Herman Wilson Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 13, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 673 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

HERMAN WILSON LUMBER COMPANY 673
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26 , in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Trial Examiner 's Decision and Recommended Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.27
It is further recommended that the complaint here be dismissed insofar as it
alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein.
' If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified
to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, In writing , within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the 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, you are notified that:
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that if they select United Shoe Work-
ers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , as their collective-
bargaining representative , we will discontinue existing benefits or take other
economic reprisal against them ,, including job loss, or refuse or fail to bar-
gain in good faith , or instill in our employees the impression that it would be
futile for them to have a collective -bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self -organization, to
form , join, or assist the above-named , or any other , labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing , and to en-
gage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or
refrain from any or all such activities.
STUTTGART SHOE CORPORATION,
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 746
Federal Office Building , 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee , Telephone
No. 534-3161 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Herman Wilson Lumber Company and International Wood-
workers of America , AFL-CIO, CLC. Cases Nos. 26-CA.-1683
and 26-CA-1704. November 13, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 17, 1964, Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices, and recommended that the al-
legations pertaining thereto be dismissed . Thereafter, both Respond-
ent and General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and support-
ing briefs.
149 NLRB No. 70.
770-076-65-vol. 149-44
674 DECISION S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to-the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with these cases to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fan-
ning, and Brown]. _
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 entire
record in these cases, including the Decision, exceptions, and briefs,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor, Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent,
Herman Wilson Lumber Company, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
MEMBER LEEDOM, concurring in part and dissenting in part :
Like my colleagues , I adopt the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the
8 (a) (3) allegations of the complaint . However, unlike them, I do not
agree with the Trial Examiner- that the Respondent 's statements,
made in the course of a campaign preceding a Board -conducted elec-
tion, violated Section 8 ( a) (1).
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent 's election cam-
paign material created the impression among its employees of the
inevitability of a strike if they selected the Union as their bargaining
agent, and warned of the dire consequences of such strike as to job
tenure. He therefore concluded that the Respondent threatened the
employees with reprisals in the event they chose the Union as their
representative , in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) .
In my view , the Respondent 's campaign material, when considered
in context, did not exceed the protection afforded by the Act. So far
as pertinent , the Respondent stated in its campaign material that it
would "fight the' Union in every legal way possible"; that it was
"not compelled to agree to a union ' proposal or to make a concession
to the Union " ; that it would engage in "hard bargaining" ; that "the'
only way a union can force your Company to do anything it is un-
willing to do would be to pull - you out on strike" ; and that "if the
Union calls an economic strike ... you can be permanently replaced."
[Emphasis supplied .] Thus, the Respondent did no more, in sub-
stance, then tell the employees that Union demands would be resisted
by "hard bargaining" ; and that, if the Union resorted , to an eco-'
nomic strike to enforce its demands , the Respondent could exercise'
• - HERMAN WILSON LUMBER COMPANY 675
its lawful right to replace the strikers, and then the strikers would
lose their jobs. "Hard bargaining" is'not unlawful conduct under the
Act; and the Supreme Court has admonished that the Board may
not, "either directly or indirectly, compel concessions or otherwise sit
in judgment upon the substantive terms of collective-bargaining
agreements."
In sum, the Respondent's campaign statements, properly under-
stood, did not imply that, without regard to the nature of the Union's
demands, the Respondent would not enter into an agreement with the
Union, and that a strike and resultant loss of jobs through re-
placement were therefore inevitable consequences of union represen-_
tation. The Respondent sought only to explain the respective rights
and obligations of the Respondent and its employees in relation to
the Union, and -to indicate the possible disadvantages of union or--
ganization. This the Respondent did without foreclosing an accom-
modation with the Union in the event of its certification.2 I am con-
vinced that the Respondent was merely exercising its protected right
to inform the employees that unionization might entail disadvan-
tages, and that its campaign material thus constituted lawful eco-
nomic predictions.3
As I find no threat of reprisal violative of Section 8(a) (1), and
there being no other unfair labor practice,4 I would dismiss the com-
plaint in its entirety.
1 N.L.R B. v. American National Insurance Co., 343 U.S. 395 , 404; see also Dierks
Forests, Inc. (Treating Plant, D 4 E Shop and Mill Supply ), 148 NLRB 923 , footnote 7.
3 Essentially , the instant case is not unlike Texas Boot Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
143 NLRB 264 , where the Board found no unlawful threat based upon an employer's
statement that a strike resulting in job replacement might ensue if the union presented
unreasonable bargaining demands. Here , it is true that-the Respondent did not say that
only unreasonable union demands would be rejected . However, this is not, in my view, a
significant difference , because an employer may with impunity reject union demands,
whether reasonable or not, provided he bargains in good faith with an honest intent to
reach an agreement The Respondent 's statements do not indicate any anticipatory breach
of its potential bargaining obligation
3 See Texas Industries, Inc., et al. v. NLR .B., 336 F. 2d 128 ( C.A. 5) ; Texas Boot
Manufacturing Company, Inc ., supra; and the dissent in Ideal Baking Company of Ten-
nessee, Inc, 143 NLRB 546.
4 No exception was taken to the Trial Examiner 's finding that the Respondent 's state-
ments contained no promise of benefit.
TRIAL' EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
-.Upon a charge filed on November 13, 1963 , in Case No. 26-CA-1683, and upon
a charge filed on December 16, 1963, in Case No. 26-CA-1704, by International
Woodworkers of America , AFL-CIO, CLC, hereinafter referred to as the Union,
the General Counsel issued a consolidated complaint on January 6, 1964, against
Herman Wilson Lumber Company , herein the Company or the Respondent, alleg-
ing violations of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) -of the National Labor ' Relations Act,
as amended. The Company filed an answer to the complaint denying the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices . The General Counsel and the , Respond-
ent were represented by counsel, and all parties participated fully in the hearing,
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which was held before Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders. The General Counsel
presented oral argument at the conclusion of the hearing, and the Respondent
submitted a brief.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses," I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND, CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is now , and has been at all times material herein , an Arkansas cor-
poration with a place of business located at Monticello , Arkansas , where it is
engaged in the manufacture and sale of lumber and related products . During
the past 12 months, Respondent manufactured , sold , and shipped from its Monti-
cello, Arkansas , plant , lumber products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points outside the State of Arkansas . The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and
I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America , AFL-CIO, CLC, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and I so find.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Representation case between the parties-26-RC-2019-shows the follow-
ing facts: The petition was filed on August 12, 1963,2 the hearing on the petition
was held on September 6, the Decision and Direction of Election was issued by
the Regional Director on September 26, and the election was held on October 24.
In the election the Union received 31 votes and 72 votes were cast against the
Union. On October 29 the Union filed objections to the election, and on December 3
a Supplemental Decision and Direction for a Second Election was issued by the Re-
gional Director. On December 9 the Respondent requested a review of the Sup-
plemental Decision for a Second Election, and on January 29, 1964, the Board
denied this request. The issues and allegations in this proceeding before me arise in
the interim between the Board 's denial and the setting up of a second election.
A. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleges that the Respondent 's president, Herman Wilson, on or
about October 9, 16, and 23, in speeches to assembled employees, and in letters to
employees, stated that Respondent would refuse to bargain in good faith with the
Union if it were selected by the employees as their collective-bargaining represent-
ative, that the Union would be a detriment to them, and that they would derive no
advantage from its selection as their collective bargaining representative, and that
without a union, Respondent would give them benefits similar to those that a union:
could secure through collective bargaining.
From this record it appears that on or about October 9, Wilson called his.
employees together and, among other statements, informed them that the Com-
pany did not want a union in the plant; that he would fight the Union in every
legal way possible; that the Union can buy absolutely nothing; that employees had'
received benefits without the Union; that all the Union wants from employees is.
to collect dues; and that he would be willing to pay as much in wages and benefits.
without a union as he would with a union. Wilson went on to further state that-
if the Union called an economic strike employees could be permanently replaced,
and added, "You can lose your job." Wilson then informed employees that an,
i The declaration that my findings are . based on my observation of the witnesses is In-
tended to apply to the testimony of each and every witness, and my failure to comment on,
the demeanor of a particular witness Is not to be taken to mean that In evaluating his-
testimony I have not taken his demeanor Into consideration. Moreover, when given logicall
reasons for rejecting the testimony of a particular witness, either in its entirety or on a
particular point, it should not be assumed that I rely exclusively on such reasons, and
that the demeanor of the witness has not been considered In evaluating his testimony.
When I have Indicated that I regard a particular witness as generally untrustworthy, it
is to be construed to mean that 'I reject his testimony as a whole , unless I explicitly Indi-
cate that I accept his testimony on a particular point.
2 All dates are 1963 unless specifically stated otherwise.
HERMAN WILSON LUMBER COMPANY : 677
economic strike could lose business for the Company , and that this might cause a
shutdown of the plant and if so, employees would be without a job. In concluding
his written speech on this occasion , Wilson told the employees that they had every
right to oppose the Union and could vote against it no matter how many cards they
might have signed ; that between now and the election , "Don't sign a Union card.
If you haven't signed one, don 't sign one. If you have . signed one, forget it." 3
In his second speech to employees on October 16, Wilson asked if they had been
informed about union dues, and inquired whether employees had been told that dues
alone could be as much as $60 a year, and stated that initiation fees and assess-
ments would be additional costs. Wilson also informed the employees that the
Union was going to find him the most disagreeable person it ever ran up against,
and again referred to the possibility of an economic strike wherein employees could
lose their jobs by the hiring of permanent replacements . Wilson concluded this
speech by urging employees to put an "X" in the no box, and again reminded
them of their right in refusing to attend meetings and in signing cards for the
Union?
On October 23, the day before the election , Wilson gave his third speech to the
assembled employees . On this occasion Wilson stated : "In dealing with the Union
I'll deal hard with it-I'll deal cold with it-I'll deal at arm's length with it." Wil-
son repeated that in the event of an economic strike employees could be perma-
nently replaced, and also again referred to dues, fines, and assessments. In the
concluding phase of this speech , Wilson stated : "If the Union wins the election to-
morrow all it wins is the right to bargain-nothing more . By law I am not com-
pelled to agree to a union proposal or to make a concession to the Union."
In further showing a violation in this phase of the case, the General Counsel
also relies on certain letters or pamphlets circulated and distributed by the Respond-
ent to its employees . In many respects these documents reiterate approximately
the same antiunion sentiments and expressions contained in the three speeches
given by Wilson . The company letter or pamphlet dated October 16, addressed to
all employees , mentions $60 a year for dues, and also states : "The Union can't get
you a single thing unless the. Company agrees to it." This letter further states
that if the Union calls an economic strike, employees could lose their jobs by being
permanently replaced.5
In a letter to all employees dated October 18, the Company therein stated in
part: "Don 't talk to union organizers . Don't let them come into your homes.
Don't attend union meetings. Vote `no' in the election Thursday." 6
The General Counsel 's argument is that the speeches and pamphlets taken in
their totality tended to create and did create a feeling of futility of the employees
in selecting the Union , and also implanted in their minds the idea that unionization
could only result in strikes and the hiring of replacements for their jobs. The
Respondent cites Section 8 (c) and (d) of the Act, and encompasses arguments
around these provisions .? In this phase of the case the parties are in agreement as
to what Wilson told the employees in his three speeches , all previously written out,
and there is also agreement as to the exact contents of the pamphlets.
It appears to me that in its campaign to defeat the Union , the Respondent on
several occasions , as aforestated , stressed and emphasized the fact that if the Union
won the election , the Union 's only course of action would be to strike, and in which
3 The complete speech given by Wilson on this occasion is contained in General Counsel's
Exhibit No . 5 I have not attempted here, nor later , to take Wilson 's remarks out of con-
text, but merely endeavored to highlight, for the sake of brevity , some of the more per-
tinent statements.
4 The complete speech given by Wilson on October 16 is contained in General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 6.
5 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2.
6 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 3. See also General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2.
7 The Respondent in its brief stated the following:
Nowhere in the Act is it provided that employees must derive an advantage or a
benefit by the selection of a collective bargaining representative . Advantage or bene-
fit therefore must be segregated from futility in order to view intelligently and in
proper perspective the matter of futility of bargaining or the futility of selecting a
collective bargaining representative . A venture is futile when it serves no useful pur-
pose, when its purpose is ordained to failure before being undertaken , when the ven-
ture itself , in its totality, clearly can be foreseen to be only an abortive attempt or
useless gesture . Futility connotes completeness of failure unalterably ordained from
inception.
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
event the Company could permanently replace the strikers . While the Respondent
did not state specifically that it would not bargain with the Union should the Union
win the election, an analysis of Respondent 's entire antiunion campaign reveals an
implicit warning that in dealing with the Union the Respondent would so conduct
the negotiations that a strike ^ would result. Thus, there was but one theme: the
inevitability of a strike if the employees selected the Union as their bargaining
representative , and the dire consequences of such a strike , namely, the loss of jobs
by the strikers.
In the speeches and pamphlets the Company repeatedly appealed to the em-
ployees to vote "no" in the election, and also warned employees of the Union's
propensity to deduct dues, fees, and assessments. In the October 23 speech Wilson
stated, "If you vote this Union in here, it will legally represent you. I'll have to
deal directly with it and not with you individually. Our personal relationship will
be gone. In dealing with the Union, I'll deal hard with it, I'll deal cold with
it. I'll deal at arm's length with it." Then Wilson went on to say, "You know, or
if you don't, you should know before you vote that I am not obligated by law to
agree to any proposals the Union makes on wages, hours, working conditions, or
what have you. If the Union wins the election we will be obliged to negotiate
with it, but we are not obligated to agree to any proposals or request that it
makes. We are not required to make any concession to it. The only way the
Union can try to force me to do anything I am unwilling to do is to pull an
economic strike. If you go out on an economic strike you place your job on the
line. I can exercise my legal right to permanently replace you and that 's what I'll
do if that's what it takes to keep this mill operating." Further on in this speech
Wilson then informed the employees, "The union philosophy is for everyone to
work fewer hours so there will be jobs for more people. That's fine for them but
it means less take home pay for you." Wilson then reminded employees, "Don't
forget-I furnish you your jobs, not the Union. I pay your wages, not the
Union. I give you promotions and pay increases, not the Union." He then again
stated, "The only way it [the Union] can try to force me to do anything I am
unwilling to do would be to pull an economic strike. Picket lines can mean trouble
and misery, debt and regret." 8
it is clear that by means of the foregoing pamphlets and by the three speeches
given to the employees, Respondent created the impression of the inevitability of
a strike if the employees selected the Union as their bargaining agent, and warned
of the dire consequences of such strike as to job tenure. In fact a searching
review of this record does not reveal even one inference of intimation to its em-
ployees that the selection of the Union need not result in a strike, trouble, debt, or
loss of jobs. Certainly Wilson's warning to the employees that selection of the
Union would result in "cold" and "hard" bargaining, coupled with references to
an economic strike which could cause a shutdown of the plant, effectively aroused
the employees' fear of losing their jobs if they unionized. Thus, Wilson's state-
ment was more than a prediction of future events under Section 8(c) of the Act. It
constituted a threat to discontinue unless the Union was defeated, and this is
clearly coercive under the statute. Even if Wilson's statement be construed as a
reference to the possibility of the plant closing after unionization , it is still coer-
cive. There is ample authority to the effect that statements on the part of manage-
ment to employees that it might be necessary to close the plant, made during a
period when unionization of its employees was sought to be effected, must be
regarded as coercive, notwithstanding sincere belief that such result would follow:
United Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 252 F. 2d 428, 430 (C.A. 6).
Accord: N.L.R.B. v. Tru-Line Metal Products Company, et al., 324 F. 2d 614, 616
(C.A. 6).9
This unremitting effort on the part of the Respondent , with Wilson continually
snapping his antiunion whip in the direction of all his employees-reacted as he
hoped. By informing them that the Union's only way of getting anything was
by striking, by repeatedly stating that management reserved the right to make all
6 Since other excerpts from the three speeches have been previously set forth, and since
their entire content together with the pamphlets are included in the exhibits, as afore-
stated, I will not detail here any of the additional statements made.
9 Wilson made it clear to his employees that any demands made by the Union could only
be gained by striking, as he would make no concessions-the latter an event entirely de-
pendent upon the Company's reaction to unionization, and thus a threat as distinguished
from a prediction.
HERMAN WILSON LUMBER COMPANY 679
the final decisions, and by continual harassment in projecting loss of jobs-the
employees wheeled around and gave the Company a thundering vote of confidence
in the election on October 24. The Wilson approach is simply and initially effec-
tive. However, under the Act it oversteps the permissible bounds of free speech, and
was reasonably calculated to create an atmosphere of futility and to discourage
support for the Union among employees. By such threat and message of futility,
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7, thereby violating Section 8(a) (1).10
The complaint also alleges that on October 23 Wilson promised employees
improved conditions of employment if they did not select the Union as their
representative.
Alleged discriminatee Murray testified that on October 23, Wilson told em-
ployees, "You all, all of you meet back here at 5:30 tomorrow evening on the
supper break and I will have something important to say that all of you would like
to hear." General Counsel's witness Blackwell James testified that on the occasion
in question Wilson informed the employees, "He said something or other about
meeting back, that he would have something important to tell us." Wilford
White testified that Wilson stated, "He wanted all of us to meet out there at 5:30
on the lunch break, which meant the evening hour, and that he had something that
he wanted to tell us that we would all be glad to hear." General Counsel's
witnesses Barnes, Wilbert, and Phillips also attributed a similar statement to Wilson
in their testimony.
The General Counsel maintains that Wilson deviated from his written speech on
October 23, as testified to by six witnesses, and therein promised employees im-
proved conditions of employment. The Respondent contends that there were no
deviations or extemporaneous remarks made, and that on the occasion in question
Wilson read the last paragraph of his written speech which contained the following
remarks: "The ballots will be counted uptown after the election tomorrow. Then,
let's all meet back here at the plant at the 5:30 break so I can tell you the
results. I am sure we will be glad to hear and welcome the results of the elec-
tion." Wilson credibly testified that he merely read the above paragraph, and that
he did not say anything in addition to it.
It appears to me that even the testimony by the General Counsel's witnesses, as
aforestated, substantiates in many respects the Respondent's position relative to this
allegation. While a few of the versions given by the General Counsel's witnesses
varied in minor respects from what they were actually told, it is obvious to me,
even from their testimony, that Wilson did not deviate from his prepared speech, and
merely informed employees to return after the election to hear the results which he
thought would be welcomed. Wilson, because of his prior violative antiunion re-
marks, may have been confident that employees would reject the Union, as they did,
but the statement in question here cannot be found as a promise of better working
conditions.11 In accordance with the above I will recommend that this specific
allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
B. The discriminatory discharge of Freddy John Murray
The Respondent contends that Murray was discharged after repeated warnings
for a pattern of conduct which involved the continued improper loading of the log
deck, along with the careless operation of the Pettibone Cary-Lift machine which
had and did result in damage to it. The particular incident culminating in his
discharge on November 20 was his improper handling of the Pettibone machine
on the log yard in the unloading, stacking, and transferring of logs which
resulted in serious damage to the machine. The Respondent freely admits that it
knew of Murray's union activity at the time of his discharge. Respondent's Exhib-
it No. 3, being a letter dated October 23 from the Union, was handed to a
foreman by Murray on October 23. This letter asked that Murray be excused from
10 Ideal Baking Company of Tennessee , Inc., 143 NLRB 546; The Little Rock Down-
towner, Inc, 143 NLRB 837; General Industries Electronics Company, 146 NLRB 1139.
"It should be noted that when the employees returned after the election to hear the
results, Wilson then announced that the Company would institute a paid group insurance
plan Respondent's Exhibit No. 11. However, as I have found above, there was no such
promise even indicated in the last paragraph of the speech read by Wilson on October 23.
To find otherwise would be complete insinuation based only on a subsequent event.
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work all day Thursday, October 24, in order that he might serve as the Union's
observer at the election on the 24th. Murray was so excused and served as the
observer for the Union.
Murray testified that he was employed by the Company on August 1, under the
supervision of Massey Anderson, as a Pettibone operator; that his uncle, Blackwell
James, the second-shift Pettibone operator, trained him for about 3 days before he
took the job on his own. He testified that during the time he operated the ma-
chine he received no complaints from any supervisor or boss about the manner in
which he performed his job. He also testified that the debarker operators, one
Mervin Barnes and one Wilford White, both rank-and-file employees, had never
complained about the manner in which he, Murray, was loading the rough deck or
skidway with logs from the Pettibone for subsequent conveying through the
debarker and into the sawmill. Murray testified that the Pettibone machine which
he operated broke down on several occasions due to cylinder head trouble, but that
nothing was said to him in the way of a complaint or warning. Murray stated
that on November 20, the day of his discharge, he was picking logs out of the
stacks with the Pettibone machine, and as he started to back out a big log rolled
off from the top hitting the machine and bending a rod on the cylinder. Plant
Superintendent Parham started repairing the damage, and Parham also then in-
formed Murray to locate his foreman and see if he had anything else for Murray
to do. When Murray found his immediate foreman, Massey Anderson, he inquired
of him what Parham had meant by his remark, and Anderson replied, "Well, I
guess he meant to let you go." Murray admitted that in late October, Foreman
Anderson had informed him that he was getting the logs too high on the skid-
way.12 This record shows that there are four conveying chains on the log deck
which convey the logs across the deck to the conveyor leading to the debarker,
and that these chains had broken on many occasions.13
Blackwell James testified that on frequent occasions logs had rolled off the stack
and struck the Pettibone machine, but that they had been smaller logs and as a
result no damage was done. James stated that he himself had trouble in operat-
ing the Pettibone on the second shift, and stated, "I bursted quite a few heads off
the cylinder." He testified that no one in management complained to him about
it.14 James further testified that the Pettibone machine has broken down since
Murray's discharge, and related in his testimony two such incidents. James stated
that the chains on the skidway would also break, but that when different chains
were put on, such occurrences were much more infrequent.
Wilford White, the debarker operator at the mill, testified that chains broke on
the skidway when Murray was operating the Pettibone, and that this also happened
when Bill Cherry and Blackwell James operated the Pettibone machine.15 White
further stated that the Pettibone machine broke down while Murray was operating
it, and also when other operators were using it.
Herman Wilson, Jr., Respondent's president, testified that the large Pettibone
machine involved in this proceeding was bought primarily to log the mill and it
began working at the logging operations on May 1. The expensive maintenance
and upkeep on this machine, as well as considerable downtime, was called to
Wilson's attention by Massey Anderson and Paul Parham, the logging superintend-
ent and plant superintendent, respectively. As a result of this, on September 24,
Wilson wrote a letter to the Pettibone-Mulliken Corporation. By letter dated Oc-
tober 8, Wilson received a reply from the Pettibone-Mulliken Corporation, which
12Murray worked on the day shift, and he only operated the debarker strictly on a
volunteer basis during his spare time.
Is Respondent introduced its Exhibit No. 4, a notice of determination from the Arkansas
Employment Security Division. This determination denied Murray's benefits because of
failure to give the true reason for his discharge. Respondent's Exhibit No. 5 is Murray's
notice of renewal for unemployment benefits in which he gives as the reason for leaving the
Company, "laid oil-lack of work."
is Murray testified that Respondent's president, Wilson, complimented him on the good
job he was doing 3 or 4 weeks before his discharge, and James stated that Wilson told him
that Murray was making a "good hand."
u The Pettibone machine in these situations carries the logs from the log stacks to the
skidway where it unloads them, and at which time the logs pass through the debarker.
From time to time the Pettibone operators were informed as to best methods in unloading
the logs onto the skidway.
HERMAN WILSON LUMBER COMPANY 681
stated that the Pettibone-Mulliken Corporation would have one of their factory men
visit the plant and check the machine. This visit by one Howard Johnson, an
engineer, occurred on October 15.16
Logging Superintendent Anderson testified that when Engineer Johnson visited
the plant he noted the operation of the Pettibone machine in question here, and
then informed Anderson that the operators were carrying the load to high, travel-
ing at too rapid a rate of speed, and were digging their forks under the logs or
into the logs while the machine was traveling at too great a speed (that is, in
approaching a pile of logs for the pickup of a load for delivery to the skid
deck).17 Anderson further stated that every Pettibone operator at the plant had
been instructed to use the proper care in putting the machine forks under a load
of logs to pick them up, and to pull the logs up and set them back on the "table"
for travel from the point of pickup to the point of unloading; that the travel should
be at the normal rate of speed; and that the logs were not to be dumped on the
log deck, but by bringing the machine up to the deck, tilting the forks, opening
the bail, and letting the logs roll out. Anderson testified that on some occasions
these procedures were being followed by the Pettibone operators, and on some
occasions they were not, and that the high-cylinder damage and rod damage
resulted strictly from the careless operation of the machine. Anderson then stated
that employee Max McCabe had been discharged on May 21 for the improper
handling of a Pettibone, and that employee William Thurman was discharged on
April 19 for excessive speed in operation of the Pettibone as the principal reason
for his termination.
Anderson also gave further testimony in respect to loading the log deck or
skidway. In regard to how high logs should be piled on the skidway, Anderson
stated as follows:
Not over three high with small loads [sic]; two high on large logs. Now
there are several reasons for that. If your logs are piled up three or four as
sometimes we have seen them, when they get to the end of the log deck
where they are kicked on to some live rolls where they are carried into the
debarker, all right, if they are stacked up over two or three high this kicker
will get more than one log into the trough or onto the rolls and in all
probability your top log will get crosswise and that will cause the Pettibone to
have to come around the machine, to pick that log up, and to set it back on
the deck or to wait until the log has gone through the debarker and put it
on the rolls. Cost of time, damage to equipment, damage to the live roll.
19 Wilson testified as follows with respect to the visit to his office by Murray on Novem-
ber 20, the day of Murray's discharge:
Q. . . . Did Mr. Murray ask you if he-might have his job back or what did he ask
you ?
A. I really don't think he asked me anything. He told me-he told me all of the
circumstances of his discharge and wanted to know if there was anything I could do
about it. I told him that I couldn't because I had hired those people to run the mill
and I had to back their judgment.
Q. At the time he was in your office, at that time, did you say anything to him
about knowing anything about his discharge?
A. No, I told him I did not know anything about his discharge . . . .
Q. Now, did he say anything to you, what did he say other than what you testified
which would indicate he, himself, knew he was discharged?
A. Only that would it affect him in drawing his unemployment.
Q. Did he ask you if he could get his job back, is that correct?
A. Yes, he did do that.
Q. And did he ask you if he could draw his unemployment?
A. Right.
Q. What was your reply?
A. That I didn't know the circumstances of the termination and when-the ESD sent
us our forms we would complete them and send them back.
17 Also as a result of Engineer Johnson's recommendations, the former practice of snak-
ing the log chain from under an incoming load of logs dumped from off a truck was changed
so that the boom on the Pettibone could be pulled in and the chain hooked to the Pettibone
proper. This change was made to keep the strain off the cylinders while the Pettibone
was in a reverse position.
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Anderson stated that he had seen this happen with Murray and had talked with him
about it on two or three occasions, and that on November 15 he had cautioned
Murray on the piling of logs too high and also about not having his load on
the "table" of the Pettibone.-
Anderson went on to testify that most all of the cylinder damage occurred on
the day shift. He also stated that during the middle of October the big Pettibone
machine was broken down so Murray started logging the mill with the little
Pettibone machine and "tore" the transmission out of it.
Respondent's witness Ernest Johnson, a sawyer at the mill who worked the same
hours as Murray, testified that when Murray was feeding logs the mill ran out of
logs several times, and that most of the time both Pettibone machines would be
"tore up." He stated that the mill would be down at these times from 30 minutes
to an hour, and that Murray would load the skidway "heavily" at one time and not
at all at other times. Johnson further related in his testimony that he had seen
Murray load logs with the Pettibone, and that in doing so Murray had the "boom"
too high and was running the Pettibone at high speed in order to get to the
skidway before the mill ran out of logs. Johnson also stated that he knew of two
Pettibone operators who had been discharged for improper operation of the
machine.
Millwright mechanic Robertson testified as follows with respect to the way he
had observed Murray performing his duties:
Q. Did you ever see the manner in which Freddy John Murray loaded the
log deck as a part-in carrying out your duty as a millwright, loading with
the Pettibone, I mean?
A. Well, he would go out there and pick up a load and come across the
yard, a lot of times with the boom up a little bit high, pretty good loads on
it. .. .
He would fill up the deck and then he would rush to fill up the deck and
then when he would [fill] up the deck, then he would go down on the
debarker or up into the mill somewhere and then he would get in a hurry and
run back and fill it up again.
Q. To your own knowledge, how long would you estimate that he had been
gone at times?
A. Well, he would be gone until they would run clear out of logs, some-
times, a lot of times at the debarker.
Q. You have seen the mill run out of logs or the debarker run out?
A. The debarker would run out of logs but by the time he would fill -it
up, that would put a gap between them going up the deck and,, of course, a
lot of times he would lose a few minutes pulling the logs on up which it
wouldn't be enough for him to get out, but he would lose a little time.
Q. Did you ever see the manner in which he would unload the logs at the
times you are talking about on the log deck.
A. What do you mean by that?
Q. Well, how would he-would he ease them on there or would he drop them
on there or would be pile them on there?
A. Well, he would just turn his fork over and just let the whole pile go on
at one time.
Q. How did he move them forward?
A. Well, if they was about to drop off he would take them and give them
a push.
Q. With the boom?
A. Yes, sir.
Robertson further stated that he asked Murray twice about not piling the logs so
high on the skidway, but that his warning 'did not help the situation. Robertson
also related that since Murray's discharge he has had less trouble in respect to the
maintenance on sprockets and chains. In response to a question asked him about
whether any union representative came to his house to ask him about Murray and
why he was discharged, Robertson replied: _
You mean about getting laid off out there and I said, "Well,"-he said he
didn't think it was fair and I said, "Well, if it had been me I would have laid
him off before then on account of he was rough on equipment." I said, "I
ain't got a thing against the boy. We are personal friends. I guess it is
all right, but if it had been my brother I couldn't have stood for him to have
to tore up the equipment like that."
HERMAN WILSON LUMBER COMPANY 683
Robertson stated that he further informed the union representative that he had seen
Murray "tear up" one Pettibone . and then get on the other one and a few times
"tear it up."
Respondent's plant electrician Ernest Forrest testified that he had seen Murray
carry logs high , that Murray would pick his load up and take it just as high in
the air as he could go with the machine , and then travel across the rough ground
just as fast as the Pettibone would run, and that Murray would pile the logs too
high on the skidway . Forrest also heard Anderson tell Murray that he was stack-
ing the logs too high. -
Following engineer Johnson 's visit to the plant, as aforestated , Mr. LaTendresse,
the designing engineer for the Pettibone -Mulliken Corporation , along with a Mr.
Galvin, visited Respondent 's plant on Thursday , October 24 . The engineers then
discussed the operation of the machine with Anderson and Parham . On this occa-
sion La Tendresse told management representatives that the Pettibone machine had
been designed to operate without a relief valve in the hydraulic system, but he
thought the installation of such a valve would prevent damage from overloading
the machine.18
Bill Cherry testified that on October 24 the above -named engineers informed him
that in getting under the logs the Pettibone operators should never use the hy-
draulic system and the power from the motor at the same time-one or the other
should be used . 19 Cherry had observed Murray working with the Pettibone since
his reemployment and stated that he had heard Superintendent Parham get after
Murray for "hot-rodding" the Pettibone , but that he continued to do so. Cherry
also heard Anderson give warnings to Murray about his handling of the Pettibone.
Cherry further stated that when the large Pettibone was broken down Parham
would have Cherry operate the smaller Pettibone to log the mill because Murray
would mistreat it. Upon being questioned as to the manner he performed the job
during his first term of employment , Cherry responded as follows:
Q. And the bosses got on you about that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. • Chewed you out sometimes?
A. [Nodded affirmatively.]
Q. However , they didn 't fire you for it, did they?
A. Well, I seen their point but it was either make a change or lose my job
and did my best to change....
Q. Did they ever tell you in so many words that if you kept on like that
they would fire you?
A. Well, Mr. Massey a time or two said either we've got to make some
change or either you've got to take care of the machine, and also he would
say a forty thousand dollar machine needs to be operated right.
Cecil Bordeaux , log scaler , testified that Murray in his haste would travel with
the Pettibone machine loaded in a higher gear than he should have used, and at
times Murray would have the load hoisted and not on the cradle of table where it
should be carried . He testified that Parham told Murray in connection with the
loading of the log deck:
Well, he told him , he said, "Now , I mean we want to keep them two high, not
three, and if you can 't do it we'll just have to get somebody that can do it."
And that he had also heard Massey Anderson warn Murray about stacking the
logs on the log deck , too high.
Bordeaux , in comparing the manner of operation of the Pettibone machine by
Blackwell James , the second-shift operator , and Murray the first-shift operator,
stated:
Well, it was a whole lot-one we call Salty , which is Blackwell James, he
would just take his time and go like he should and pick them up, but Freddy,
he would get in a hurry and he would run fast. He would just go flying off
four or five or six miles an hour down and that old thing a -jumping.
... I told him he shouldn't run that fast.
18 Bypass valves were subsequently installed
19 Cherry was the Pettibone operator immediately preceding Murray's employment and
Murray was employed because Cherry had at that time resigned to take another job.
Cherry , was reemployed by Respondent in September.
_684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I'd tell him he was going to shake it all to pieces and turn it over. I was
afraid he would turn it over going down through there because it would
get to jumping up pretty good.
In response as to whether or not Murray ever actually changed his method of
operating the Pettibone, Bordeaux replied:
Well-well, I don't know whether you would call it in that particular man-
ner or not. He'd just say he was going to keep them logs up there where he
could, you know, fill it up good so he wouldn't have to stay just right at it
all of the time.
Bordeaux stated that on November 20, the day of Murray's discharge, he was
sitting in his truck on the log yard and he saw Murray run down and run in
under the stack of logs. Bordeaux's testimony then was as follows:
Q. How fast?
A. Oh, more than the normal-more than he normally should run under
them. They were up too high and this log, when he closed his lip-I call it
the lip. It is that thing that closes the mouth of it. This bunch of logs that
he was under, there were some above and they came rolling down and this
one particular log just rolled right up on that-well, the curve of that thing
and just sort of on a little angle like that' [indicating] and just sort of laid
there and rocked and I was just wondering why he didn't back out and I
just started to get out of my pickup when it just rolled back and, then, I
just walked on down there with him and we got the log off and brought the
machine on back up to the house but he never did try to make it out right
quick or snatch it out.
Glenn Reed, a fireman at the mill, testified that Murray carried his logs too high
and went too fast when he was operating the Pettibone. His testimony with
respect to the way in which Murray delivered the logs to the skidway was as
follows:
Well, what I thought was bad, he would run up to the skidway with his logs
high and start running the boom out before he got there at a high rate of
speed and put his brakes on and the back end of the Pettibone would kick
up. I've seen that happen a lot of times. I thought that was bad. I don't know.
Reed stated that Murray never changed his way from the reckless manner in which
he operated the Pettibone.20
Plant Superintendent Parham testified that he had instructed Pettibone operators
in the proper manner of loading the skidway, and, moreover, that he had cor-
rected Murray in the manner in which he, Murray, was loading the deck, but
Murray did not respond. Parham also stated that no sprockets had broken since
Murray's discharge, and that three sprockets had broken before Murray had left
and that the breaking had occurred on the first shift. Parham further testified that
he did not use Murray on the little Pettibone 'machine if he could help it, because
every time Murray used it something would happen to it.21
1. Conclusions as to Murray
The General Counsel argues that the reasons given for the discharge by the
Respondent were merely used as a pretext. The General Counsel admits in his
argument that on several occasions Murray perhaps misused the Pettibone, but
takes the position that other operators did the same and yet they are still working
for the Company. The General Counsel also argues that while there was numer-
ous testimony about Murray being warned for his improper methods in loading
the skidway, it was not these incidents which caused the discharge, but rather the
Company picked one incident for Murray's termination, which was accidental and
0 Respondent presented as a witness in rebuttal to General Counsel one Woodrow Wilson,
assistant mining superintendent for the Arkansas Highway Department and who had served
the highway department for something over 24 years. Wilson had previously been Job
superintendent stationed at Monticello where Murray worked under his direct supervision
for a period of years. Murray drove a dump truck hauling gravel and various types of
material. During his period of employment Murray was involved in accidents with the
equipment he operated. Wilson stated that the blame for two of the accidents was affixed
to Murray entirely, and partially so in a third accident.
21 The little Pettibone machine was used as an auxiliary to log the mill at a time when
the big Pettibone machine was out of service.
HERMAN WILSON LUMBER COMPANY 685
over which he had no control. This, argues the General Counsel, shows that the
Respondent was merely hunting for some reason to discharge a known union
adherent.
In making my finding in respect to Murray, I have specifically and carefully
considered and evaluated the following: (1) The Respondent's union animus
as demonstrated in the preceding section of this Decision, (2) the fact that
Murray served as an observer for the Union at the election on October 24, (3) the
fact that the Respondent had considerable and continual difficulty with the new and
large Pettibone machine from almost the time that it was purchased, and (4) the
fact that other operators also practiced improper methods in running the machine.
Nevertheless, on the basis of this entire record and for the reasons hereinafter
stated, I must conclude and find that the General Counsel has failed to produce a
preponderance of substantial evidence in proving that Murray was discriminatorily
discharged. It has long been recognized that under the Act it takes more than
suspicion and inferences to prove a wrongful termination.
This record is abundantly clear that the Company had continual difficulty in the
operation of the new Pettibone machine, and as a result all the operators were
instructed in how to use it properly. The testimony of Logging Superintendent
Anderson and other witnesses establishes that Anderson discharged two Pettibone
operators prior to Murray's discharge for mishandling this machine. This fact
establishes that the Pettibone operators were certainly contributing factors in the
many difficulties encountered, and shows a consistent pattern by the Company in
terminations of those operators responsible for such misconduct. Pettibone opera-
tor Blackwell James, a witness for the General Counsel, even admitted in his
testimony that Superintendent Anderson had instructed him how to place the logs
on the "table" of the Pettibone, and that he also informed him how to put the logs
on the skidway while unloading the Pettibone.22 Pettibone operator Cherry ad-
mitted that when he was first employed he would operate the Pettibone about the
same way Murray did, but after being warned to either change his ways or lose
his job, Cherry "got the message" and changed his reckless methods.23 There-
fore, the Respondent has shown by reliable evidence that its present Pettibone
operators-Cherry and James-after being instructed on proper procedures and
then warned of improper operations, changed their habits to conform with accept-
able practices.
A recapitulation of Murray's performance with the Pettibone as it relates to the
unloading of logs on the skidway, shows the following: Testimony reveals that
Murray loaded the skidway on several occasions with too many logs (overpiling)
and at other times there were insufficient logs; that at least on a few occasions the
plant ran out of logs when Murray was feeding the. mill; that Murray would
"drop" the logs from the Pettibone onto the skidway after braking from a fast
approach; that Logging Superintendent Anderson talked with Murray on two or
three occasions about the proper loading of the skidway; and that Plant Superintend-
ent Parham also attempted to correct Murray in his loading of the skidway with
the Pettibone machine.
A summary of this record as it relates to Murray in his direct operations of the
Pettibone itself, shows the following: That most of the cylinder damage resulted
during the day shift and on which Murray was regularly assigned; that on fre-
quent occasions Murray carried the logs high on the "boom" and without using
the "table" of the machine; that Murray would constantly run the Pettibone too fast
(hot rodding); and that Murray had received several warnings from supervisors
about such practices.
The evidence in this record further substantiates that Murray would also operate
the small Pettibone when the big machine was broken down, and that his reckless
methods in mistreating equipment would then result in the small Pettibone being
"tore up." This happened to such an extent that Parham even refused to permit
Murray to run the small machine. Further evidence also reveals that while Murray
would always agree with supervisors when they warned or corrected his improper
operations, he nevertheless persisted and continued with his old and reckless habits
while other Pettibone operators made changes in their work performances, as
aforestated.
In the many years Plant Superintendent Parham had been engaged in
the sawmill industry, both construction and operation, he stated that he had worked
21 Cecil Bordeaux testified that James operated the Pettibone within permissible speeds,
and that he picked the logs up with the machine in the correct manner.
21 The record duly establishes that the Company had no formal system, as such, of warn-
ing its employees, either written or verbal.
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
around 500 or 600 different men, and that during that entire time he had dis-
charged or fired very few-not over a half a dozen. Whereupon Parham was
further questioned and responded as follows:
Q. Why?
A. Well, I've always felt that firing a man didn 't always solve the prob-
lem. I felt kind of like I had failed to do maybe my duty, or something, and
I would just work with them. I try to work with them and as long as they
gave me any response or any indication that they wanted to do better, or were
trying to do, why, I just didn 't do it.
Q. Based on that code that you followed , did you so work with Freddy John
Murray?
A. I did.
Q. Did you finally give up hope?
A. I finally gave up hope.
From this entire record it must be clear to all that the Respondent had every
right to finally give up on Murray , and I am convinced that the true motivating
forces in his discharge were the continued improper loading of the skidway along
with the careless operation of the Pettibone machine after repeated warnings by
supervisors . Even if the incident on November 20 was accidental and one which
Murray had no control over, it nevertheless certainly culminated and climaxed a
long series of troubles with Murray 's operation of the Pettibone.24
For these reasons it will be recommended that the allegation in respect to the
discriminatory discharge of Murray be dismissed.
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 operations of the Respondent, described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative
of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom,
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within - the meaning of Section,
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the _
Act.
3. By threatening employees with adverse consequences, including job loss, in
the event they selected the Union as their collective-bargaining agent, and by ,
creating an atmosphere or futility to discourage support for the Union among
employees, and by other acts, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. '
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the conclusions of law, and upon the entire record' in the case,
it ' is recommended that Herman Wilson Lumber Company, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall: -
1. Cease and desist from threatening employees with adverse consequences, in-
cluding job loss, in the event they select the Union as their collective-bargaining
24 It is noted here also that several of the Respondent's witnesses who gave adverse testi-__
mony on Murray had no personal reasons of any kind to be antagonistic It Is also noted
here that'if Wilson complimented Murray as a "good hand," he did so after Murray had
served as an observei for the Union, and under such circumstances lends no weight to the
General Counsel's case. It is also obvious from this record that Wilson placed the entire
working force of the mill under the specific direction of his logging and plant supervisors.
HERMAN WILSON LUMBER COMPANY 687
agent, or, in any like or similar manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
the Union herein, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Monticello, Arkansas, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 25 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 26, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representa-
tive of the Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Diiector for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.26
It is further recommended that unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt
of this Decision, the Respondent notifies said Regional Director, in writing, that it
will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the Board issue an
Order requiring the Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
It is also recommended that the allegation in respect to the discriminatory
discharge of Murray, and the allegation that the Respondent promised its em-
ployees improved working conditions (paragraph 7 of the complaint), be
dismissed
^ In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision
and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Exam-
iner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be 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 "
"I In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 the 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, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with-adverse consequences, including
job loss, in the event they select International Woodworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, CLC, or any other'union as their collective -bargaining agent.
WE WILL NOT in any like of similar manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the excercise of their right to self-organization , to join or
assist the above-named, or any other, labor organization to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or- to engage in other concert-
ed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or
protection, or-to refrain from any and all such-activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain. members of the above-named or
any other labor organization or to refrain from such membership.
HERMAN WILSON LUMBER 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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746
Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee, Telephone
No. 534-3161, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.