurphy's desk, asked the usual question if anything
was bothering her, and given a disciplinary warning which
was duly recorded in McMurphy's ledger as in the case of
Culpepper' s warnings . A few minutes later Weaver was
returned to the repair table and replaced on the Ferguson
machine by the employee originally there.
d. Conclusions and findings
I find that by means of job transfer, disciplinary
warnings , and bullying interrogation Respondent harassed
employees bold enough to display emblems of their union
adherence. From the mutually corroborating testimony of
the three employees'' a pattern of discrimination emerges.
Soon after unveiling their union insignia the employees
were transferred or their own work was made more
onerous.15 Thereafter they were criticized for routine
errors and everyday production lags and taken to the
foreman's desk. Questions were directed to the employees
which left no doubt they had been singled out for special
attention because of the union emblems they displayed.
See Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company, 156 NLRB
840. For the first time in their employment careers with
Respondent these employees received or were threatened
with disciplinary warnings, all on the occasion when these
employees, for the first time in their employment careers,
were openly exhibiting their union affiliation. I find,
therefore, that by discrimination in job assignment and the
imposition of disciplinary warnings , Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. In addition, I find that on
June 9, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when leadman
Bridges solicited Lottie Gibbs' withdrawal from the Union
and threatened her with discharge for failure to do so.
E. McMillan Sees Paul and is Recruited to Combat the
Union
On June 2, having received two disciplinary warnings
the day before, McMillan asked to see Paul. McMillan
explained he had come about the warnings to which Paul
replied, "The trick you pulled yesterday, you were just
asking to be fired." McMillan then said that if the only way
he could work without harassment was to quit the Union,
he would do so. Paul told McMillan he should talk to some
of the other employees and attempt to persuade them to
come in to talk to Paul. McMillan said he would do so. Paul
said he would fire McMillan if he heard of his having any
further to do with the Union and the conversation ended.
The following day the Scott County Times, a weekly
newspaper published in Forest, carried a story listing the
names of the Union 's organizing committee and charging
the Union with having breached its pledge of
confidentiality by sending the names to Respondent.
When McMillan discovered copies of the newspaper
13 Weaver was certain she had been wearing a union button on
June 1 and during the events that follow . It appears she came to
work that morning with two CWA pins on her person The first pin
she wore broke and she replaced it with the spare intended for
any employee who wished to loin those displaying the union
insignia
14 While Culpepper , the alleged victim of 8(a)(3) violations, was
present when Weaver testified , Mrs Saterfiel was not present
when either of the other two discnminatees appeared as she was
then resisting compliance with General Counsel 's subpena. Thus,
Mrs Saterflel 's testimony concerning McMurphy's inquiries
while she wore her CWA button as to what she had on her mind,
strongly supports Culpepper 's account of her own harassment by
McMurphy after displaying her union pin Moreover , as noted,
supra, the circumstances under which Mrs. Saterfiel testified lend
substantial weight to her credibility
15 While Lottie Gibbs and Jean Weaver had been transferred
before, such moves had been occasioned by the absence of other
employees The transfers of June 1 were to ,lobs being then
performed by other employees who were in turn reassigned to
different duties
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
placed on the tables in the plant lunchroom, he asked to
see Paul. McMillan said he had seen the story listing the
names. When Paul indicated amusement, McMillan asked
who had put the story in the paper. Paul said he didn't
know how the paper got that list, copies of the Union's
letter had been posted all over the plant and four or five
copies were missing. Paul speculated that someone had
given one of the missing copies of the letter to the local
paper. After further discussion Paul again told McMillan
that if the employees knew what was best for them they
would come and talk to the company official as McMillan
had done. Paul told McMillan to speak to some of the
employees, which McMillan agreed to do.
While both conversations came about as a result of
McMillan's initiative, I find that Paul's role in these
meetings went beyond that of an interested listener.
Tucson Ramada Caterers, Inc., 154 NLRB 571; Atkins Saw
Division of Borg-Werner, 160 NLRB 790. I find that Paul
seized the opportunity thus presented to unlawfully recruit
McMillan to participate in Respondent's antiunion
campaign (S. & H. Grossinger's, Inc., 156 NLRB 223;
Texas Electric Cooperatives, Inc., 160 NLRB 440) and to
threaten employees who adhered to the Union.
About a week after his conversations with Paul,
McMillan was transferred to a less physically demanding
job affording the opportunity for higher earnings. The
complaint alleges that this job assignment was made as a
reward for McMillan's withdrawal from union activities
and thus violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Other
than the suspicious timing no evidence of unlawful
motivation for the reassignment of McMillan appears. I
find this insufficient to support the allegation and shall
recommend its dismissal.
F. The Organizing Campaign Fades
The Union continued to hold meetings at places and
homes miles away from Forest, which drew scant
attendance . On June 5, Golden Lake, some 25 miles from
Forest , was again the site of a CWA meeting. Total
attendance was 35 persons, including wives of employees
and some not connected with Respondent. The next
meeting on June 11, at a private home a 12 miles south of
Forest, drew about 20 employees.
Organizer Hanna and others undertook a second
distribution of union leaflets to employees leaving the
plant on June 18. As before, the uniformed guards placed
trash cans alongside the driveways. However, on this
occasion only those leaving the plant were offered
handbills and a majority accepted the offered literature.
The third handbilling on July 1 elicited the same response
from the plant guards.
The Union's meeting on June 29 at the home of Frank
Saterfiel attracted only 16 employees.
Meetings on July 6 and 13 at the home of Billy Pace
were attended by 6 and 10 employees respectively. At the
second of these meetings it was decided not to set another
meeting date but to leave that decision to the steering
committee.
Though Hanna contacted members of the committee
from time to time he was advised there was no point in
setting up another meeting as the employees were afraid to
attend.
Thereafter, the Union's only contact with employees of
Respondent was a number of letters sent to those who had
signed authorization cards. From the start of the Union's
organizing campaign until September 1, a total of 139
authorization cards was signed by company employees.
G. The Union's Demand for Equal Time
There remains for consideration the complaint
allegation that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by refusing to grant the Union's request for equal
opportunity on company time and property to reply to the
antiunion speeches and the representations of "And
Women Must Weep."
I have heretofore found that immediately upon learning
of the employees' interest in self-organization and
concerted activity to improve their conditions of
employment, Respondent embarked upon a vigorous and
unlawful campaign to thwart these employees' efforts.
Supervisors were instructed to interrogate the employees
concerning their union sympathies and to report their
findings to the plant manager, which they did. On April 28
a coercive antiunion speech was delivered on company
time and company property to the bulk of the working
force and during the following day the movie "And Women
Must Weep," was shown to all of the employees, which, in
the context of Respondent's other unfair labor practices,
was itself unlawful. During the period of union activity a
campaign of harassment was directed against known
union adherents, Respondent interrogated employees
concerning their attendance at union meetings and
created the impression of surveillance of those meetings;
and, by means of threat of discharge, employees were
solicited during working hours to withdraw from the
Union. Moreover, during all times material herein,
Respondent maintained and enforced a rule prohibiting
solicitation for the Union or distribution of its literature at
any time anywhere on company property. Accordingly, I
find the "Respondent's broad and unlawful solicitation
rule, coupled with its own use of company time and
property to impress its [coercive] antiunion propaganda
on employees [as well as the unlawful interrogation and
harassment during working hours in the plant], `created a
glaring imbalance in organizational communication' that
justified the Union's request to address employees under
the same circumstances as had Respondent. For the
foregoing reasons, [I] find that Respondent, by denying
the Union's request, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 145 NLRB 846, 849, enfd.
339 F.2d 889 (C.A. 6); Williamson-Dickie Manufacturing
Company, 115 NLRB 356, 360; cf. General Electric
Company, 156 NLRB 1247.
Respondent, denying the commission of any unfair labor
practice, argues that alternative means of communication
were available to the Union which the CWA did not utilize
fully. Under these circumstances the Company deems
proper its denial to the Union of access to the employees
on company time and property. Where, as in the instant
case, an unlawful no-solicitation rule is coupled with the
employer's use of its time and property to address coercive
antiunion propaganda to its employees, I do not believe
that the unavailability to the union of adequate alternative
means of carrying its message to the employees, is a
necessary element of the violation here alleged.
Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., supra. Williamson-Dickie
Manufacturing Company, supra. In any event, I find that
the alternative means of communication here available to
the Union were insufficient to overcome the "glaring
imbalance in organizational communication" arising from
Respondent's own unlawful acts.
It is urged that the Union could have carried its message
to the employees by means of the telephone. A
representative of the Southern Bell Telephone Co.
FOREST INDUSTRIES CO.
testified on three occasions during these proceedings.
From him we learned there are fewer telephones per 100
households in Scott County than the average in the State
of Mississippi, which in turn has fewer phones, when so
measured, than the national average. The record is bare of
any indication of the percentage of telephones among
Respondent's employees. Assuming, however, that all had
phones in their homes, without a list of employee names
these phones remained mute for the Union. The Board has
recently commented on the staggering problem facing a
union seeking to compile a list of employees in a large
establishment such as Respondent's plant. See Excelsior
Underwear Inc. and Saluda Knitting Inc., 156 NLRB
1236.16 The Union here was unable to secure an employee
list beyond the names of the minority who signed union
authorization cards. Accordingly, without knowing whom
to call, the telephone system could not adequately
substitute for access to the plant. 17 Correspondingly, the
same lack of employee names would prevent utilization of
the mails to carry the union message.
I have heretofore found that Respondent's plant guards
added to the difficulties encountered by union agents
seeking to hand leaflets to employees entering and leaving
the plant. While many employees did in fact take
handbills, I do not find adequate a method of
communication which exposes the union representatives
to the danger of being struck by automobiles hurried along
by the plant guards.
Union advertisments in the local newspaper and on
radio and television were further means of reaching the
employees urged by Respondent as available to but not
used by the Union. The Scott County Times each week
published editorials and news stories strongly critical of
the Union containing statements which, if made by
Respondent, would have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Moreover, even if this paper were a practicable medium
for dissemination of prounion propaganda, it appears on
the record that employees living a great distance from
Forest subscribed to other papers catering to the
community in which they resided. Additionally, radio,
television, and newspaper advertising sufficient to reach
the widespread area in which the employees lived would
have entailed considerable expense and lacked "the
efficacy of personal and direct contact." S. & H.
Grossinger's, Inc., supra.
Visitations to employee homes was still another
communication medium available to the Union. In fact
union representatives did employ this means of reaching
employees. Here again, however, the Union's lack of an
employee list coupled with the farflung area in which the
16 In its brief Respondent notes that the Union apparently
never asked the Company to supply it with a list of names and
addresses of all the employees From this Respondent would have
me infer that the Union did not diligently pursue the alternative
means of communication Respondent does not indicate whether
it would have complied with such a request In the context of
Respondent 's unlawful course of conduct and its demonstrated
purpose of preventing organization of its employees, it appears
that such a request would have been an exercise in futility The
Board matters , as in other fields of law, the law does not require
the doing of a futile act See N L R B v A. B Swinerton, et al ,
d/b/a Swtnerton and lValberg Company, 202 F 2d 511, 515
(C A 9), cert. denied 346 U S 814, Comfort, Inc , 152 NLRB 1074,
1090, enfd 365 F.2d 867 (C.A 8)
11 I note further that members of a captive audience cannot
hang up when they have had enough of the speaker
1099
employees live1s precluded effective use of this organizing
tactic.l0
Finally, the Union could and did meet with groups of
employees. A total of 11 meetings was held at homes and
public places as far distant as 25 miles from Forest. The
greatest attendance was on May 18, when 58 employees, 7
percent of the working force, were shown the Union's
answer to "And Women Must Weep." All of the
employees had been required to view the antiunion movie
during working hours. Respondent established that the
Union made no effort to use as meeting places various
cafes, schools, and other private or public buildings in and
around Forest. Apart from the inadequacy of these
facilities to accommodate an audience of over 800 persons,
two intangible factors appear.20 The Board has noted "the
unique effectiveness of speeches addressed to employees
assembled during working hours at the locus of their
employment." H.W. Elson Bottling Company, 155 NLRB
714, footnote 7. Secondly, Respondent's widespread
violations of the Act created an atmosphere of restraint
and coercion wherein employees feared to attend union
meetings. Thus, duplication of the conditions under which
Respondent presented its antiunion position to the
employees, including cloaking employee attendance with
anonymity, is necessary to afford the Union equality of
organizing opportunity. Crystal Lake Broom Works, 159
NLRB 429; Scott's, Inc., 159 NLRB 1795.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the interstate
operations of Respondent described in section 1, above,
have a close , intimate , and substantial relationship to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3), I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
purposes of the Act.
I have found that the disciplinary warnings
administered to McMillan, Weaver, and Culpepper were
in furtherance of Respondent's enforcement of an invalid
no-solicitation rule and its campaign of harassment of
union adherents. Accordingly, my Recommended Order
11 Forest and Scott County do not fall within a labor market
area established by the U S Department of Labor. Accordingly,
the geographic area within which Respondent's employees might
reasonably be expected to reside cannot be established by taking
official notice of such boundaries See U. S. Department of Labor,
Manpower Administration , Bureau of Employment Security,
Directory of Important Labor Market Areas, Supplement No 8
(1963)
1s Cf United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (H K Porter
Co.) v N L.R B., 363 F 2d 272 (C A 4).
20 "Our decision . cannot turn on merely a comparison of
these tangible factors " Brown v Board of Education of
Topeka, 347 U S 483,492
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
shall provide that these warnings be expunged from
Respondent's records.
Having found that Respondent violated the Act by its
refusal to afford the Union and its representatives an
equal opportunity to reply to the coercive speech and the
representation of "And Women Must Weep," I shall
require that, upon request of the Union, Respondent shall
make available to the Union and its representatives at a
mutually agreeable time within 3 months of this Decision,
equal opportunity on company time and property to
address the assembled employees and on a separate
occasion to answer the representations of "And Women
Must Weep."
Respondent's unfair labor practices indicate an attitude
of opposition to the purposes of the Act generally.
Accordingly, a broad cease-and-desist order is necessary
and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Forest Industries Company, Respondent herein, is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Communications Workers of America is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in certain described conduct referred to
hereinabove, in section III hereof, Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By engaging in the conduct described in section III,
D, 2, above, Respondent discriminated aginst employees
in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, and
terms and conditions thereof, in order to discourage
membership in the Union, and thereby engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent has not committed other unfair
labor practices as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, Forest Industries Company, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively questioning employees concerning their
union membership, activities, and desires and that of
others; creating the impression of surveillance; recruiting
employees to participate in its antiunion campaign;
soliciting employees to withdraw their support from the
Union; threatening employees with reprisal if they join,
assist , or support the Union; exhibiting the movie "And
Women Must Weep" to any of its employees; continuing
or giving effect to its rule barring employees on their own
nonworking_ time from soliciting for the Union or
distributing union literature in nonworking areas; refusing
to afford to the Union an equal opportunity on company
time and premises to answer its coercive captive audience
speech and the representations of "And Women Must
Weep"; or in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by the Act.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Discouraging membership in Communications
Workers of America by the placing of union adherents on
more onerous job assignments and the imposition of
discriminatory disciplinary warnings or in any other
manner discriminating against employees in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Expunge from its records discriminatory
disciplinary warnings administered to Jean Weaver,
Pauline Culpepper, and James McMillan.
(b) Upon request of the Union, grant to it , at a mutually
agreeable time within 3 months of this Decision, equal
opportunity on company time and premises for the Union
and its representatives to address the assembled
employees and on a second occasion to answer the
representations of the movie "And Women Must Weep."
(c) Post at its Forest, Mississippi, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix. 1121 Copies of said
notice, to furnished by the Regional Director for Region
15, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision
and Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to
comply herewith.22
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not
'herein found.
21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
42 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said
Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT ask our employees about their union
membership, activities, or desires in order to force
them to give up the Union.
WE WILL NOT ask any employee to do missionary
work among other employees in an effort to talk them
out of supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT act so that employees think we are
spying on their union activities.
FOREST INDUSTRIES CO. 1101
WE WILL NOT ask employees to withdraw from the
Union and threaten them with reprisal if they )oin,
assist , or support the Union.
WE WILL NOT prevent our employees from
soliciting for the Union on their own nonworking time
in any area of the plant or company property or from
distributing union literature in nonworking areas,
including the parking lots, while on their own
nonworking time.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in a labor
organization by showing employees the motion
picture "And Women Must Weep."
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
Communications Workers of America, or any other
labor organization , by assigning union adherents to
more difficult jobs, imposing discriminatory
disciplinary warnings , or in any other way harassing
them while at work.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist Communications
Workers of America , or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any
and all such activities.
WE WILL remove from company records
discriminatory disciplinary warnings imposed on
James McMillan , Pauline Culpepper , and Jean
Weaver.
All of our employees are free to become , remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of any labor
organization.
FOREST INDUSTRIES
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024 Federal
Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70113, Telephone 529-2411, Extension 6396.