Midland Ross, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 4, 1979

239 N.L.R.B. 1205 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

MIDLAND ROSS, INC.
Midland Ross, Inc. and General Drivers, Warehouse-
men and Helpers Local Union No. 89, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica. Cases 9-CA-1I 1288 and 9-RC- 11991
January 4, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY. AND TRUESDALE
On March 22, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Benjamin K. Blackburn issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions, along with a
brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision. Respondent filed a brief in answer to the
General Counsel's cross-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.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that Respondent's discharge of Earl A. Rose
was discriminatorily motivated. The Administrative
Law Judge found that although documentary evi-
dence indicated that Respondent intended at some
point to reduce its Louisville warehouse employees
from four to three, the decision to implement that
plan by discharging Rose had not been made prior to
receipt of the Union's March 28, 1977,2 letter inform-
ing Respondent that a majority of the warehouse em-
ployees had selected it as their exclusive bargaining
representative. The Administrative Law Judge con-
cluded, therefore, that Respondent's decision to dis-
charge Rose on April 15 was precipitated by the
i Respondent has filed a motion to introduce two post-hearing exhibits.
both consisting of affidavits of witnesses who testified at the hearing. Re-
spondent contends in support of its motion that these affidavits are neces-
sary in order to clarify erroneous findings made by the Administrative Law
Judge in his Decision. The General Counsel filed an opposition to Respon-
dent's motion. The General Counsel contends. titer ara, that admission of
the proffered documents would deny counsel for the General Counsel the
opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Inasmuch as the evidence
which Respondent now seeks to introduce clearly was available to it at the
time of the heanng. when the affiants were likewise available for cross-
examination and demeanor evaluation purposes, we find merit in the Gen-
eral Counrsel' position. We note, moreover. that the proffered evidence
concerns issues fully litaged by Respondent at the hearing. According:y. we
hereby deny Respondent's motion.
Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are 1977.
Union's demand letter informing Respondent that its
warehousemen were engaged in union activities.
We find that the Administrative Law Judge's con-
clusion in this regard is also supported by the fact
that the Union's letter followed closely Rose's com-
menting upon the desirability of union representa-
tion on March 21, only 10 days prior to Respondent's
receipt of the union letter. Thus, on that date, three
of the warehouse employees confronted Respon-
dent's Louisville distribution manager, John
Schneider, protesting their summary 3-day suspen-
sion for violation of a work rule. Rose commented to
Schneider on that occasion that "if we had a union in
here, this kind of stuff wouldn't happen." Respon-
dent was therefore not only specifically alerted to
Rose's attraction to unionization as of March 21, but
was faced with the reality of those prounion senti-
ments having been brought to fruition only I week
later. In these circumstances, we find fully warranted
the conclusion that Respondent's decision to dis-
charge Rose at that time was based upon the advent
of the Union and its employees', including Rose's,
apparent support thereof.
Further support for the conclusion that Rose's dis-
charge was unlawfully motivated is found in the fact
that, prior to receipt of the Union's letter, Respon-
dent treated Rose in a manner indicating that he
would remain its employee for some time in the fu-
ture. Thus, Schneider had indicated as recently as
March 14, in response to a mortgage lender's inquiry
regarding Rose, that the probability of Rose's contin-
ued employment was good. Respondent had also
granted Rose I week of vacation time beginning
April I , and had even extended that vacation for a
couple of additional days at Rose's request. Accord-
ing to Rose, whose testimony in this respect was not
denied by Schneider and was implicitly credited by
the Administrative Law Judge, Schneider was reluc-
tant to extend Rose's time off when requested to do
so, since, "They needed me there to do the work but
if I had to have my house finished I would be able to
take my two days." Finally, when another Louisville
employee quit on April 19, Respondent did not re-
voke the discharge of Rose in order to return the
complement of Louisville warehouse employees to
the budgeted three. As is apparent from the above,
therefore, Respondent's plans regarding the asserted
projected work force reduction were, at best, tenta-
tive-prior to receipt of the Union's demand letter.3
We also note that while Respondent's director of marketing for its mate-
nal handling division testified that he had first decided in approximately
September 1976 that one of the Louisville employees should be let go. he
also testified to the effect that the precise implementation and timing of that
work force reduction had not been determined at that time, stating. "that's
one of the situations where you don't know what other things might happen
Business might change. Someone else might become ill and there are many
Contrinued
1205
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Based upon the foregoing, we find that but for the
receipt of the Union's March 28 demand letter, close-
ly following Rose's prounion comments to Schneider
on March 21, Respondent would not have dis-
charged Rose on April 15. Accordingly, we find, in
agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, that
the discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
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 and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Midland Ross, Inc.,
Louisville, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act by failing to promote
Earl A. Rose to the job of leadman on or about
March 23, 1977, and at all times thereafter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 9-RC-1 1991 be,
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 9 for the purpose of opening and count-
ing the challenged ballot of Earl A. Rose and, there-
after, preparing and causing to be served on the par-
ties a revised tally of ballots on the basis of which he
shall issue an appropriate certification.
things [thatl could happen." Although the Administrative Law Judge did
not allude to this testimony, it was uncontradicted and we therefore credit
it.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN K. BLACKBURN, Administrative Law Judge: The
petition in Case 9-RC-11991 was filed on March 29, 1977.
The charge in Case 9-CA-11288 was filed on April 20. A
Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election in
Case 9-RC-1 1991 was approved by the Regional Director
on April 21. The election was held on May 19 in a unit of
Respondent's warehouse employees. It resulted in two
votes for the Union, two against, and one determinative
challenged ballot. The challenged ballot was cast by Earl
A. Rose, the employee whose discharge on or about April
18 was alleged as an unfair labor practice in the charge in
Case 9-CA-11288. The complaint in the latter case was
issued on June 15. On June 21 the Regional Director issued
his report on challenged ballot in Case 9-RC-11991 and
Dates are 1977 unless otherwise specified.
consolidated the two cases for hearing. The hearing was
held in Louisville, Kentucky, on November 29. The princi-
pal issue litigated was Respondent's motive for discharging
Rose. For the reasons set forth below, I find it was a dis-
criminatory one within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and
(I) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is engaged at its
Louisville, Kentucky, facility in the business of warehous-
ing and distributing plastic products. During the 12 months
just prior to issuance of the complaint, it received goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were
shipped directly to the Louisville warehouse from points
outside the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. Facts
When David Collier, the leadman, hired Earl (Al) Rose
to work in the warehouse in January 1976, Rose became
the fourth and least senior rank-and-file employee. The
other three were Larry Wood, Kenny Downs, and Wilbur
Allison. At that time, the manager of the warehouse was
Tom Tomlinson. Tomlinson left Respondent's employ not
long after. He was replaced in July 1976, after a hiatus of
several months, by John Schneider. Collier ran the ware-
house in the interim. When Schneider was hired he was
given the title of distribution manager and responsibility
not only for the warehouse in Louisville but also for the
warehousing and distribution functions carried out at Re-
spondent's manufacturing facility in Dawson Springs,
Kentucky. His office remained in Louisville. His mission,
in part, was to operate the sloppily run Louisville ware-
house more efficiently than it had been in the past.
In September 1976, Schneider prepared his budget pro-
posals for calendar 1977. He showed four warehousemen
in each month. In October, when he reviewed his proposals
at Respondent's division headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio,
with Gerald Ose, director of marketing for the material
handling division of Midland-Ross Corporation 2 and
Schneider's immediate superior, Ose changed the four to
three beginning in April with a one-fourth commensurate
saving in anticipated indirect labor cost for the last three
quarters of the year. In January 21, 1977, Schneider set
forth his objectives for 1977 in a memorandum to Ose.
Item 2 under "I. Louisville Distribution" was "Reduce
hourly personnel by 25%." On March 24, Ose sent a memo-
randum to Schneider in which he asked for a meeting to
discuss the status of various projects Schneider had under-
taken. The first item under "LV [i.e., Louisville] Projects"
2Respondent's corporate name appears in this form on its stationery.
Since no one moved to amend the formal papers, I have left the caption of
this proceeding as it appears in the complaint.
1206
MIDLAND ROSS. INC.
related to a reduction in warehouse space. Item 2 read
"Tied into the reduction were some equipment modifica-
tions. . . b) a reduction in manpower by one person."
On March 14, Schneider filled in a request for informa-
tion from a savings and loan from which Rose was at-
tempting to obtain a mortgage in order to buy a house.
After "Probability of continued employment and other re-
marks" Schneider entered "Good."
One of the things that Schneider did to tighten up the
operation of the Louisville warehouse was to post a set of
rules and policies on October 18, 1976. Rule 12 read,
"Tampering with another employee's time card. Every em-
ployee must punch his own time card. The examination,
alteration, or intentional handling of another employee's
time card is forbidden." On Monday, March 21, Collier
decreed a 3-day suspension for all four warehousemen for
violation of rule 12. Allison left immediately but Rose,
Wood, and Downs protested to Schneider. Rose made the
comment that if they had a union Respondent would have
to give them a verbal warning and then a written warning
before it could suspend them. Schneider reduced the penal-
ty meted out by Collier to suspension for the balance of
that day only.
Schneider inherited Collier's wife as his secretary when
he was hired. Not long after March 21, Schneider dis-
charged Mrs. Collier and Collier elected to leave with her.
Barbara Moser was hired to replace Mrs. Collier. Paul
Gamble was hired to replace Collier. Before hiring Gam-
ble, Schneider considered and rejected the idea of promot-
ing one of the four warehousemen, Rose included, to lead-
man.
Annoyed by the events of March 21, the warehousemen,
led by Rose, contacted the Union and, on Monday, March
28, executed applications for membership. John Wientjes,
assistant to the president of the Union, mailed a demand
for recognition in a unit of all warehouse employees to
Schneider that same day. Schneider received the letter on
Thursday, March 31. He immediately contacted Tom
Bruser, industrial relations manager for Respondent's ma-
terial handling division, in Cincinnati. Bruser, aware of the
plan for a reduction in force as of the second quarter, in-
structed Schneider to forward the letter to him and do
nothing until he received instructions. Bruser finally re-
ceived the original of the letter on Tuesday, April S. Bruser
did not wait for the original before reacting to the Union's
demand. On April 4, Schneider replied to Wintjes' letter.
He expressed Respondent's doubt of the Union's claim to
represent a majority of its warehouse employees and reject-
ed Respondent's request for a meeting. Also, Bruser con-
tacted George Gardner, the labor counsel retained by Re-
spondent, and sought his advice. There were several phone
consultations with Gardner between March 31 and April
15. Gardner's advice was to proceed with the discharge of
Rose as the least senior warehousemen as planned notwith-
standing his and the other warehousemen's union activi-
ties. This information was not relayed to Schneider until
Friday, April 15, when he attended a conference in Cincin-
nati at which Gardner was also present and the final deci-
sion to terminate Rose was reached. A change of status
form was prepared. It was dated April 15. It stated that the
reason for Rose's "termination" was "permanent reduction
in work force. Termination due to elimination of an
employee's position. The employee is not subject to recall."
It was signed by Schneider, approved by Ose, and initialed
by Bruser as an industrial relations representative.
Rose last worked on Friday, April 8. He took I week of
vacation starting April 11 in order to work on the house
into which he was planning to move. On Friday, he re-
ceived Schneider's permission to take the first couple of
days off in the following week in order to complete the
project he was working on. Consequently, he did not work
on Monday, April 18. When he telephoned Schneider to
further extend his vacation, Schneider told him he was ter-
minated. When Rose asked the reason, Schneider said lack
of work.
Wilbur Allison failed to show up for work on April 18
and 19. Allison telephoned Schneider on Tuesday af-
ternoon, apologized for not coming to work, and said he
would be in the next day. When Schneider told Allison he
was suspended for the balance of the week, Allison quit.
Schneider did not revoke the discharge of Rose in order to
bring the number of warehousemen back up to the bud-
geted three. Consequently, warehousemen worked more
overtime after April 18 than before. Some of the work
which Allison formerly performed, namely, preparing
stampings, snaps, and ticket holders, had been transferred
to Dawson Springs. From April 19 until the day of the
hearing, there were only two warehousemen, Larry Wood
and Kenny Downs. The only other persons working at the
warehouse on May 9, the day of the election, were
Schneider, Gamble, the leadman, and Ms. Moser, the sec-
retary.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
The only credibility conflict in this record relates to the
allegation that Respondent discriminated against Earl
Rose by refusing to promote him to leadman. Rose testi-
fied sometime in mid-March, that John Schneider told him
David Collier was resigning, asked him if he was interested
in the job, and discussed such details as pay with him; he
replied he wanted to think about it. Sometime later,
Schneider told him Cincinnati had turned him down.
Schneider, while admitting that he discussed with his supe-
riors the possibility of promoting one of the four ware-
housemen before the decision to hire Paul Gamble was
reached, denied mentioning the job to Rose. ! credit
Schneider over Rose. Even if I did not, I would still find no
merit to this allegation. Rose never told Schneider he
would take the job it it were offered to him.3 The record
will not sustain a finding that Respondent ever decided to
3During cross-examination, Rose related another conversation with
Schneider about the leadman's job which, he claimed, amounted to his
telling Schneider he would take the job. However, it is clear from his an-
swers-"l told him I would like to take thejob but you know, I didn't really
know for sure whether I wanted the job or not .... I told him I wanted the
job but I didn't know what to do .... Well. I hadn't been there that long
and maybe the other guys would think, you know, why didn't I get the job.
and there might be hard feelings between the guys and I and Ij ust didn't know
whether to do it or not. whether to take the job or not"-that, even if this
conversation did take place. its import isjust the opposite of what Rose claimed
for it.
1207
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
promote Rose to leadman and then changed its mind be-
cause it learned he and the other warehousemen were en-
gaging in union activities even though, apparently (the rec-
ord is not clear as to exactly when Gamble was hired), the
final decision as to who would get the leadman job was not
made until after Respondent was notified of the ware-
housemen's union activities. I find, therefore, that Respon-
dent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
"[o]n or about March 23, 1977 and at all times thereafter
. . [refusing] to promote Earl A. Rose to the job of lead-
man."
The allegation that Rose's discharge violated the Act,
however, stands in a different posture. In their briefs, both
the General Counsel and Respondent argue from points of
view which pose this issue as a routine economic justifica-
tion versus pretext situation. The General Counsel cites
Rose's leadership role in contacting the Union on behalf of
the warehousemen and relies on the so-called small plant
doctrine to imput knowledge of his individual union activi-
ties to Respondent. He argues that Respondent's failure to
produce other documents presumably in its possession,
such as its 1977 budget as finally adopted, requires a find-
ing that its plan to reduce the number of warehousemen
from four to three in April is a pretext. Respondent, on the
other hand, relies on such points as the absence of any
evidence of union animus on Respondent's part, its lack of
knowledge or what, precisely, Rose had been up to in the
way of union activities, and the fact that seniority was fol-
lowed in selecting Rose rather than one of the other men
for discharge. Both, I think, miss the crux of the legal prob-
lem posed by this record.
The three documents which Respondent did produce,
i.e., Schneider's budget proposals as amended by Ose
which date from September-October in 1976, Shcneider's
memorandum of January 21, and Ose's memorandum of
March 24, to establish that a plan to reduce the force of
warehousemen by one, long predated any union activity
and do not prove that the decision was to carry out the
reduction on precisely April 1. On the contrary, the most
that any of Respondent's witnesses claimed for them was
that they demonstrated a commitment to a reduction some
time early in the second quarter. Ose's memorandum rein-
forces this conclusion, for its point is that little had yet
been done by Schneider to carry out various objectives for
1977, the reduction in force included. Thus, as of March
24, it was clear that when the reduction in force would be
carried out was still very much up in the air.
The response which Schneider made on March 14 to the
savings and loan's request for information about Rose's
prospects for continued employment leads to the same
conclusion. Schneider obviously had no thought of termi-
nating Rose's employment in the immediate future when
he wrote down "Good." 4 The fact that Rose worked with-
out interruption through April 8, his services much needed
in the inventory which was completed only a few days be-
fore that date, has the same significance. Even as late as
4 1 find Schneider's explanation of why he did so-"1 might not have been
right but I was trying to help a man when he wanted to buy a house. I knew
his wife worked and so, I filled it out"-so lame as to be totally unpersua-
sive.
April 15, the day Schneider went to Cincinnati for the con-
ference with his superiors and Respondent's labor counsel,
Schneider had no thought of discharging Rose. When Rose
asked for permission to take a couple more days off,
Schneider was reluctant. He told Rose "they needed me
there to do the work but if I had to have my house finished
I would be able to take my two days."
Thus it is clear that, while Rose's discharge as the least
senior warehouseman in an economically motivated reduc-
tion in force might have occurred in the not-too-distant
future if there had been no union activity, the decision as
to when he would be discharged has still not been made
when the Union's demand letter arrived on March 31. Ev-
erything that followed was triggered by that event, culmi-
nating in the decision reached at the conference held on
April 15 to discharge Rose as of that day. To find that
Rose would have be m discharged at that time even if there
had been no union activity would be sheer speculation.
Rather, the only conclusion which the record will support
is that, but for receipt of the Union's letter, he would not
have been discharged as early as April 15. It does not mat-
ter that Respondent did not act out of animus toward the
Union in the usual sense of that phrase. It does not matter
whether Respondent was specifically aware that Rose was
the leader of the warehousemen in their seeking union rep-
resentation. What does matter is the fact, clearly estab-
lished in this record, that Respondent decided to discharge
Rose on April 15 as the culmination of a decision making
process in which that result was reached only because Re-
spondent learned its warehousemen were engaged in union
activities. I find, therefore, that Respondent violated Section
8(aX3) and (I) of the Act by discharging Earl A. Rose on April
15, 1977.
II. THE CHALLENGED BALLOT
If Earl Rose had not been informed of his discharge on
April 18, Wilbur Allison's quitting the next day would have
brought about the reduction in force Respondent had long
been planning at its Louisville warehouse. Therefore, there
is no basis in the record for concluding that Rose would
not have continued in Respondent's employ until May 19
if he had not been discharged. Having found that he was
discriminatorily dishcarged on April 15, I recommend that
the challenge to the ballot he cast in the election held on
May 19 be overruled, his ballot be counted and a revised
tally of ballots be issued in Case 9-RC-11991.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record
in this proceeding, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i. Midland Ross, Inc., is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local
Union No. 89, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Earl A. Rose on April 15, 1977, be-
1208
MIDLAND ROSS, INC.
cause its employees had engaged in union activities, Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor
practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The allegation of the complaint that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(aX3) and (I) of the Act by failing to pro-
mote Earl A. Rose to the job of leadman on or about
March 23, 1977, and at all times thereafter has not been
sustained.
THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the purposes of the Act, it is neces-
sary that Respondent cease and desist from the unfair la-
bor practice found, reinstate Earl Rose, make him whole
for any losses he suffered as a result of being discriminated
against, and post the usual notice. Since Wilbur Allison's
quitting Respondent's employ 4 days after Rose was dis-
charged brought about a one-fourth reduction in force
which Respondent had planned for economic reasons, the
usual criterion for fixing the length of the backpay period
shall apply, i.e., either a bona fide offer of reinstatement or
demonstration by Respondent that Rose, at some point
since his discharge, would have been terminated for a non-
discriminatory reason other than the planned reduction in
force which was litigated in this proceeding. Backpay shall
be determined as set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest to be computed in the
manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB
651 (1977).5
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the
following recommended:
ORDER 6
The Respondent, Midland Ross, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging employees because they are engaging in
union activities.
(b) In any other manner interfering with or attempting
to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following action necessary to effectuate the
purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer Earl A. Rose immediate and full reinstatement
to the job from which he was discharged on April 15. 1977,
or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him whole for any earnings he
lost, plus interest, as a result of his being discharged on that
date.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its warehouse in Louisville, Kentucky, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it allege.; Respondent violated Section 8(aX3)
and ( ) of the Act b:v failing to promote Earl A. Rose to the
job of leadman on or about March 23, 1977. and at all
times thereafter.
See. generally. Isis Plumbing & Hleating (o., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National L abor 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, c.nclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for .all purposes
In the event that this Order is enforced bs ajudgment of a United States
Court of Appeals. the wt ords in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the i nited States ( ourt of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National I,aho r Relalions Board"
APPENDIX
NOTI(WE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NAIIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD)
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
hearing, that we violated Federal law by discharging an
employee because of union activities, we hereby notify you
that:
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees
these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representative
of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL. NOT discharge you because our employees
are engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with you
or attempt to restrain or coerce you in the exercise of
the above rights.
WE WILI offer Earl A. Rose immediate and full rein-
statement to the job from which he was discharged on
April 15, 1977, or, if that job no longer exists, to a
1209
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights or privileges, and make
him whole for any earnings he lost, plus interest, as a
result of being discharged on that date.
All our employees are free, if they choose, to join Gener-
al Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No.
89, affiliated with the international Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or any other labor organization.
MIDLAND Ross. INC
1210