McGlothlin, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 972 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McGlothlin, Inc. and Kenneth Paul Simpkins . Case APPENDIX
5-CA-7330
February 19, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On October 10, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
John M. Dyer issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions 1 and a supporting brief. The General Counsel
filed an answering brief to Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Mc-
Glothlin, Inc., Tazewell, Virginia, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order, as so modified.
1. In paragraph 1(b) substitute "other" for "like or
related."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
"(a) Offer Kenneth Paul Simpkins and Berney
Tignor reinstatement to their former positions or, if
those positions no longer exist, to substantially equiv-
alent ones, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
i Respondent excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's rendering his
Decision without any brief being served on Respondent's counsel and, in its
brief, argues "that there should be either a new trial or an opportunity for
counsel for Respondent to review the brief filed by General Counsel with
the Law Judge." The General Counsel's brief was served on Respondent
but, inadvertently, not on its counsel. However, a copy of the General
Counsel's brief to the Administrative Law Judge was attached to the Gener-
al Counsel's answering brief to Respondent's exceptions which was served
on Respondent's counsel Thus, Respondent's counsel has obtained the op-
portunity it requested to review the General Counsel's brief to the Adminis-
trative Law Judge Moreover, there has been no claim or showing of preju-
dice from the failure to serve Respondent's counsel earlier Accordingly, no
further action with respect to this exception is warranted
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE /
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which the Company, Kenneth Paul
Simpkins, and the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board participated and offered evi-
dence, the National Labor Relations Board found
that we violated the law and ordered us to post this
notice and we intend to carry out the order of the
Board and abide by the following:
WE WILL offer Kenneth Paul Simpkins and
Berney Tignor full reinstatement to their former
positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent ones, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make them whole for any losses they suf-
fered because of our discrimination.
WE WILL NOT discharge, lay off, or refuse to
hire or rehire any employee in order to try to
discourage our employees from being or becom-
ing members of a union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist a
union, to bargain collectively with representa-
tives of their own choosing, or to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain
union members.
MCGLOTHLIN, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M. DYER , Administrative Law Judge : Kenneth
Paul Simpkins filed a charge on June 9, 1975,! which was
amended on June 30 , and alleged that McGlothlin, Inc.,
herein called Respondent or the Company, had violated
Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Simpkins
and others.
The Regional Director of Region 5, issued a complaint
and notice of hearing on July 11, alleging that on January
3 Respondent had discriminatorily discharged Simpkins
i Unless otherwise specifically stated all events herein occurred during
1975
222 NLRB No. 162
McGLOTHLIN, INC. 973
and Berney Tignor because of their protected concerted
union activity. Respondent's July 15 answer admitted the
commerce and jurisdictional allegations and that James
McGlothlin was the president of Respondent and Ershell
Vance was a dispatcher foreman at the material times but
denied that it had discriminatorily discharged Simpkins
and Tignor or violated the Act. Respondent stated that
they were terminated because of their "substandard driving
records resulting in excessive insurance, repair and other
costs to Respondent."
The principal question is whether Respondent dis-
charged Simpkins and Tignor because it felt that they were
involved in union organization at its plant or whether they
were discharged for the reasons Respondent gives. The evi-
dence is convincing that Respondent discharged Simpkins
and Tignor because it felt they were working to bring a
union into Respondent's plant. Respondent's evidence was
self-contradictory on several important points and Mc-
Glothlin and Vance did not impress me as credible witness-
es. I have therefore concluded that Respondent violated
the Act and will make appropriate recommendations to
remedy the violations.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally
at the hearing which was held on August 1, in Tazewell,
Virginia. General Counsel and the Respondent have filed
briefs which have been carefully considered.
On the entire record in this case including my evaluation
of the reliability of the witnesses based on the evidence
received and my observation of their demeanor and the
nature and manner in which the responses were made, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Virginia corporation engaged in the dis-
tribution of mine rock dust, predried traction sand, and
rock bolts from its facilities located near Pounding Mill,
Virginia. During the past year Respondent sold and
shipped directly to points outside the State of Virginia
products valued in excess of $50,000.
Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Undisputed Facts
Respondent has two locations with offices; one near
Pounding Mill where there is a store and a second some
miles away at Sword's Creek where the truck dispatcher's
office is located. The two offices maintain communications
by two-way radio or phone. The truck dispatcher at that
time was admitted Supervisor Ershell Vance. Mrs. Carol
Miller, a bookkeeper, worked in that office under Vance
and prepared mileage rates etc.
The Company has some 40 to 50 drivers who haul rock
dust, sand, and rock bolts to various locations in South
Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Kentucky. According to Simpkins and Tignor they worked
between 70 and 100 hours a week and received $2.60 and
$2.65 an hour, respectively, but did not receive overtime.
Simpkins testified that during December 1974 he and
some other employees discussed, the possibility of organiz-
ing a union and arranged a meeting to be held at a local
restaurant, known as the Mickey Mouse Restaurant, on
Sunday, January 5. The drivers were invited by word of
mouth to attend the meeting at which a field representative
of a union was to appear and discuss union organization.
Tignor testified that he did not hear about the meeting
until Thursday, January 2, when a fellow driver told him
about the coming Sunday meeting at the Mickey Mouse
Restaurant.
Respondent's liability insurance for its trucks had been
on an assigned risk basis in the State of Virginia for a
period ranging between 9 and 15 years according to the
estimates of various witnesses. Its insurance policies were
placed through the General Insurance Company in Blue-
field, West Virginia, whose president, Hopper Lazenby, ac-
knowledged that General Insurance Company received
some $80,000 to $90,000 in premiums from Respondent
yearly.
B. The Discharges
Mrs. Carol Miller worked for Respondent from Decem-
ber 1974 until April 1975 when she quit. She testified that
on Friday, January 3, dispatcher Vance came into her of-
fice and told her that James McGlothlin, president of Re-
spondent, had called him. Vance asked if she had heard
any of the men talking about forming a union at the restau-
rant near her house, that McGlothlin had said that some of
the men were trying to form a union. Mrs. Miller said she
had not and Vance said that, "we can't have that. This
company can't be run that way."
After making a delivery Simpkins returned to the
dispatcher's office around noontime and overheard Vance
telling Some mechanics or drivers that some of the drivers
were starting a union and if he found out who it was he
would fire them. Simpkins was dispatched for another trip
and when he returned that evening was told by Vance that
he was going to lay off Tignor and him because of insur-
ance problems with their driving records. Simpkins went to
the other building to bookkeeper Carol Miller's office and
told her that he probably would not be seeing her anymore.
When she asked why, he said they were discharging him
probably over the union. Miller said that was what it was,
because she had heard from Vance about the union and
that Vance had been mad all day because of what the driv-
ers were planning to do.
Tignor testified that when he came in on Friday evening,
Vance told him he was being discharged because the insur-
ance company had grounded ,hum because of his driving
record. Tignor asked Vance if .it was because of the union
meeting and Vance replied it was because of his driving
record.
Mrs. Miller testified that later the same evening Vance
told her that they had to lay off two of the men. When she
asked who, he replied that it was Tignor and Simpkins and
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
said it was for insurance reasons.
On the following day, January 4, Tignor returned to the
plant and spent most of the day there , speaking to Mc-
Glothlin and Vance on several occasions . On one occasion
McGlothlin said that the insurance company had ground-
ed Tignor and he could not work any more until McGloth-
lin got it straightened out and that would take about 2
weeks.
In speaking to Vance that day, Tignor asked if the layoff
was on account of the meeting or why he was being laid
off. Vance said that he did not - know anything about a
meeting until the day before . Tignor asked Vance who told
him about the meeting and Vance replied it was McGloth-
lin.
Later McGlothlin returned and Tignor asked if anybody
had told him that Tignor was in on some kind of a meeting.
McGlothlin said no . Tignor told him that they would wait
and see but if anybody had told McGlothlin it was him
(Tignor) that he had told a lie. At that McGlothlin went
out to the shop door and spoke to Vance and according to
Tignor, both Vance and McGlothlin turned somewhat red.
On Monday , January 6, both Simpkins and Tignor re-
turned to the plant to get their "cutoff" (layoff) slips. Simp-
kins asked McGlothlin for a cutoff slip . McGlothlin said
he had heard that there was a drivers ' meeting to be held at
the restaurant on Sunday and asked if he had gone. Simp-
kins said he did not go since he saw little use to it after
McGlothlin fired him . McGlothlin asked how many driv-
ers showed up on Sunday and Simpkins said he did not
know because everybody got scared after McGlothlin fired
Tignor and him , - that just about everybody "chickened
out." Then McGlothlin asked how many of the drivers
were involved in the union and Simpkins replied that if he
knew he would not tell him because he did not want to get
the guys fired.
Tignor testified that on Monday morning he told Mc-
Glothlin that if McGlothlin had not called Vance about
the meeting that Vance must have called and told him.
McGlothlin admitted that three or four men had told him
that Tignor was in on the union meeting but would not tell
Tignor who they were.
McGlothlin said he did not know what to put on the
cutoff slip and would just put down that they had quit.
Both Tignor and Simpkins objected saying that McGloth-
lin should put on the cutoff slips what he had told them,
that they were being discharged because they could not be
covered by the insurance company. McGlothlin agreed
and had the secretary type up the slips, which gave as the
reason: "Insurance Co. refused to cover driver because of
driving record." Both slips were signed by James E. Mc-
Glothhn.
Approximately a week later , Steve Vance an employee of
Respondent and the son of Ershell Vance, in Carol Miller's
presence , told his father "Daddy , Ronny Sharpp says that
Tignor didn't have anything to do with this union thing."
Several weeks later Vance told Carol Miller that the
company had "found out pretty well for sure " that Tignor
and Simpkins were the ones who tried to start the union.
McGlothlin denied asking Simpkins or Tignor about a
union meeting or how many showed up or if Simpkins at-
tended and stated that he knew nothing of a meeting. Fur-
ther McGlothlin denied Tignor 's testimony about admit-
ting that three or four drivers had told him Tignor was a
part of the union organization and said that the first he
heard of this meeting was after the discharges . He said that
Tignor came to his office and said he was an innocent
party - and that he (McGlothlin) replied, "Well, I don't
know. I've heard nothing to that effect . I don' t know any-
thing about it. I've heard nothing on it." While saying this
was the first he heard of the meeting McGlothlin professed
ignorance of what Tignor was innocent and went on to
state (somewhat contradictorily) that he first heard about
the union when the Company received the charge in this
case.
In regard to Carol Miller 's testimony , McGlothlin stated
that he had not made a telephone call in her presence to
Vance about the union or a meeting . This is a denial of
something to which she did not testify.
Vance testified that he did not have any conversation on
January 3, with Mrs. Miller regarding the proposed drivers'
meeting. He denied having a conversation regarding union
activity with McGlothlin in her presence . Again this is a
denial of something to which Mrs. Miller did not testify.
Vance did testify that he did not know about plans for the
drivers to organize and said that McGlothlin had not
called him and told him about a rumor of union activity.
Vance said that he did not tell Simpkins that the Company
could not operate with a union . After denying ever having
a discussion with Simpkins about the union , Vance said
that at one point Simpkins told him that the Company
needed a union and he had replied that he did not have
anything to do with it. Vance denied that his son had said
to him in Mrs. Miller's presence that Simpkins did not have
anything to do with the union . Again this was not what
Mrs. Miller had testified to. Her testimony concerned Tig-
nor.
C. Respondent's Defense
At the beginning of the hearing James McGlothlin testi-
fied that Simpkins and Tignor were discharged because the
insurance company would no longer cover them as drivers.
He said that the insurance company had objections to sev-
eral other employees who had left or no longer were drivers
by the time he discharged those two men. In an affidavit
given to the Board McGlothlin stated : "All of my insur-
ance is carried through General Insurance Corp. of :Blue-
field , West Va. Every July 19 our policies are renewed. At
that time all drivers driving records are checked by the
company. In November 1974 I was notified by our agent
(General Ins .) that they could no longer cover us if certain
of our drivers continued to be employed. (Tignor and
Simpkins were two of the ones named in a letter sent to
me). Therefore I had to let Tignor and Simpkins go-al-
though I tried to negotiate with the insurance Co. so that I
could keep them. Finally , however on January 3, 1975, I
had to terminate both Simpkins and Tignor." McGlothlin
affirmed that the affidavit was true . He further testified
that he had letters to the effect that the insurance company
would no longer cover Respondent because the personal
driving records of some of his drivers were at a point that
the risk was too great.
McGLOTHLIN, INC. 975
McGlothlin acknowledged that Tignor was one of the
oldest men on the job, having been with the Company
some 11 years and Simpkins had -been with the Company
on a couple of occasions since 1964 and had a total of 2 or
3 years' service with Respondent. He said he fought to
keep Tignor on the job and told Tignor on a couple of
occasions that they were still trying to get him reinstated.
He said he felt that Tignor was an asset to the Company
and that is why he fought to -get him reinstated.
Both Tignor and Simpkins testified that one driver who
had a bad driving record had been transferred into the
shop and when they were told they were being terminated
they sought to be transferred there because they knew
there were openings in the shop but they were not offered
that opportunity. McGlothlin testified that he felt the only
way to solve the problem and keep their insurance, which
they had to have since the State required it, was to cut off
Tignor and Simpkins.
Hopper Lazenby testified that the assigned risk insur-
ance for liability is assigned by -the State of Virginia's As-
signed Risk Board. An application for insurance is received
from a customer and presented to that Board which then
assigns an insurance company to cover that person or com-
pany for a period of 3 years. The insurance cannot be can-
celed by the company except for nonpayment of premi-
ums. After that 3-year contract period is up and if no one
is willing to take the individual or company on a regular
basis then another application is taken and presented to
the Board and some other insurance company is selected
by the Board to provide the coverage. Lazenby testified
that Respondent had been on an assigned risk basis for
some 15 years. McGlothlin said Respondent had been on
assigned risk only about 9 years.
Lazenby testified that for years McGlothlin has been
trying to get off the assigned risk basis and that the premi-
ums have escalated until in July 1974, at the initial contact
the insurer said the premium was going to be 294 percent
of the regular premium. He sought to get some other com-
pany interested in taking Respondent on a regular basis
but had received a letter from that company, stating they
were not interested. On January 8 the insurance carrier
(Transport Insurance Company) wrote Lazenby noting
that the company had a large debit and asking him to call
to the attention of Respondent that some of its drivers had,
what the insurance carrier called, substandard driving rec-
ords. Tignor and Simpkins were two of the six men named.
This letter from Dallas, Texas, was not received by Lazen-
by until Friday, January 10, or Saturday, January 11. Laz-
enby said he sent a copy of this- letter to McGlothlin. At
the earliest McGlothlin would not have received this letter
until January 13, some 10 days after he fired Tignor and
Simpkins . This was the only letter in which they were cited
as having substandard driving records but there is no
threat of policy cancellation in this letter.
Both Tignor and Simpkins testified they had not been
convicted of any driving infraction within the past-2 years
with Tignor not having any accidents during that time and
Simpkins testifying that the two accidents he had were not
chargeable to him.
During part of his examination Mr. Lazenby agreed that
on his periodic visits with Respondent that he discussed
with McGlothlin the driving records of individual drivers.
In contradiction of this testimony General Counsel pro-
duced an affidavit from Mr. Lazenby in which he stated:
"I visit McGlothlin occasionally, but do not discuss with
Mr. McGlothlin any of his employees' driving records. I
have never advised him to discharge anyone because of
their driving records."
Respondent has no training programs for its drivers and
the drivers-knew of no safety meetings being held with the
exception of one meeting some 10 years ago which Tignor
remembered. Vance testified that he talked to some of the
men about safety and driving more carefully and -how it
might benefit them, since if the insurance came down they
could give them more money.
In summing up on the insurance, McGlothlin stated that
an insurance binder had been received in July for the year
1974-75, but with the end of the 3-year contract ap-
proaching they started to look at the problem to see if they
could get off assigned risk. McGlothlin admitted he did not
have any particular reason to want to stay with his current
insurance carrier and as long as they had a reputable insur-
ance carrier that was all that was needed. He did want to
see the amount of the premiums reduced and hoped they
could do something which could get them off assigned risk
and reduce their insurance premiums.
In regard to getting Tignor "reinstated," McGlothlin tes-
tified that the insurance company had told them a year
previously that some of these men who were driving for
him were bad risks and that to solve the problem of the
large insurance premiums they were going to have to get
rid of several of the drivers. He testified that Respondent
had letters from the insurance company stating that they
would not carry Respondent as long as they had those
drivers. Asked which letters they were, McGlothlin re-
ferred to the ones which had been introduced into evidence
by Respondent. None of the letters received in evidence
contain any such statements.
Finally, in contradiction of his previous testimony and
his affidavit, McGlothlin said he did not discharge Tignor
and Simpkins because Respondent would lose its insurance
but because they would still be on- assigned risk and the
amounts of the insurance premiums were very heavy.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
General Counsel's evidence makes a very strong prima
facie case that Respondent learned of an attempt to orga-
nize its employees, heard that two of its men were part of
the group organizing the union meeting and discharged
them. The testimony of Carol Miller, Simpkins, and Tignor
makes it absolutely clear that Respondent felt that Tignor
and Simpkins were a part of the union effort and dis-
charged them to foreclose this effort and stifle any organiz-
ing activities.
Respondent's defense starts with the flat assertion that
its liability insurance would be cancelled if it kept Simp-
kins and Tignor in its employ and that it had been told this
by the insurance company before Respondent fired them.
Further McGlothlin stated he tried to have Tignor reinstat-
ed because he was a valuable man, but was unsuccessful in
getting the insurance company to agree on the reinstate-
ment.
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The asserted claim that letters to Respondent confirm
this testimony is false. The insurance agent who gave some
contradictory testimony did agree that he never advised
Respondent to fire any of its employees. The letter from
the insurance carrier terming Simpkins and Tignor as hav-
ing substandard driving records was not received by Re-
spondent until some 10 days after the discharge and even
then it does not urge -their discharge. There was no refusal
by an insurance carrier to insure Respondent because un-
der the assigned risk plan in the State of Virginia, the car-
der cannot cancel the insurance for the 3-year period.
There was no "reinstatement" to be sought, since this
was a discharge by Respondent, not something initiated by
the insurance agent or the carrier. McGlothlin' s statements
about reinstatement are patently false.
Similarly, there was no urgency for any insurance rea-
sons to discharge Simpkins and Tignor at this point (Janu-
ary 3) since the insurance contract ran from July 19 to July
19 and the premiums would have been established on the
loss rate prior to that time.
The premium rate on an assigned risk is based on the
loss ratio and the loss experience of the prior year and what
Respondent's insurance debit was. The driving records of
Respondent's drivers may enter into this at some point, but
where and how was never established by Respondent.
There is no evidence to establish that the insurance premi-
ums would have been reduced if Respondent got rid of its
"substandard" drivers. The losses experienced by the msur-
ance company may have come from other drivers.
In any event Respondent's defense was self-contradic-
tory and in several places absolutely false.
McGlothlin's contradictory statements and claims dem-
onstrate that his denial of knowledge of union activity or of
making statements attributed to him cannot be credited.
Further some of the denials elicited from McGlothlin and
Vance did not meet the testimony given against them and
are valueless.
Respondent's action in discharging Simpkins and Tignor
was based on its suspicion that they were engaged in set-
ting up a union meeting for Respondent's drivers and was
not based on any insurance problems.
I conclude and find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by its discharge of Tignor and
Simpkins.
I have not made any findings of individual 8(a)(1) find-
ings regarding interrogation, etc., since they were not al-
leged.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II,
above, have been found to constitute unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and, oc-
curring in connection with Respondent's business opera-
tions as described in section I, above, have a close, mti-
mate, 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.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily termi-
nated Kenneth Paul Simpkins and Berney Tignor on Janu-
ary 3, 1975, I recommend that Respondent offer them im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former positions,
without prejudice to any seniority or rights and privileges
they may enjoy. Respondent shall make them whole for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them, by payment to them of a sum
equal to that which each would have received as wages
from the date of their discharges until they are fully rein-
stated, less any net interim earnings. Backpay is to be com-
puted on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the
Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be com-
puted in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). I further recommend that Re-
spondent, upon request, make available to the Board, pay-
roll and other records to facilitate checking the amounts of
backpay and any other rights due Kenneth Paul Simpkins
and Berney Tignor.
On the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire
record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. McGlothlin, Inc., is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. By discriminatorily discharging Kenneth Paul Simp-
kins and Berney Tignor on January 3, 1975, and not there-
after reinstating them to their positions because of their
actual and suspected union sympathies and activities Re-
spondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections
8(a)(3) and (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:
ORDER2
Respondent McGlothlin, Inc., Tazewell, Virginia, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging and refusing to reinstate employees in
order to' discourage employees from being or becoming
union members or supporting the union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
loin or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
with representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
2 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, 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.
McGLOTHLIN, INC. 977
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Kenneth Paul Simpkins and Berney Tignor
reinstatement in accordance with the recommendations set
forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Reme-
dy "
(b) Make Kenneth Paul Simpkins and Berney Tignor
whole for any loss they may have suffered by reason of
Respondent's discrimination against them in accordance
with the recommendations set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all rec-
ords and reports, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay and the rights
and privileges due Kenneth Paul Simpkins and Berney Tig-
nor as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(d) Post at its Pounding Mill and Sword's Creek, Virgin-
ia, locations copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 5, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
3In 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."