IXL Manufactuing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 780 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IXL Manufacturing Company, Inc. and United Broth-
erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1049. Case
14-CA-5979.
October 18, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On June 11, 1971, Trial Examiner David S.
Davidson issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged 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 also found that Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recommended
that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions and Respondent
filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and supporting briefs.
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, the cross-excep-
tions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
In affirming the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the
complaint we conclude, like the Trial Examiner, that
the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of
proving discriminatory motivation for Turner's dis-
charge.
Turner had been employed by Respondent for
about 10 months. During the preceding 6 years he had
worked for six or seven different employers, at least
one of which had discharged him. In the several
months preceding the discharge Respondent had
become dissatisfied with Turner's work. Turner's
work record indicates that he was absent from his
machine more frequently than other employees, was
required to redo work, and had been warned on
several occasions to be more careful. On the day of his
discharge, Turner refused to sand a certain load of
handles because they were too rough, and completed
them only when told to do so or go home. During
Turner's first hour that day, Plant Superintendent
Jordan observed that Turner had been away from his
machine on a number of occasions. Thereafter and
for the remainder of the day Turner was seen absent
from his machine excessively. On receiving a report to
this effect, Jordan discharged him.
Employees at Respondent's main plant, 8 miles
away, had been represented by this same Union,
apparently without incident, for at least 3 years. There
is scant evidence in the record of union animus by
Respondent, except for a single remark made at least
5 months before Turner's discharge, and one instance
of interrogation occurring shortly thereafter. The
Trial Examiner stated he was "unable to conclude
that but for his union and concerted activities he
[Turner] would not have been discharged for cause on
November 30."1 Like the Trial Examiner, we are
unwilling to substitute speculation for proof and
adopt the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondent, IXL Manufacturing Company, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended
Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those portions of the
complaint as to which no violations have been found
are hereby dismissed.
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting in part:
I disagree with my colleagues' affirmance of the
Trial Examiner's conclusions that the Respondent's
discharge of Ronald J. Turner on November 30, 1970,
was for cause and, therefore, not violative of the Act.
Indeed, acceptance of the Trial Examiner's findings
and a proper application of well-established Board
doctrine compel a different result.
As detailed in the Trial Examiner's Decision,
Turner's activity on behalf of the Union, the Respon-
dent's knowledge of such activity, and the Respon-
dent's union animus are clearly established.
Turner began working for the Respondent in
February 1970. At that time Plant Manager Jordan
complimented him on his work and about 2 months
later transferred him from the miscellaneous duties
with which he had been occupied to belt work at
which he performed finishing operations on various
tools and implement handles, a key operation
1 Insofar as Turner's discharge may have been influenced by his a large number of Turner 's complaints as of a "personal" (hence
continuous complaining and "bitching ," the Trial Examiner characterized unprotected) nature
193 NLRB No. 115
IXL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 781
requiring skill and responsibility. Because of various
dissatisfactions among the employees, there was
initial talk in May or June about a union. The Trial
Examiner credited Turner's testimony that in June
Jordan asked Turner about the union talk and told
him ". . . you can tell the guys they'd better leave well
enough alone." Significantly, it was around this time,
the Respondent contends, that Turner's work and
work habits became a problem
In October 1970, the employees asked Turner, who
had previously been a member of the Union, to obtain
authorization cards from the Union for them to sign.
Turner did so and about the middle of October
solicited signatures from about 20 of the 26 or 27
employees at the plant and mailed the cards back to
the Union. In early November, the Union filed a
representation petition
The Trial Examiner concedes from the testimony of
Plant Manager Jordan that at least by the time the
petition was filed Jordan not only knew of the union
activities among the employees, but he also had a
strong basis to conclude that Turner was a leader in
the union activities. As pointed out by the Trial
Examiner, Turner's union activities occurred at the
plant premises in a small plant and most of the
employees were personally approached by Turner.
Various dissatisfactions among the employees led to
the interest in the Union, and Jordan viewed Turner
as the most chronic complainer in the plant The Trial
Examiner concluded that it was a short step to infer
that Jordan associated "a persistent griper over
working conditions with leadership in union activi-
ties."
Among the most serious sources of employee
dissatisfaction was the alleged failure of Respondent
to follow seniority in a series of layoffs which
commenced in the late summer and early fall in which
Turner and others were involved The Trial Examiner
found that Turner complained to management about
this and other matters and that employees looked to
Turner as a leader, encouraged him to complain about
the layoffs, and were concerned about some of the
other matters about which Turner complained to
management.
On Monday, November 30, immediately following
the layoffs referred to above, Turner reported for
work at the regular time. Soon thereafter Jordan
personally instructed one of the belt inspectors to
check on Turner and to keep track of how long Turner
was away from his machine. At quitting time that day
Jordan discharged Turner alleging: (1) Turner was
doing unsatisfactory work; (2) he stayed away from
his machine too long; and (3) he was continuously
"bitching" and complaining. About an hour previous
to the actual layoff Jordan had had a check prepared
even though he did not know what the actual earnings
for the day would be.
While finding that the reasons given for Turner's
precipitous discharge were not without foundation,
the Trial Examiner nevertheless found that Jordan
had exaggerated the extent of Turner's derelictions
and that it was clear the discharge was based on
events which immediately preceded it, such as his
"bitching" about working conditions, including the
layoffs of the preceding week which concerned him
and other employees. The Trial Examiner further
found that although Jordan had indicated dissatisfac-
tion with Turner's performance he had never warned
him and that his past record would not account for the
decision to pay Turner off on a Monday afternoon
without even computing his actual earnings. In
addition, the Trial Examiner found that there was no
rule at the plant with respect to leaving machines
during working hours, that never before was an
employee placed under surveillance, and that Turner
was the first employee who had been discharged for
this reason.
Thus, I think it is apparent from the above summary
of the Trial Examiner's findings that the reasons
stated by the Respondent for Turner's discharge do
not hold up. As set forth, one of the reasons advanced
for Turner's discharge was his continual "bitching."
The General Counsel contends that this indeed was
the only reason for Turner's discharge, that it related
directly to Turner's concerted and union activities,
and that, by assigning this as one reason for Turner's
discharge, the Respondent virtually admitted that the
discharge was unlawful. I agree that a preponderance
of the evidence supports the conclusion that a major
motivating reason for Turner's discharge was his
concerted and union activities and that the other
reasons advanced by the Respondent were pretextual.
Although not reaching this result, the Trial Examiner
did in fact conclude that he could not "find that
Jordan had no thought of Turner's complaints about
the layoffs or union activities in mind when he
decided to discharge him," and that he could not
"conclude that but for his union and concerted
activities he would not have been discharged for cause
on November 30."
The law in this area is well settled. The existence of
valid causes for a discharge is no defense where, as
here, the major motivating factor is unlawful.2
Accordingly, I would overrule the Trial Examiner,
find that Turner's discharge on November 30 was
violative of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act, and
provide for an appropriate remedy.
2 See, e g , Kansas Milling Co, 86 NLRB 925, Dunrail Construction Co,
Inc, etc, 151 NLRB 98, 105, and cases cited in In 9, United Engineering
Co, 163 NLRB 81, 82-83, and cases cited in In 13, Snyder Tank Corp, 177
NLRB No 94
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Trial Examiner: Pursuant to a
charge filed on December 9, 1970, by United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local
Union No 1049, hereinafter referred to as the Union, a
complaint issued on January 22, 1971 The complaint
alleges that in October or November 1970, Respondent's
plant manager threatened to discharge an employee for
concertedly complaining about layoffs of employees and
for expressing an interest in unionization; that in Novem-
ber or December 1970, Respondent's plant manager
questioned an employee about employees' union activities
and requested that he report on other employees' union
activities; and that on November 30, 1970, Respondent
discharged employee Ronald J Turner because of his union
and concerted activities The complaint alleges that
Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act. In its answer, Respondent denies the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
A hearing was held before me in Benton and Cape
Girardeaux, Missouri, on March 17 and 18, 1971. At the
conclusion of the hearing oral argument was waived, and
the parties were given leave to file briefs which have been
received from the General Counsel and Respondent.'
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following'
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a corporation with plants located at
various places in the State of Missouri, where it engages in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of wood turnings
and related products. During the year 1970, a representa-
tive period, Respondent purchased goods and materials
valued at in excess of $50,000 and caused them to be
delivered from points located outside the State of Missouri
to its Dexter, Missouri, plant, the plant directly involved in
this proceeding. During the same period Respondent sold
and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from the
Dexter plant to points outside the State of Missouri. I find
that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and that assertion of
jurisdiction herein is warranted.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. Background
Respondent's Dexter plant is located approximately 8
miles from its main plant at Bernie, Missouri. Sometime
prior to 1970, the Union became the representative of the
employees at the Bernie plant and entered into an
agreement with Respondent covering the Bernie employees.
Thereafter, about 3 years before the events here involved,
the Dexter employees were told by the then plant manager,
Joe Hart, that the Dexter employees would receive the same
benefits as the Bernie employees even if they did not join
the Union.
During the summer and fall of 1970 Respondent
employed between 24 and 28 employees at the Dexter
plant Among them was Ronald J. Turner who started work
as a beltman on February 9, 1970.2 Before coming to
Respondent, Turner had worked in the Dexter area for
approximately 6 years for about six or seven different
employers, at least one of which had discharged him.
After his hire by Respondent, Turner worked as one of
five or six beltmen for approximately 2 weeks, after which
he was transferred to various other duties because there was
not enough work on the belts to keep him busy. At that time
Plant Manager Jordan complimented him on his work and
told him that he wanted to keep him at work at whatever
was available so that he could go back to the belt when
beltwork again became available for him. About 2 months
later another beltman quit, and Turner was transferred
back to the belt where he worked until discharged on
November 30.
As a beltman Turner worked at a continuous sanding belt
at which he performed finishing operations on various tool
and implement handles. Turner and the other beltmen were
paid on a piece-work basis with a guaranteed minimum rate
of $1.70 an hour.
2. Alleged concerted activities and union activities
by Turner and other employees
During the course of Turner's employment, the employ-
ees discussed a number of complaints about working
conditions among themselves, including inadequate heat in
the plant, lack of towels in the washroom, and the alleged
failure of Respondent to follow seniority in a series of
layoffs which commenced in the late summer of early fall of
1970. The latter appears to have been the most serious
source of dissatisfaction among the employees.
There was some initial talk among the employees about a
union in May or June which led to nothing. But in October,
in conjunction with their dissatisfaction over the layoffs,
the employees asked Turner, who had previously been a
member of the Union, to get authorization cards from the
Union for them to sign. Turner did so, and about 6 weeks or
more before his discharge he solicited other employees who
i Respondent also filed a motion to correct the record As all of the "$1660" be corrected to read "$1460"This motion is also granted
corrections sought by Respondent are warranted, the motion is granted I All dates referred to hereafter occurred in 1970 unless otherwise
The motion has been received in evidence herein as TX Exh I The indicated
General Counsel has also moved that at p 22. 1 12 of the transcript
IXL MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
favored the Union to sign cards at the plant during break
and lunch periods, approaching about 20 of the 26 or 27
employees at the plant. After obtaining a number of
signatures Turner mailed the cards back to the Union. In
early November, the Union filed a representation petition.
According to Turner, in addition, at the request of other
employees, he acted as their spokesman throughout his
employment in bringing their complaints to Plant Manager
Jordan. Jordan, while acknowledging that Turner was a
constant complainer, testified that all of Turner's com-
plaints were personal and denied that Turner ever spoke to
him as a representative of other employees or on their
behalf. Turner's testimony that he acted as a spokesman is
not supported by the record. He testified to one instance in
June when he complained as part of a group concerning
alleged favoritism to Sanders, another beltman, in work
assignments , and then it appears that he had a personal
interest in the complaint. He did not otherwise describe
specific instances when he acted as a spokesman, and the
testimony of other employees offered to corroborate him,
falls short of establishing that they heard Turner speak to
Jordan about anything in which Turner had no immediate
personal interest . With respect to the layoffs, which appear
to have been the principal cause of dissatisfaction in the
fall, their testimony establishes only that they heard Turner
complain when he was himself directly affected.3 The
evidence also shows that other employees complained
directly to Jordan, particularly about the layoffs. I am
persuaded that Turner complained to Jordan only when he
was immediately affected by the matter about which he
complained and that he did not identify himself to Jordan
as a spokesman for other employees. At the same time, I
find that other employees looked to Turner as a leader,
encouraged him to complain, and were concerned about
some of the matters about which he complained, particular-
ly the layoffs. I also find that in complaining about the
layoffs, Turner urged that seniority be strictly followed, a
position which would generally benefit all older employees
and reflected the discussions of the employees among
themselves.
3. Alleged statements by Jordan about the Union
before Turner's discharge
a. According to Turner, in June, Jordan approached
him and said, "Turner, I hear you guys are trying to go
union ." Turner replied that he didn't know anything about
it, and Jordan said, "Turner, you can tell the guys they'd
better leave well enough alone."
Jordan was not questioned about this conversation, but
conceded that he first heard about union activity at the
plant during the summer of 1970 when Turner's brother
who was about to leave his job at the plant told Jordan that
some of the employees were talking union at the plant. In
the light this testimony of Jordan's failure to deny Turner's
testimony, I credit Ronald Turner as to his June
conversation with Jordan.4
3 One employee, Billy McGowan, testified that he heard Turner
complain about layoffs other than his own But his description of the
complaint-that it was over younger men being laid off-is inconsistent
with what was clearly the source of Turner's complaint , and another
employee whom McGowan identified as present at the time did not
783
b. According to Turner, in mid-November on a
Monday following a Thursday and Friday on which some
of the employees had been laid off, the employees were
standing around talking before work when Jordan walked
in. Turner testified that he, Turner, said, "What this place
needs is a union to straighten it up," and Jordan stepped
back and looked at Turner. According to Turner, several
minutes later Jordan and Brown, an employee who brought
work to the beltmen, came to his machine, and Jordan said,
"Turner if you aren't satisfied I can get your check for
you." Turner testified that he replied, "Jim, if I'm not
satisfied you will be the first to know about it. As far as
getting my check, I will get it myself" or "I know where to
get it."
Jordan denied that he ever heard Turner say that the
place needed a union. He was not questioned as to the
remainder of the incident, nor was Brown who testified for
Respondent. Although Turner testified that other employ-
ees were present when Jordan first passed by him on this
occasion, no one testified to corroborate his testimony that
he said that the plant needed a union in Jordan's presence,
and employees testified that they sought to keep knowledge
of their union activities from management. In these
circumstances, I credit Jordan's denial. However, in the
absence of testimony by either Jordan or Brown denying or
explaining Jordan's statements to Turner at his machine, I
credit Turner that in mid-November Jordan came to his
machine and told him that if he wasn't satisfied he could get
his check for him.
c. William Casey testified that about 2 weeks before
Turner was discharged he heard a conversation between
Turner and Jordan in which Turner said something about
the Union, and Jordan said, "I'll fire your ass." Casey was
unable to describe any of the rest of the conversation.
Jordan denied that it occurred, and Turner did not
corroborate Casey. I do not credit Casey.
4. Jordan's knowledge of the union activities
As indicated, Jordan conceded that Turner's brother told
him in June that some of the employees were talking about
a union. But he denied that he heard anything more about a
union until after the Union filed the representation
petitions when plant owner Keathley told him the Union
had filed a petition. He testified that at that time another
company official advised him not to say anything about the
Union to the employees or to question them about it.
Brown, an employee and also a witness for Respondent,
testified that 2 or 3 months before Turner was discharged
he heard a few employees talking about the Union at
lunchtime and went to Jordan and asked him "what this
was that he heard about the Union." Jordan replied that he
didn't know about it and that Brown would have to ask
them. According to Brown, about a month later he asked
Jordan what the Union had to offer the employees, and
Jordan again referred Brown to the employees or the
Union.
corroborate him
4 The complaint does not allege this conversation as a violation of Sec
8(a)(i) of the Act, apparently because it may have occurred more than 6
months before the charge was filed
5 The petition was filed between November 5 and 10.
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although other employees testified that they tried to keep
their union activities quiet and confined to those who were
interested in representation, it is clear from the testimony of
Jordan and Brown that, at least by the time the petition was
filed, Jordan knew of the union activities among the
employees.
5. Turner's discharge
a. Turner's alleged excessive absences from his
machine
It is undisputed that there was no rule at the plant with
respect to leaving machines during working hours and that
employees as a regular matter left their machines without
seeking permission to visit the restroom and water cooler
However, Jordan testified that, during the last few months
of Turner's employment, he observed Turner away from his
machine a great deal talking to other employees and spoke
to him about it a number of times. Turner on the other
hand testified that he left his machine no more than other
employees and that Jordan never spoke to him about it.
The testimony on neither side of this factual issue is
entirely satisfactory. I am mindful that proof of a negative
is always more difficult than an affirmative, that corrobora-
tion of Turner's testimony depends upon a continuing
series of observations of Turner's absences and those of
other employees, and that few employees are likely to be in
a position to make such observations because of the basic
need to remain attentive to their work. Yet it is a fact that
the witnesses who testified to corroborate Turner that his
absences were no greater than those of other employees
either were demonstrated to have had limited opportunity
to observe Turner and other employees or were not
persuasive for other reasons 6 Although Respondent's
witnesses stressed that Turner's practice differed from that
of others in that he left his machine to talk to others, none
of the General Counsel's witnesses were examined as to the
extent to which they saw Turner or others talking to other
employees at their machines and most explained that the
practice was to leave their machines to go to the restroom
or water cooler.
On the other hand, Jordan testified that during the last
few months of Turner's employment he saw Turner away
from his machine talking to other employees in the
beltroom, the lacquer room, and the front packing room. In
addition, Davis and Jenkins, employees who worked in the
front packing room, testified that Turner visited their work
area more than other employees and talked particularly to
Davis. Brown who moved materials in the beltroom
testified that he saw Turner away from his machine more
than others, usually talking to other men at their machines.
Kester, who prefaced his remarks by saying that he had
limited opportunity to observe and clearly seemed reluctant
to make invidious comparisons, testified that he saw Turner
talking to Chadwell quite a bit and that while others talked
6 Although Casey testified he worked 3 feet from Turner and was not
cross-examined in any detail on this issue, I have not credited him on
another matter and place little reliance on his testimony in this regard
Chadwell, who also worked near Turner gave an unclear answer when
asked about Turner's absences and was not questioned further about them
7 Brown testified first that he did not hear what Jordan said to Turner,
also, they mostly stayed close to their machines. While this
testimony is necessarily subject to some of the same
inherent infirmities as that corroborating Turner, I am
persuaded that there is more substance to it than to
Turner's denial and its corroboration. Kester's testimony,
although limited in scope, impressed me as both truthful
and accurate within the limits of his opportunity to observe,
and Davis and Jenkins were in a position to compare
Turner's visits to their area to those by other beltmen.
Accordingly, I do not credit Turner and find that he had
during the period before his discharge left his machine to
talk more than other employees did.
As to the egregiousness of Turner's absences and the
importance which Jordan attached to them the evidence is
in greater doubt. Turner's flat denial that Jordan ever spoke
to him about his absences is corroborated in a limited sense
by the testimony of a number of employees that they never
heard Jordan talk to Turner about leaving his machine.
Even Jenkins and Davis, who supported Jordan's testimony
that Turner went to the front room to talk more than other
employees, testified that they did not hear Jordan
reprimand Turner for being away from his machine. As it is
likely that at least some of Jordan's reprimands would have
been given to Turner at times when he was in the act of
talking to other employees, the absence of any credible
corroboration for Jordan persuades me that Jordan's
testimony that he spoke to Turner 30 or 40 times about
leaving his machine is gross exaggeration.?
Yet I cannot discredit Jordan entirely that he communi-
cated displeasure to Turner at times when he saw him away
from his machine. He testified that on occasion when he
saw Turner away from his machine, he would stand still
and watch Turner, Turner would look in his direction and
grin, and Turner would then return to work. Turner
testified that he could not deny that this had happened. In
the absence of any further explanation by'Turner, it seems
clear that he understood that Jordan was displeased and
wanted him at his machine at work.
b. Turner's alleged unsatisfactory work
Jordan testified that after initially developing well as a
beltman, Turner began to rush his work and did poor
quality work. According to Jordan, he would talk to Turner
about it quite often, Turner would improve for a while, and
he would then start doing bad work again. Jordan testified
that he required Turner to redo work because of poor
quality to a greater extent than other beltmen. However, no
records were kept to show the amount of rework required of
Turner or the other beltmen.
Brown who inspected Turner's work, testified that 3 or 4
months before Turner's discharge Jordan said that Turner
did good work but had a tendency to talk to others.
However, he also testified that on occasion he took work to
Jordan which Brown considered bad, and Jordan either
sent it back with Brown for Turner to redo or took it to
and then after being shown his preheanng statement testified that once 2 or
3 months before Turner's discharge he heard Jordan tell Turner to stay at
his machine and work instead of talking to others. However, from my
observation of Brown, whose memory was demonstrably weak, I am
persuaded that he had no present recollection of the incident he described
at the time of the hearing but felt it necessary to support his affidavit.
IXL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 785
Turner and told him he had to do better. According to
Brown, toward the end of Turner's employment on six to
eight occasions Turner refused to redo work when Brown
brought it back to him, and Jordan had to go back to
instruct Turner to redo the work.
Jenkins, who testified for the General Counsel, was asked
on cross-examination about Turner's work, and testified
that he heard Jordan tell Turner to be more careful in his
work. According to Jenkins during the month before
Turner's discharge, Jordan told Jenkins that Turner was a
good beltman, but that he worked too fast sometimes and
roughed up the handles. Jenkins testified that Jordan said
Turner was trying to make too much money and was
thinking of getting rid of him.
Turner on the other hand testified that Jordan never
criticized his work and always told him that he was doing
fine. He testified also that he was only required to redo
work once and on that occasion Jordan did not know who
among the beltmen was responsible for the poor work.
Other employees testified that they never heard Jordan
criticize Turner's work."
Again I find that the facts lie somewhere between the two
extremes described. Although Turner claimed that the one
time he was asked to redo work Jordan was uncertain as to
who was responsible for it, the description of the beltroom
procedures makes it unlikely that Jordan was unable to
identify the operator who originally did the work. Turner
conceded that on one occasion Sanders, another beltman,
complained about Turner's work when Sanders was
required to perform the next successive operation on
handles Turner had sanded. I cannot credit his testimony
that Jordan never criticized his work.
However, Brown's testimony as to six or eight occasions
when Turner refused to redo work until ordered by Jordan
was not mentioned by Jordan in his testimony despite its
obvious significance, and I find it difficult to attach any
weight to Brown's estimate as to the frequency with which
Turner produced poor work. Jordan's testimony as to the
frequency with which Turner produced unsatisfactory work
was general and summary in nature and seems as likely to
have been infected with exaggeration as his testimony
concerning the number of times he spoke to Turner about
his absences from his machine. Jenkins' testimony that
Jordan told him he was thinking of getting rid of Turner
was not mentioned by Jordan, and Jordan made no claim
s Although some employees testified that they heard Jordan compliment
Turner's work, all but Chadwell cunceded that they heard the compliments
soon after Turner started work, and Chadwell's testimony was equivocal as
to timing and patently strained credulity in his explanation of the occasion
for the compliment
9 Jordan testified only that his conversation with Turner at this time
concerned the unemployment claim Turner on the other hand testified
that at this time he also complained about the layoff on behalf of himself
and other senior men , and that he threatened to report Jordan to the Labor
Board, whereupon Jordan accused him of being after his "hind end" and
causing Jordan more trouble than 25 men Turner also acknowledged that
he conferred with Cecil McGowan after initially speaking with Jordan, that
he told McGowan what he was going to do, and that McGowan approved
However , Chadwell, apparently describing a conversation between Turner
and Jordan concerning this layoff, testified that Turner complained only
about his own layoff, and McGowan did not corroborate Turner as to his
conversation with Turner but testified that he complained separately to
Jordan about the layoff While I find it highly unlikely that Turner said
nothing about the layoff when he first visited the plant that day, I credit
Turner only to the extent of finding that he complained about his own
that he ever threatened Turner with discharge because of
his work. I find that on at least some occasions Jordan told
Turner to be more careful in his work, but not to the extent
that he sought to convey.
c. The Thanksgiving layoff and Turner's discharge
The testimony of Turner and Jordan as to the events
leading up to Turner's discharge is not in conflict in its
general outline, but is in conflict as to much of its detail. In
general neither impressed me as entirely accurate in his
testimony, and I have neither credited nor discredited
either of them entirely. Yet as between them, I have viewed
the deficiencies in Jordan's testimony as more in the nature
of coloration and exaggeration, while the deficiencies in
Turner's testimony are at places more fundamental.
Considering their testimony over all I have concluded that
Jordan's version of these events should be credited as more
accurate than that of Turner except as noted below.
On Wednesday, November 25, 1970, the day before
Thanksgiving, during the afternoon Jordan told a number
of employees, including Turner that there would be no
work for them on the day after Thanksgiving. Before he left
that day, Turner asked Jordan to have an unemployment
card for him on Friday, and on Friday morning, the day
after Thanksgiving, Turner went to the plant and asked
Jordan for an unemployment card. Jordan told him he did
not have one, and Turner said he was going to the
unemployment office to file a claim. Turner also criticized
Jordan for bringing younger men to work that morning
while he was laid off.9
Turner returned to the plant after visiting the employ-
ment office and again spoke to Jordan. Turner inquired
about specific employees who were at work, asking why he
could not have worked in their place, and Jordan explained
that they had jobs which it would take Turner a while to
learn. Turner told Jordan he had the number of the NLRB
and was going to call to complain about the layoff.io
Jordan told him to go ahead and that he did not care as
long as Turner told the truth and the whole story.[[
On Monday, November 30, Turner reported for work at
the regular time. About 8:30 a.m. Jordan instructed Darrell
Brown, who brought work to the beltmen and inspected
their work, to keep track of how long Turner was away
from his machine. According to Jordan, he gave this
layoff at that time
is According to Turner, he threatened to report Jordan to the Board
earlier that day and at this time told Jordan that he wasn't going to call the
Board but was going to wait and see how things worked out. Turner also
testified that at the conclusion of this conversation he told Jordan that he
was tired of fighting with him, was not going to do so any more, and was
going to come to work Monday and not bother with him Nothing in
Turner's version of the events explains his alleged change of heart, and
indeed the evidence shows that on Monday morning Turner persistently
voiced complaints over the handles he was given to work on I find
Jordan's testimony more plausible and credit his testimony as to this
conversation
ii According to Jordan, he did not then know what the NLRB was and
asked Turner who replied that it was "a labor deal" in St Louis that
controlled "this " While I am aware that Jordan's experience with labor
matters may well have been limited, in view of the representation of the
employees at the Bernie plant, the pendency of the petition for an election
among the Dexter employees of which Jordan was aware, and the fact that
he was previously instructed to remain silent about the Union, I am
skeptical that he was as uninformed as he indicated
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
instruction after observing on six or seven occasions during
the first hour of work that Turner was away from his
machine.
Around 9 a.m. Turner told Jordan that he needed to leave
the plant to go to the bank dunng his break period and
asked for permission to overstay the break by 10 minutes
for that purpose. Jordan told Turner he ought to be able to
get back in time, but when Turner disagreed and stated that
he would need the extra time, Jordan said he guessed it
would be all right. Jordan conceded that he said nothing to
Turner at this time about having observed that Turner was
spending too much time away from his machine, but
testified that when Turner first asked for permission to
leave he told Turner he was rushed and needed to get the
work out. He explained that he did not say anything about
Turner's absences from his machine because Turner knew
that he was away from his machine a lot and because
Jordan had watched him over the last 2 or 3 weeks so that
there was no need to say anything further to him about it.
Turner left the plant at 9:20 on his break and returned 10
minutes late in accord with the permission granted him.
During the morning Turner was given a load of rough
handles to work on. Turner complained to Jordan about
them and questioned whether they would pass inspection.
Jordan looked at them and told Turner to do the best that
he could. He told Turner he knew they were a little rough
but that he believed they would get by. Turner ran more of
the handles and again showed them to Jordan, who told
him he believed they would pass and to do the best that he
could. Jordan made no complaints about Turner's work on
these occasions.
After the lunchbreak, Turner continued to work on the
same batch of handles and again showed one to Jordan. On
this occasion Turner told Jordan that when Keathley, the
plant owner, came through Turner wanted to see him and
show him what Jordan was making Turner do.
During the afternoon Brown went to Jordan and told him
that Turner was refusing to run a load of handles.12 Jordan
went to Turner's machine where he found Turner standing
by the machine. Turner told Jordan that he wasn't going to
run the handles because they were too rough. Jordan told
him he would have to run them or go home, and Turner
resumed work. 13
Around 3 p.m., an hour before quitting time, Brown gave
Jordan the piece of paper on which he had recorded his
observations of Turner. On it he had noted 15 times when
Turner had left his machine ranging in duration from 2 to
7-1/2 minutes and totaling 49 minutes. Next to some of the
entries he noted the names of some of those visited by
Turner, including Jordan and himself each on one
occasion. Brown also noted one visit by Turner to the
bathroom and the fact that Turner was 10 minutes late in
12 According to Jordan, Brown also told him that he was running them
too rough and was cutting them up Brown was not questioned about this,
and there is no indication in Jordan's testimony that he complained to
Turner about the quality of his work on this occasion
13 Jordan so testified Although Brown was not questioned as to this
incident, Turner did not contradict Jordan, and I have credited Jordan
14 According to Jordan, he also told Turner this reason was not
important but entered into it In a statement given by Jordan to
Respondent's attorney and submitted to the Regional Office during the
investigation of this case Jordan did not characterize this reason as
returning from his break. Someone else apparently wrote
other information on the slip after Brown gave it to Jordan.
Brown testified that Turner's visit to Jordan concerned
the handles he was working on and was unable to recall
what Turner had talked to Brown about. Brown wrote no
name next to a number of the entries but testified that each
of those entries related to a visit by Turner to Chadwell
whose name he did not know how to spell. Although Brown
testified that his instruction was to record when Turner left
the machine to talk to others, he recorded other absences,
and Jordan testified that he only told Brown to note how
much time Turner spent away from his machine. In these
circumstances, and as Brown's memory was demonstrably
poor, I do not credit his testimony as to the nature of his
instructions or that each of the entries unaccompanied by a
name related to a visit by Turner to Chadwell.
According to Jordan, after he looked over Brown's notes,
he decided to fire Turner, and called the Bernie plant to
have a check prepared for Turner and sent over before the 4
p.m. quitting time. As Jordan did not then know what
Turner's actual earnings for the day were he asked to have
his check made out for $15, which was $1.40 more than the
guaranteed minimum daily rate.
At quitting time, as Turner was about to leave, Jordan
called him to one side and told him he was going to fire
him. Turner asked why, and Jordan proceeded to state
three reasons. Jordan told Turner that he was doing
unsatisfactory work, that his handles were not good enough
to send out and that many of them had to be done over.
Jordan then told Turner he was staying away from his
machine too long, especially during the past 2 or 3 months.
Turner asked what he meant by that, and Jordan told him
that he had observed Turner away from his machine talking
and had him clocked that day. Jordan told Turner what
Brown had noted. Turner denied that he had been away
from his machine that long. Jordan then told Turner that
the third reason for his discharge was that he was
continuously "bitching" and complaining and that he could
not do anything to satisfy Turner.14
Jordan told Turner that his check was on the way. They
discussed how much Turner had earned that day and
whether Turner would be able to collect unemployment
compensation. Turner said that he was going to report
Jordan to the NLRB. Jordan told him to go ahead as long
as he told the truth.15 Turner left.
About 5 minutes later Turner returned and asked Jordan
if he knew the plant was going to go umon.16 Jordan said
that he did not and added that the Union had nothing to do
with Turner's discharge. Turner asserted that the plant was
going union and that he had Just talked to some employees
who were going to call the Union and go on stnke the
following morning. Turner asserted that he told them not to
unimportant I do not credit this aspect of Jordan's testimony.
15 Although Turner testified that on this occasion he told Jordan he was
going to report him to the Union, I have accepted Jordan 's testimony that
the threat was to report him to the NLRB, similar to Turner's previous
threat in connection with his layoff
1s Both Turner and Jordan testified that Turner asked this question, but
Turner placed it as during the earlier conversation after Jordan told him
the reasons for his discharge I have credited Jordan as to its timing as it
appears to fit more logically with the remainder of the conversation upon
Turner's return
IXL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 787
strike and talked to Jordan about the strike threat a few
minutes longer . Turner then left.
6. The interrogation after Turner's discharge
Bobby Jenkins testified that about a week after Turner
was discharged, Jordan asked him if he had heard anything
about the Union. Jenkins replied that he had heard some
rumors around the mill, but that the men did not talk
around him . Jenkins testified that Jordan then asked him if
he would let him know if he heard any more about it, and
Jenkins said he would. According to Jenkins Jordan then
asked him if he knew any certain ones were talking about it,
and Jenkins replied that he couldn't tell off hand.
Jordan acknowledged that he asked Jenkins one evening
in December or January if he had heard anything about the
Union, but denied that he asked Jenkins to let him know if
he heard anything.
Jenkins, who testified for the General Counsel, was still
employed by Respondent as leadman in its shipping room
at the time of the hearing. Although Jenkins showed some
hesitancy until shown his affidavit to give other testimony
which was not favorable to the General Counsel's position,
his testimony at the hearing as to this incident was not
shown to be in conflict with his affidavit nor was there any
indication that he failed to mention this incident in his
affidavit. Whatever the reason for his hesitancy to testify at
the hearing with respect to the other matters which he had
disclosed in his affidavit, I am persuaded that Jenkins
sought to testify truthfully both at the hearing and at the
time he gave his affidavit soon after the events occurred. I
have credited Jenkins as to this interrogation as well as
other matters.
B. Concluding Findings
1. The alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1)
I have found that in December 1970, Jordan asked
Jenkins whether he had heard anything about the Union,
asked Jenkins to let him know if Jenkins heard anymore
about it, and asked Jenkins if he knew any certain persons
were talking about it. This questioning which sought to
encourage Jenkins to report back anything he might hear
about the Union in the future and to identify those
engaging in union activity clearly went beyond the limits of
permissible interrogation and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
The other violation of Section 8(a)(1) alleged in the
complaint is based on the testimony of William Casey
which I have not credited. Accordingly, I shall recommend
that that allegation be dismissed.
2. Turner's discharge
As set forth, one of the reasons advanced for Turner's
discharge was his contmual "bitching." The General
Counsel contends that this indeed was the only reason for
Turner's discharge, that it related directly to Turner's
concerted and union activities, and that by assigning this
reason for Turner's discharge, Jordan virtually admitted
that it was unlawful.
I have not accepted the General Counsel's contention
that the other reasons for Turner 's discharge were wholly
without foundation . Yet it is nonetheless clear that
whatever Turner's past performance his discharge was
precipitated by events which immediately preceded it.
Jordan had been dissatisfied with Turner's performance for
2 or 3 months but had not warned him that failure to
improve would lead to his discharge, and Turner's past
record alone would not account for Jordan's decision to
pay Turner off on a Monday afternoon without even
computing his actual earnings before causing his final
check to be written.
There is some basis to infer that Turner 's absences from
his machine were not the reason Jordan instructed Brown
to watch Turner on the day of his discharge. Although
Jordan claimed to have observed Turner away from his
machine on a number of occasions over a 2- to 3-month
period, until the morning of Turner's return from the
Thanksgiving layoff Jordan had never before placed
Turner under surveillance. On this occasion he assigned
Brown, a fellow employee with whom Turner had
previously had a runin, as the observer. Despite the
extremity of the derelictions which Jordan claimed to
observe during the first hour of work that morning, he
concededly did not speak to Turner once that day about his
absences. Indeed when Turner asked permission during the
morning to overstay his break, Jordan still said nothing to
him about leaving his machine and did not say, as would
seem almost automatic in the circumstances, that Turner
could go but that Jordan expected him to remain at his
machine after his return and not leave it to talk to other
employees.
Thus one might reasonably conclude that when Jordan
instructed Brown to keep track of Turner's absences that
morning, he had already decided to terminate Turner and
only sought to acquire whatever supporting evidence
Brown's observation might furnish before discharging
Turner at the end of the day.
Further there is reason to believe that the cause of
Jordan's course of action was Turner's complaint over his
layoff and threat to report Jordan to the Board. Jordan had
approximately 2 weeks earlier offered to pay Turner off if
he was not satisfied, and on the day of Turner's discharge
mentioned his "bitching" as one of the reasons for it. The
evidence also shows that Jordan had exhibited some
hostility to the Union in June when he advised Turner to
tell other employees to leave well enough alone and a week
after Turner's discharge when he questioned Jenkins and
sought to learn whether there was further talk about the
Union and if so by whom. By the latter interrogation
Jordan apparently sought to learn what effect Turner's
discharge had upon the union activities.
Moreover, there is basis to conclude that Jordan was
aware both that Turner was a leader in the union activities
and that Turner's complaints over the layoffs were directly
related to the concerted and union activities of the
employees. It was Turner's brother who in June first
informed Jordan that there was talk of a union in the plant,
and it was Turner whom Jordan asked to tell the employees
they had better leave well enough alone . Turner's union
activities occurred at the plant premises where he
approached most of the employees and asked them to sign
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cards. Despite the efforts of employees to keep knowledge
of their union activities to themselves , Brown was aware of
them and spoke to Jordan about them. In addition to what
may be inferred from these circumstances, Jordan viewed
Turner as the most chronic complainer at the plant, and
particularly in the absence of any denial by Jordan that he
knew of Turner 's union activities , it is a short step to infer
that Jordan associated a persistent griper over working
conditions with leadership in the union activities.
Although I have rejected Turner's testimony that he
acted as a spokesman for other employees in complaining
to Jordan, the evidence does show that Turner's complaints
over the layoffs were an integral part of the concerted and
union activity at the plant. The layoffs were a matter of
common concern . The employees discussed them among
themselves , and other employees , as well as Turner
complained to Jordan about them . The general dissatisfac-
tion over the layoffs had led the employees to seek union
representation . The dissatisfaction was based on the shared
belief that semonty should be followed in layoffs.
Moreover , although there is no direct evidence that Jordan
knew of the discussions among the employees or what led
them to seek union representation , he knew that complaints
about the layoffs were general , that a representation
petition had been filed, and that Turner had threatened to
report Jordan to the NLRB because of the layoffs. It
required little sophistication for Jordan to recognize in
these circumstances that what was the source of common
complaint was at the heart of the union activities of the
employees and that Turner 's complaint and threat were
directly related to them.
Before one can draw the ultimate conclusion , however,
that it was in fact Turner 's complaint and threat of the
previous Friday and their relation to the union activities
which caused his discharge, one must look further at the
events on the day of Turner's discharge. Although Jordan
stated three reasons for Turner's discharge, he stated that
he made the decision to discharge Turner after receiving
Brown's notes relating to Turner 's absences from his
machine , indicating that Brown's report was the triggering
factor. I have already indicated the basis for doubt as to
what caused Jordan to instruct Brown to observe Turner,
and there is also basis to doubt whether all the entries in
Brown 's represented censurable absences . One entry
related to a conversation between Turner and Jordan which
was work related. Another concerned a conversation
between Turner and Brown which Brown could not recall
but may also have related to work as Brown supplied
Turner with work . Brown 's testimony also leaves in doubt
what the entries unaccompanied by names related to.
Nonetheless , I am not persuaded that Brown 's notes were
fabricated or that Jordan had any reason to believe that
they did not reflect absences which Brown had observed.
There remains one additional factor on which Jordan laid
no great stress in describing his reasons for discharging
Turner but which nonetheless falls within the reasons
advanced by him for it. On the day of the discharge, Turner
complained quite persistently about the kind of handles
given him to work on. This was not a new complaint for
Turner. Two other specific instances were mentioned when
Turner voiced similar complaints. In June he complained as
part of a group over the distribution of rough handles
among the beltmen, and again several weeks before his
discharge he complained as an individual, alleging that
Sanders, a more experienced beltman, was being favored in
assignments . On the day of his discharge , Turner again
complained about the roughness of the handles he was
given to work on. On this occasion there is no indication
that he contended that any other beltman was being
favored, but he complained that the handles were too rough
to sand. Although Jordan told him to do the best he could
and he believed they would pass, Turner persisted in his
complaint . In the afternoon he told Jordan he wanted to see
the plant owner so that he could tell him what Jordan was
making him do, and still later he refused to continue work
on the handles until told by Jordan to resume work or go
home.
Although Jordan was not asked what continuous
"bitching" he referred to when he mentioned this reason at
the time of Turner's discharge, and indeed downgraded
Turner's complaining as a reason for the discharge,
Turner's complaints about the work represented a further
example of the kind of personal complaints that Jordan
testified Turner regularly made. The fact and strength of
Turner's complaints on the day of discharge necessarily
imparts some ambiguity to Turner 's reference to Turner's
"bitching" at the time of his discharge.
Moreover, Turner's temporary refusal to work, which he
did not deny, places in some question the premise that
Turner's discharge had in effect been decided when Jordan
instructed Brown to watch him. For it would appear that
whatever else, Turner's refusal to work furnished Jordan
with a clear opportunity to discharge Turner on the spot. If
indeed Jordan was seeking to establish cause for Turner's
discharge , it became unnecessary for him to look further. It
is true that Jordan did not even mention this refusal at the
time of Turner's discharge , except to the extent that he may
have viewed it as an aggravated form of griping . Yet the
very fact that he gave Turner an opportunity to resume
work dung the afternoon shortly before his discharge and
did not see in the incident an opportunity to discharge
Turner immediately, places in substantial question the
inference that the evidence otherwise would seem to
support that Jordan had determined to discharge Turner
early that day because of his conduct the previous Friday
and was merely looking through Brown for evidence of
other cause.
Like all cases offering choices of motives or mixed
motives, it is difficult to separate out that which is or may
be unlawful from that which is not and attach appropriate
weight to it. The circumstances under which Brown was
instructed to watch Turner certainly raise substantial
suspicion as to Jordan's reasons for placing Turner under
surveillance, and Jordan's reference to Turner's continuous
"bitching" at the very least suggests that Jordan had the
whole gamut of Turner's complaints in mind. Thus, I
cannot find that Jordan had no thought of Turner's
complaints about the layoffs or union activities in mind
when he decided to discharge him. Yet the dual nature of
Turner's complaints and Turner's conduct on the day of his
discharge makes Jordan's reliance upon Turner's complain-
ing less than an admission of an unlawful motive.
IXL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 789
Moreover, although I am satisfied that Turner's record with
respect to work performance and attendance at his machine
did not precipitate his discharge, the evidence as to his
record is not so weak as to justify a conclusion that it
played no role in his discharge, or that Jordan had no basis
for his reference to these factors when he discharged
Turner. While I have pointed to some evidence of animus
above in summing up the factors which support the
complaint, that evidence is not compelling. One remark was
made several months before the discharge The interroga-
tion occurred soon after it, and while of significance, may
indicate only a desire to learn the consequences of Turner's
discharge rather than a confession of its purpose.
Otherwise, there is no evidence that from the time the
petition was filed until Turner's discharge, Respondent
took any action, lawful or otherwise, to discourage the
union activities
In sum, there is basis for suspicion that Turner's activities
in support of the Union played some part in the decision to
discharge him, but in choosing from the competing
inferences , I cannot conclude that but for his union and
concerted activities he would not have been discharged for
cause on November 30
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 Respondent's
operations described in section I, 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
Although I have found only a single incident violative of
Section 8(a)(1), inasmuch as Jordan's interrogation of
Jenkins went to the union activity of employees other than
Jenkins and their identity, I find that a remedial order is
warranted and shall recommend that Respondent cease
and desist from the conduct found unlawful and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. IXL Manufacturing Company, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1049 is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating an employee as to the union
activities of other employees and the identity of union
proponents and asking him to report back any talk about
the Union that he heard , Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 17
ORDER
Respondent, IXL Manufacturing Company, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees about their union activities
and those of other employees.
(b) Asking employees to report on the umon activities of
other employees and to identify union proponents.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1049, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Dexter, Missouri, place of business copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing 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.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.19
i7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Sec 102 .48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted
by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order , and all
objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
18 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
19 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 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT question our employees about their
union activities or those of other employees.
WE WILL NOT ask our employees to report on the
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union activities of other employees or to identify those
speaking for the union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization , to form labor organiza-
tions , to join or assist United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, Local Union
No. 1049 , or any other labor organization , to bargain
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities.
Dated By
(Representative) (Title )
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 210
North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St. Louis, Missouri
63101, Telephone 314-622-4142.
IXL MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC.
(Employer)