Moody Chip Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 12, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 265 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

MOODY CHIP CORP.
Moody Chip Corp., Division of Kerschner Enterprises,
Inc. and United Paperworkers International Union,
AFL-CIO. Cases -CA- 13202 and I -CA-13857
July 12, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO
AND TRUESDALE
On April 11, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Mor.-
ton D. Friedman issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
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.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Moody
Chip Corp., Division of Kerschner Enterprises, Inc.,
Ashland, Maine, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order, as so modified:
IWe hereby correct the following inadvertent errors in the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision which in no way affect his Decision or our adoption
thereof: In the last sentence of par. 15 of sec. IIl,C and the last sentence of
par. 17 of sec. IlI.C, the name "Theriault" should be replaced with the name
"Rushinal."
2 In his exceptions, the General Counsel asserts that two additional viola-
tions of the Act occurred which were not passed upon by the Administrative
Law Judge. We agree. Thus, on April 28. 1977, Mill Manager Perry Ells-
worth told three employees that he "would be a hardnose" if the Union came
in. This statement took place in the context of other unlawful remarks by
Perry. We find Perry's statement to be violative of Sec. 8(a)( ) as a threat of
more ardous working conditions in the event the employees selected the
Union.
We also find that Respondent's issuance of a written warning to employee
Rushinal on June 1, 1977, violated Sec. 8(aX3). The Administrative Law
Judge found that Respondent's unilateral promulgation of a written warning
and disciplinary system violated Sec. 8(a)(S5) and (1). Respecting the issuance
of the warning to Rushinal, he complained about the pettiness of such a
procedure. In response, Mill Manager Ellsworth told Rushinal that if he
wanted a union, he had to take what came along with it. In this context.
Rushinal was a victim of discriminatory treatment as a result of the ongoing
union activities. The Order and notice will be amended accordingly to reflect
these additional violations.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a):
"(a) Threatening employees with reprisals, includ-
ing possible discharge or more ardous working condi-
tions, if they join, assist, vote for, or in any manner
support United Paperworkers International Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization."
2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(b) and re-
letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Remove from the personnel or other files of
Ronald Rushinal all disciplinary letters or warnings
issued on June 1, 1977."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity
to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the National
Labor Relations Act, and we have been ordered to
post this notice.
WE WILL. NOT threaten our employees with re-
prisals, including discharge or more arduous
working conditions, because they join, assist,
vote for, or in any manner support United Pa-
perworkers International Union, AFL-CIO or
any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT refuse to discus., pay raises, bo-
nuses, or any other terms or conditions of em-
ployment with our employees in order to dis-
courage their union support or membership.
WE WILL NOT question our employees about
their union activities or membership.
WE WILL NOT threaten to prolong negotiations
with the United Paperworkers International
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, so as to discourage our employees' support
of or membership in the Union.
WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees'
union activities by offering benefits for the pur-
pose of discouraging union support or member-
ship.
WE WILL NOT set up new work rules, vacation
plans, or bonuses to discourage union support
and/or membership, or establish new disciplin-
ary proceedings to retaliate against our employ-
ees for their union activities.
WE WILL NOT make any changes in our em-
ployees' wages, hours of employment, or work-
ing conditions without consultation and negotia-
tion with the above-named Union.
243 NLRB No. 36
265
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended.
WE WILL remove from the personnel or other
files of Ronald Rushinal all disciplinary letters or
warnings issued on June 1, 1977.
WE WILL bargain with the above-named
Union before we take any steps to change our
employee's wages, hours of work, or any other
terms and conditions of employment.
All our members are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of
United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization.
MOODY CHIP CORP., DIVISION OF KERSCI-
NER ENTERPRISES, INC.
DECISION
SIATEMENT OF THE CASE
MORTON D. FRIEDMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard in Presque Isle, Maine. upon a consolidated
amended complaint issued December 22, 1977. which com-
plaint was based upon a charge filed in Case I-CA-13202
on June 6, 1977, by United Paperworkers International
Union, AFL CIO, herein called the Union and an original
charge in Case -CA-13857 filed by the said Union on
November 14, 1977, and an amended charge filed on De-
cember 16, 1977. In substance, the complaint alleges that
Moody Chip Corp., Division of Kerschner Enterprises,
Inc., herein called Respondent or the Company, has vio-
lated, and is violating, Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. While
admitting the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint,
Respondent, in its duly filed answer, denies the commission
of any unfair labor practices.
All parties were represented at the hearing, and were
given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
Thereafter, briefs were filed by counsel for the General
Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record, and the briefs of the parties. and
upon my observation of the witnesses, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTI
Respondent, a Maine corporation with its principal office
in the town of' Oakland, Maine, maintains a facility in the
town of Ashland, Maine, the only facility involved in this
proceeding, where it is engaged in the processing of logs
and timber into chips for pulp and papermaking. Respon-
dent has caused and causes large quantities of woodchips to
be purchased and transported in interstate commerce from
and through various states of the United States other than
the State of Maine from its plant in Ashland, Maine. In the
course and conduct of its business, Respondent annually
performs services of a value in excess of $50,000 for compa-
nies directly engaged in interstate commerce.
It is admitted, and I find, that Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE L.ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVE[)
It is admitted. and I find, that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRAC(TICES
A. Introduction and Issues
The Ashland, Maine, mill of Respondent employs ap-
proximately four rank-and-file employees who are engaged
in the debarking and cutting wood logs into chips which are
then sold to paper manufacturers for making paper pulp.
The Ashland plant is relatively new, having begun in 1976
with the construction thereof and finished in the early
spring of 1977. The Union began its drive to organize Re-
spondent's four employees during February 1977. On April
25, 1977, the Union filed a petition for representation of
Respondent's production and maintenance employees.
Thereafter, a Board conducted election was held on May
26. 1977, which the Union won by unanimous vote. On
June 6. 1977, the Regional Director for Region 1, of the
Board certified the Union as the bargaining representative
of Respondent's employees.
The complaint alleges that during the period from the
filing of the representation petition to the election, and
thereafter, Respondent, through its officers and agents in-
terrogated, threatened, granted wage increases, solicited
grievances, refused raises, and committed other acts in vio-
lation of the employees' Section 7 rights and thereby vio-
lated Section 8(aX) ) of the Act.
It also alleges that Respondent gave a verbal warning to
an employee and thereafter discharged and refused to rein-
state the said employee because of the employee's union
activities and in order to discourage membership in the
Union. The complaint further alleges that Respondent re-,
fused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act by making unilateral changes in the em-
ployees' wages, hours, and working conditions without con-
sultation with, or notice to, the Union.
Respondent denies all of the material, nonjurisdictional
allegations in the complaint and contends that the so-called
unilateral actions were made in the normal course of events
in Respondent's business and without disregard of the
Union's right of notice and bargaining, and also avers that
the employee, allegedly discharged. quit his employment
voluntarily and that, therefore, Respondent did not dis-
criminate against the said employee. Furthermore, Respon-
dent contends that it had no knowledge of the said employ-
ee's union activities to any greater extent than it had
knowledge of its other employees' union activities. Thus.
the issues are joined.
266
MOODY CHIP CORP.
B. The Facts
All four of Respondent's employees involved herein were
hired in either November or December 1976, by the Ash-
land mill manager, Perry Ellsworth. At the time, the mill
for the manufacture of woodchips was in its final stages of
construction. At the time of hiring, each employee was in-
formed by Ellsworth that there was to be no drinking of
alcoholic beverages on the job and that anyone so doing, or
anyone who stole or misused Respondent's property, would
be subject to immediate discharge. According to Ellsworth,
shortly after the four were hired, they were informed that
the same procedures would be followed at the mill in ques-
tion as were being enforced at other Kerschner owned fa-
cilities. However, the record does not show that Ellsworth
either enumerated, fully explained, or fully set out in any
written form, what these rules of procedure and working
rules were.
In any event, it would seem that it did not take long for
the four employees involved in this proceeding and Ells-
worth to reach a stage of, at least, minor antagonism
toward each other. Ellsworth, it would seem, was under
pressure from the officers of Respondent, Robert L. Kersch-
ner, Sr.,' president, and James O. Kerschner, the latter's son
and treasurer, to finish the construction and to place the
mill in operation to the point where it was producing wood-
chips in sufficient quantity to make it profitable. The mill,
being a new enterprise, the problems of starting up were
evidently numerous. Because of the aforesaid pressure
passed on by Ellsworth to the four rank-and-file employees,
the antagonisms and the difficult working conditions grew
to such proportions that in February 1977, employee Ron-
ald Rushinal made contact with Andre Dionne, a business
representative of the Union. On the telephone, Rushinal
explained the problems. Shortly thereafter, a meeting be-
tween Dionne and the four employees took place at Rushi-
nal's home. At this meeting, all of the employees signed
union designation cards.2
Although there were only four employees in the mill be-
side Ellsworth, the mill manager and working foreman, nei-
ther Ellsworth nor the two Kerschlsers testified they were
aware of the actual union organizing campaign among their
employees until they received notice from the Board soon
after April 25, 1977, that the Union had filed a petition for
representation. However, Ellsworth and each of the
Kerschners admitted they had heard "scuttlebutt" to the
effect that the Union was seeking to organize a number of
plants in the area in which the Ashland mill is located. In
connection with the foregoing, Rushinal testified credibly
that while these organizing attempts were being made in the
area, at approximately the middle of April, Ellsworth, in a
conversation with Rushinal, stated that he hoped the em-
ployees in the mill were not interested in any union at that
'The suffix "Sr." is omitted hereinafter when reference is made to Robert
Kerschner, Sr.
2 From the uncontroverted testimony of employees Rushinal, Derrick
Richards, Ronald Theriault, and business representative Dionne In connec-
tion with the signing of the cards and the union organizational drive. Rushi-
nal testified that when he was hired, Ellsworth stated that he hoped that
Rushinal was not a union man. In testifying, Ellsworth denied that he made
such a statement. In this respect. I do not credit Rushinal because none of
the other employees so testified.
time, and if they let the plant run without a union, Respon-
dent would probably initiate a bonus system.'
Additionally, on or about April 28, Ellsworth told Rushi-
nal and employees Ronald Theriault and Derrick Richards
that he knew that at least two employees must have signed
union cards. He stated he was going to find out who they
were. Ellsworth further asserted that if the Union came in,
he would be a "hardnose" because he had been a supervisor
at another plant where there was a union and he did not
like the union at all.4
In connection with the foregoing, at about the same date,
April 28, 1977, employees Ronald Theriault and Ronald
Rushinal were engaged, while working, in a conversation
concerning the Union. During this conversation, Ellsworth
passed close to them and as he looked directly at Theriault,
he declared, "I'll bet you're one of them that signed the
cards." In reply, Theriault answered that it was not Ells-
worth's business in any respect whether he, Theriault, had
signed a card.'
As stated above, the Union filed its petition on April 25,
1977, and, shortly thereafter, Respondent must have re-
ceived the petition. Prior thereto, the employees had not
taken coffeebreaks at any specified time, but only when for
some reason production was interrupted by equipment
breakdown, lack of material or spare parts, or some similar
reason. However, the men had, from time to time, com-
plained that coffeebreaks were not scheduled at a set time
each morning. Finally, the men demanded that a regular
coffeebreak be given each morning and threatened that if it
was not, they were going to take one anyway. However, this
threat became unnecessary. After the filing of the petition,
on April 28, Ellsworth informed the men that they could
have a coffeebreak of from 10 to 15 minutes each morning
at 9:30 a.m.
In connection therewith, Ellsworth testified that he was
told by Theriault that state law required Respondent to
give employees a specified coffeebreak and, Ellsworth, not
being familiar with the law, and not knowing whether the
statement by Theriault was correct, deemed it best to give
the men the break. However, it should be noted as stated
above, that this consent, despite the earliest grumblings,
was not given until after the filing of the petition by the
Union.
On the night of May 16, 1977, at the invitation of the
Kerschners, employees Rushinal, Richards, and Theriault
visited the Kerschners' camp at Portage Lake, Maine. Pre-
sent at this meeting, in addition to the employees were Rob-
ert Kerschner and James Kerschner. As noted, the election
was scheduled to be held on May 26, 10 days after the date
'This is neither alleged nor found to be a violation of the Act and is
recited merely as background for the events which followed.
4 From credited testimony of Rushinal and Richards. Although I have in
one respect, above, not credited Rushinal, his testimony was supported in
this respect by Richards who was a very credible witness. In connection with
these and other credibility resolutions. I rely. in part. upon the accepted
evidentiary rule that it is not uncommon "to believe some and not all of a
witness' testimony." N.L.R.B. v. Universal Camera Corporarion, 179 F.2d
749, 754 (2d Cir. 1950).
5 From credited testimony of Thenault. In testifying, Ellsworth did not
specifically deny this particular incident. His testimony with regard to any
reference to union cards, or who had signed them, was that he never asked
any employees if they had signed union cards. Accordingly, I find Thenault's
version of what had occurred to be accurate.
267
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the meeting at the camp. Both Robert Kerschner and
James Kerschner spoke to the employees at various times
during that evening. The meeting seems to have been called
for a dual purpose. Primarily, according to the Kerschners,
it was called to find out what could be done to increase
production at the Ashland mill. There is no doubt that
there were production problems at the time and that the
Kerschners were anxious to correct whatever caused the
lagging production in order to render the mill feasible eco-
nomically. Accordingly, during the meeting at the camp,
the employees were asked for suggestions as to what could
be done to increase production.
However, the secondary purpose, the upcoming election
and the union matter, was also discussed. At one point dur-
ing the evening, Robert Kerschner stated that it was really
too bad that a union had come in and was involved at the
plant. Union representation was foolishness when there was
only a four-man crew. He further stated the election of the
Union would end the closeness which Kerschner desired to
have with his employees.
James Kerschner, in talking to the men, inquired as to
who had signed union cards, but before any employee
could answer, he stated that it did not make any difference.
In discussing the union matter, evidently upon advice of
counsel, Robert Kerschner stated that the employees at that
time could not get raises. Also, James Kerschner stated that
there could not be a raise or a bonus given at that time
because of the pendency of the "union vote." It should be
noted that at the time the employees were hired, as above
set forth, they were told that there would be a possible
bonus system if production warranted the same.
In discussing the possibility of union negotiations in the
event the Union won the election, reference was made by
Robert Kerschner to the effect that negotiations could drag
on. In connection therewith, he spoke of another employer,
a LeBuff, whose firm had been organized by a union and
had been bargaining for approximately 6 months. Addi-
tionally, Robert Kerschner, on that evening, during the dis-
cussion of the possible protracted negotiations, stated that
negotiations could take as long as 2 to 5 years.
Also in the group discussion, James Kerschner told the
employees that from an economic point of view, it was un-
fortunate that the Union might come in at that time, that in
view of all else, Respondent did not know if it could afford
a union at that time inasmuch as the plant was new and
was not meeting production quotas; therefore, more flexi-
bility was required.
In the discussion on that night of the problems at the
mill, the employees themselves brought up the subject of
Mill Manager Ellsworth, and their complaints regarding
him. During that discussion, Robert Kerschner referred to a
logbook, stating that employee Rushinal had, at one time,
threatened Ellsworth at the plant. At the end of the meeting
at the camp, Robert Kerschner said that they would have a
meeting in the near future to discuss the matter of the mill
manager with the men.
The Kerschners did not delay the discussion, however,
and on the following day, May 17, held a meeting with the
employees in the office at the Ashland mill. Present in addi-
tion to the Kerschners was Mill Manager Ellsworth. The
three employees, Rushinal, Theriault, and Richards, who
attended at the camp the night before, were present, as was
employee Richard Gillman, evidently at that time the
fourth employee. However, Gillman was present only dur-
ing the latter part of the May 17 meeting. Again the diffi-
culties in production were discussed and the men, especially
employees Rushinal and Theriault, suggested that equip-
ment maintenance at the mill was poor and that Respon-
dent's credit in the area was not sufficient to enable the
supply of material as needed. Again, Robert Kerschner as
he had stated the night before, reiterated that he hoped the
Union would not get in because if the Union was success-
ful, it could create hard feelings between Respondent and
the employees. He again stated that it could take from 2 to
5 years to negotiate a contract.
Evidently, the subject of strikes came up. Robert Kersch-
ner mentioned the fact that if the men should walk out in
the event that the Union could not negotiate a contract or
for other union reasons, Respondent had supervisors upon
whom it could call to run the Ashland mill, if necessary. He
further stated that by the following Monday morning, he
could have the mill running with or without the men; that
he and James Kerschner, Ellsworth, and Don Whitmore,
another supervisor or engineer, could run the plant.
Additionally, during the meeting, Robert Kerschner told
the employees that if the Union was successful, it was pos-
sible the workweek would be limited to 40 hours, just as
was the workweek at the nearby International Paper Com-
pany plant. There would be no overtime. It should be noted
in connection therewith, that when the employees were
hired, they were promised a workweek longer than 40
hours. 6
On May 24, at the plant, Robert Kerschner continued in
the same vein in a conversation with employee Theriault.
Evidently referring to the election which was scheduled for
2 days hence, Kerschner told Theriault that they would be
finding out in a couple of days who was "full of bullshit and
who ain't." Kerschner repeated what had been stated at the
May 17 meeting to the effect that if the Union was success-
ful in the election, on the following Monday, Kerschner
could have a new crew at the plant. He added that although
he really did not want a night shift, if he was being pres-
sured by the companies he was supplying to produce more
chips, he could do it without the employees presently em-
ployed, evidently referring again to his ability to work him-
self, his son, and perhaps employees or supervisors from
either the Ashland mill or other chip mills owned by the
Kerschners.'
The day after the election, May 27, in the debarker room
of the Ashland mill, Robert Kerschner demonstrated with a
piece of paper upon which was written the sum of $4.50
multiplied by 40, for a total figure of $180. Kerschner told
employee Rushinal that if the Union had not won the elec-
tion, these would have been the wages the employees would
I The above factual statement with regard to the meetings of May 16 and
17, constitutes an amalgam of credited portions of the testimony of the two
Kerschners, Ellsworth, and employees Theriault, Rushinal, and Richards.
7 From credited testimony of Theriault. Although, in rebuttal, Robert
Kerschner could not remember the exact conversation, he placed some of the
conversation at an earlier date than the one testified to by Theriault. How-
ever, to an extent, at least, with regard to the night shift, Kerschner testified
in much the same vein as did Theriault.
268
MOODY CHIP CORP.
have received, but that now his hands were tied and he had
to wait until negotiations were completed to increase wages.
Kerschner repeated this information to employees The-
riault and Richards. stating he had shown Rushinal the pa-
per which indicated that if the Union had not won the elec-
tion, Respondent would have paid employees $4.50 an hour
for a 40-hour week.8
On the same day, and at approximately the same time,
Kerschner told the same group of employees that he had a
business to run and would like to run it in a businesslike
way; if the employees did not like their jobs they could
leave or to use his words "go home."9
Ronald Rushinal was employed on November 14. 1976.
As in the case of the other employees, he was laid off during
the period which began sometime in early 1977, when the
plant was shut down for the purpose of installing a screen-
ing process necessary to eliminate sawdust and undersized
chips from the final chip product. When the plant was
ready to be reopened, Rushinal was called back. However,
because he was working on the construction of a new home.
he initially declined to return to Respondent's employ. Be-
cause Respondent considered Rushinal an excellent debark-
er. James Kerschner visited Rushinal and ultimately per-
suaded the latter to return to work for Respondent. Thus,
there is no doubt that insofar as the quality of Rushinal's
work is concerned, he had been at all times considered a
valued employee.
However, as noted above. Rushinal, because of his dis-
content and the discontent of the other three employees,
with the manner in which Ellsworth was supervising them,
made contact with the Union early in February, 1977. The
first meeting with the Union was held at Rushinal's home.
In connection with Respondent's knowledge thereof, the
Kerschners testified, as did Ellsworth. that although they
heard "scuttlebutt" that the Union was organizing in the
area, they were not aware that their own employees, includ-
ing Rushinal, had, in fact, been active with the Union until
notice was received from the Board's Regional Director
that the Union had filed a petition for representation of
Respondent's employees.
It is very possible that the employees' difficulty with Ells-
worth was a contributing factor to the poor production of
the Ashland chip mill. Whatever the cause, however, inci-
dents occurred which led not only to words, but almost to
violence during the arguments between the employees and
Ellsworth. In fact, at one time after the reopening of the
plant following the installation of the sawdust screen, Ells-
worth and Theriault engaged in a verbal altercation which
resulted in Theriault's leaving the plant stating "Well, I
don't have to take this." However, when Theriault had pro-
ceeded some distance from the plant in his car, he came to
a hault to think the matter over. Ellsworth drove up behind
him. Thereupon, Ellsworth apologized for his part in the
incident explaining that in working under pressure, such as
that to which Ellsworth and the other employees were sub-
jected, they all made mistakes. Ellsworth then asked The-
riault to return to the plant to work. After thinking over the
matter, Theriault did so. Theriault's absence during that
From the credited. uncontroverted testimony of Rushinal and Theriault.
9 From credited portions of the testimony of Rushinal and Thenault.
period was in excess of an hour, hut he was paid for the
time of his absence and was not in any manner disciplined
for the same.'0
The antagonism between the several employees and Ells-
worth continued on through and after the period of the
Union's organizational drive and the election. Additionally,
of course, as above-related, Ellsworth from time to time
expressed his dislike for the Union to the employees. Ac-
cordingly, by reason of the pressures of the work and Ells-
worth's difficulty in adjusting to the unionization of the
plant, together with the weather turning warm, the difficult
work of the plant became even more difficult, and tempers
evidently were short.
On May 30, Rushinal was working at the bottom of the
mill shoveling debris. The weather was hot. Rushinal and
the other employees stopped briefly during the afternoon of
that day to rest and have a cold drink. Ellsworth entered
the grinding room where the employees were resting and
asked Theriault to give him a hand at some task, but The-
nault desired to wait, evidently to finish his cold drink. Ells-
worth, sensing the refusal as somewhat rebellious, told the
men to wait a minute while he went to get James Kersch-
ner. Several minutes thereafter, James Kerschner and plant
engineer Whitmore entered the room. Kerschner stated that
he had been in touch with his legal counsel who told him it
was not necessary to give employees afternoon coffee-
breaks. Kerschner, in an attempt to get production going.
stated that he wanted the men to go back to work and to
forget the whole matter. With that, Kerschner and Whit-
more left the room and employees Rushinal and Theriault
left the room with Theriault in front, Rushinal following
him, and Mill Manager Ellsworth following behind Rushi-
nal. At that time. Rushinal reached into his pocket for the
purpose of getting his handkerchief. He then began to wipe
the perspiration from his forehead and neck.
There is some dispute as to what happened next. Ells-
worth evidently touched Rushinal on the arm to hurry the
latter along. Rushinal turned around to Ellsworth and re-
marked "Listen, boy." Ellsworth evidently took umbrage to
this remark and, in his testimony stated that he merely
touched Rushinal on the arm and stated to him "Come on
Ron, let's get back to work," wherefrom, Rushinal turned
around, pointed his finger at Ellsworth and said "Listen,
boy" at which point Ellsworth asked "What did you call
me?" Rushinal answered "I called you boy. You're not a
man yet."
In view of my disposition of this case as hereinafter set
forth, I find it unnecessary to dispose of which version of
the "Listen, boy" incident is correct, because, in any event,
Ellsworth asked Rushinal as a result of the incident to come
to Ellsworth's office so that Ellsworth could speak to Rushi-
nal. Rushinal replied, in substance, that he was not going to
the office. Some shoving then occurred and again, there is a
question as to who shoved whom. However, Theriault who
was present stated, "Ronnie, if I was you I wouldn't go in
the office." Ellsworth turned to Theriault telling the latter
that this was none of his business and again told Rushinal
to proceed to Ellsworth's office. Theriault responded to the
effect that he would make it some of his business and that
10 From credited portions of the testimony of Theriault and Ellsworth.
269
2L0DECISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rushinal did not have to go to the office. Rushinal, at that
point returned to his work of shoveling debris.
Although Respondent had never before given any em-
ployees written warnings, evidently as testified by Ellsworth
and James Kerschner, they discussed the matter of the inci-
dent involving Rushinal and decided that by reason of the
fact that the plant was now unionized, it would be, perhaps,
a better procedure to give Rushinal a written warning with
regard to the latter's behavior.
Accordingly, on the next day, June 1, 1977, Ellsworth
handed Rushinal a written warning and informed Rushinal
that if the latter did not like it, this was the way it had to be
because if the Union was in, it was necessary to play such
games. Rushinal read the warning, became upset and, in
substance, told Ellsworth that he had worked in a number
of places, but had never had to put up with "so much fool-
ishness and kid games." Whatever Ellsworth exactly re-
plied, he again repeated, in substance, that Respondent was
forced to play these games.
Thereupon, Ellsworth left, but shortly thereafter returned
to the place where Rushinal was working. Rushinal there-
upon accused Ellsworth of having pushed Rushinal from
behind the day before. When Ellsworth denied this, Rushi-
nal informed Ellsworth that there were three witnesses who
saw Ellsworth shove Rushinal. Rushinal thought over the
matter for about 10 minutes and then told Ellsworth, "I'm
going home, Perry, for the rest of the day."" With that,
Ellsworth instructed Rushinal to go back to work. Rushinal
replied something to the effect that if he stayed, there would
be trouble. He again repeated that he was going home. Ells-
worth thereupon warned Rushinal that if he touched the
clock, or punched out, this might result in the cessation of
employment between Respondent and Rushinal. Rushinal,
nevertheless, walked out of the building to his parked pick-
up truck.
Upon Rushinal's punching out, Ellsworth immediately
summoned James Kerschner and the two of them pro-
ceeded to where Rushinal was sitting at the wheel of his
pickup truck. Kerschner approached the pickup truck and
asked what had happened. Rushinal answered that he was
leaving, saying "I'll see you in the morning." Ellsworth
thereupon again warned Rushinal that the latter would be
fired for leaving. Nevertheless, Rushinal left. It should be
noted that before Rushinal left, Kerschner requested that
they talk about the matter, but Rushinal refused and drove
off.l2
On June 8, Ellsworth telephoned Rushinal and requested
the latter to come to Respondent's office because James
Kerschner wanted to talk to him. Rushinal proceeded to
Respondent's office where he found Ellsworth, James
Kerschner, and fellow employee. Richards, who was, at
that time, the shop steward. Ellsworth asked Rushinal why
the latter did not come back the day after Rushinal left.
Rushinal replied that he had been fired. Kerschner and
Ellsworth began discussing the matter with Richards and
Rushinal in what the General Counsel contends was an
u There is some question as to whether Rushinal stated he was going
home for the rest of the day, or whether he was quitting. as testified by
Ellsworth. However, there is no question about what ensued from that.
1" The foregoing from credited portions of the testimony of Rushinal, The-
riault, Ellsworth, and James Kerschner.
attempt by Kerschner and Ellsworth to get Rushinal to ad-
mit that he had quit. However, at that point, Richards,
acting as union steward, spoke up and told Rushinal that
they were all there together, and that Rushinal should ask
Ellsworth for his job back. Before Rushinal could comply
with this suggestion, Ellsworth responded that he had hired
Rushinal's replacement.
Although the exact date is not established by the record,
somewhat near the first part of June 1977, after the Union
successfully won the election, Respondent, without consul-
tation with the Union, installed the timeclock above re-
ferred to, at the Ashland plant. Prior to that time, Ellsworth
had kept a record of the employees' time in a timebook.
Also, at about the same time, Respondent posted at the
Ashland mill a written set of working rules and regulations
which had never before been posted. This writing set forth
the workweek, the standard workday, the responsibility of
each man to punch his own timecard, the obligation to do
the job, the method of notification in the event of sickness,
notice of time off, and other working rules. It reiterated also
what the employees had been told when they were hired,
that they were not to bring liquor, drugs, or any other in-
toxicants to work with them, or be drunk on the job; that
they could not fight, be involved in theft, or damage com-
pany property. However, other items were added for the
first time. It also provided for a vacation plan not previ-
ously established as a working condition.
As heretofore stated, although in the main, most of these
rules and regulations could be regarded as mere common
sense working rules which would be applicable in almost
any plant in any industrial organization, I do not credit
Ellsworth's statement to the effect that these work rules
were all given verbally to each employee when the employ-
ees were hired. In fact, Respondent's representatives admit-
ted, in testifying. that it was because of the Union that they
felt it necessary to post written regulations. In support of
this, introduced into evidence, were written rules and regu-
lations which Respondent had posted at another one of the
Kerschner enterprises. This set of rules and regulations
were, for the most part, entirely similar to the rules and
regulations posted by Respondent at Ashland. Addition-
ally, James Kerschner testified that insofar as the timeclock
was concerned, Respondent had always intended to install
a timeclock at the Ashland mill but because of the expense
of the same, and because of the pressure of other matters,
Respondent had not been able to obtain a timeclock before
the first part of June 1977.
Finally, during the week of July 30, 1977, a wage increase
of 50 cents an hour was implemented for the employees at
the Ashland mill. It is noteworthy that employee Theriault
had quit on the second week of July 1977, and employee
Richards had left Respondent's employ on July 1, 1977.
Both of' these quittings were voluntary. However, James
Kerschner testified that the reason for the 50-cent per hour
increase in wages being initiated at the end of July 1977,
was twofold. In the first instance, Respondent had, in fact,
promised its employees a bonus increase when as, and if,
the plant was operating profitably. Second, according to
Kerschner, the increase was given in order to prevent the
loss of valued employees. It is established beyond doubt
that this increase was given without consultation with the
270
MOODY C(HIP CORP.
Union. Kerschner testified, however, that during the later
negotiations for a contract. which negotiations were still
proceeding at the time of the hearing herein, he had in-
formed the Union of the raise and there had been um, objec-
tion raised by the Union's negotiators.l
C. Dis cuxsioI ad C('o, lldilng Ftndl,g.v
Although Robert Kerschner prefaced his remark about
the possibility of the negotiations taking from 2 to 5 years
before a contract would be reached b referring to the expe-
rience of another employer in the area. I nevertheless con-
clude that such statement constituted a threat to the em-
ployees that if they selected the tinion, such an election
would be fruitless and would not benefit the employees.
The repitition of this. by the senior Kerschner and hb James
Kerschner at other times was of equal force as a threat. As
such, these statements constituted interference and coercion
within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) and constitute a vio-
lation thereof.
The record shows that the possibilities of a bonus were
discussed before the advent of the Union. While it is true
that Respondent's representative at the Ma 6 meeting at
the Portage Lake camp stated that they could not discuss
the matter of raises or bonuses, such statement was made in
connection with the statement that the employees would
probabhl not be able to get a raise from 2 to 5 years because
negotiations could he protracted for that period of time.
This rendered the statement that bonuses could not be
given. a violation of Section 8(a)(I) because the logical in-
terence therefrom was that the raise would not he given
because of the advent of the Union. and it the employees
would not support the Union then they would receive ho-
nuses. Accordingly I find and conclude that this statement
also constitutes interference in iolation of Section 8(a)( I)
of the Act.
On April 28, or within that time just subsequent to the
receipt by Respondent of the notice of the Union's repre-
sentation petition, Mill Manager Ellsworth told the em-
ployees that he would find out who the emploNees were
who signed at least two of the cards. This constituted a
threat of reprisal which clearly was coercive and iolative
of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act. I so find.
On the same day, Mill Manager Ellsworth told employee
Theriault that he bet the latter was one of those who signed
a union card. This constituted a further act of interference
and a veiled threat in violation of the employees' Section 7
rights, and therefore constituted a violation of Section
8(a)( I ) of the Act.
The establishment, after the filing of the Union's petition.
of a 10 to 15-minute coffeebreak each morning beginning at
9:30 a.m.. is contended by Respondent to have been the
result of the men taking breaks at odd times which inter-
fered with production. The mere fact that the Union had
filed a petition a few days prior thereto and that. at that
13 All of the foregoing from portions of the credited testimon of the ndi-
viduals aove-named. Insofar as the ultimate separation of Rushinal from
his job, the facts surrounding the leaving hb Rushinal on June I. the unilat-
eral posting of the ork rules and vacaiion plan, the installation of the
timeclock, and the giving of the 50-cent per hour 'age increase ere all
admitted by Respondent's Aitnesses.
time, Respondent had knowledge of the employees' union
activities, does not render the establishment of the coffee-
break a per se violation of either Section 8(a I ) or 8(a)(5) of
the Act. I find that the cofleebreak was instituted ftr the
purpose of giving the men a uniform cofleehreak which
would not interfere with the operation of the mill. I con-
clude therefore, that this did not constitute a violation of
either Section 8(a)( 1) or (5) of the Act. Nor do I find suffi-
cient evidence in the record to conclude that on or about
May 16, as alleged in the complaint. Respondent's pres-
ident. Robert Kerschner, threatened the emploNees with
more arduous working conditions.
Although Robert Kerschner did state that it Was foolish
for a four-liman crew to join a union. andi I conclude and
find that the Kerschners and Ellsworth representing Re-
spondent. did vigorouslN oppose the Union coming into the
plant, nevertheless I do not find that the mere request to
the employees that they make suggestions as to hovw to in-
crease production constitutes a solicitation of griexsances as
alleged in the complaint and contended b counsel tor the
G(eneral Counsel. he mere fact that Robert Kerschner
wanted to know w hat the probhlems were in the mill and
that the emploees in answer to that request comilplainLed
about the acti ities of Plant Manager El[lsworth, did not
render this desire for suggestions ol how to increase pro-
duction, a solicitation of grievances in order to discourage
the employees from supporting the nion. I therefore do
not find that this constituted ia violation of Section 8(a (I)
of the Act. While it is true that other staitements nlade at
the camp meeting of Ma, 16, and at the meeting the Iollow,-
ing morning in the plant on Mla 17. might hae been coer-
cive and ioliatise of the Act. and this request for sugges-
tions for increasing production came at approximatel the
same time during those meetings, the request did not consti-
tute a solicitation for personal grievances of the emplovees
which otherwise would hase been the duty of a bargaining
representatie to pursue on behalf of the emplovees.
I therefore dismissed this allegation at the hearing herein
and do herebh affirm that dismissal.
Although Respondent contends that when, on May 24. i]
his conversation with employee Theriaull. Robert Kersch-
ner stated that on the following Monday he could have a
new crew in the plant. in the context in which the statement
was made and because of the timing thereof I find aind
conclude that the statement constituted a threat of retali-
ation or discharge should the employees vote the I iion in.
This is so because during the sanie conversation Robert
Kerschner stated. "We're going to find out in a couple of
days who's full of hullshit and who ain't." Durine the same
conversation. Robert Kerschner also stated that he did not
really want to have a night shift and that if the employees
were to vote in the lnion. and because of the pressure to
get out more work, he could do it with or without employ-
ees. The representation election, it should he noted, was due
to be held only 2 days later on May 26. Accordingly. I find
and conclude that the statement that Respondent could
have new employees in the plant on the following Monda.
even i Kerschner referred only to superisors to replace the
employees, constituted a threat of reprisal in iolation of
Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
Regarding the alleged discharge of employee Rushinal.
and the events leading up thereto. it is established that the
271
DECISIONS ()1: NA'lIONAI IABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant was relatively new. and that the Union had just re-
cently been chosen by Board election as the bargaining rep-
resentatie of' Respondent's employees and had not yet, at
that time,. made a formal request for bargaining. Equally
well established is the fact that Ellsworth, on prior occa-
sions, had not instituted any written warning system. In
fact, in the case of the ahove-recited incident with The-
riault, when tempers were high and Theriault walked out
temporarily, no disciplinary measure of any kind was taken.
Therefore. it must be concluded that the unilateral installa-
tion of tile w ritten warning notice to employee Rushinal on
June I, constituted a unilateral establishment of a formal
disciplinary procedure. This constituted a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act because it affected the work-
inu conditions of employees and Respondent failed to noti-
fy the Union thereof or discuss the same before instituting
the same.
Nor is this a minor matter so unimportant as to disregard
as a violation. he formal written disciplinary proceeding is
a condition of employment which can affect an employee's
sltatus and therefore cannot he deemed to he so minor as to
not be worthy of consideration.
I lowever. I cannot come to the same conclusion with
regard to the installation of the timeclock without consulta-
tion of the Union. The requirement to punch in and punch
out on a timeclock created no additional burden to the em-
ployees because theN were and are hourly paid and their
time was iormierly kept by their supervisor. The fact that
hours worked was now more easily computed by Respon-
dent by use of the timeclock had no effect upon the employ-
ees' wages. hours, or working conditions. Accordingly. I do
not find this to be a violation of the Act, even though the
clock w\as instituted without prior consultation with the em-
ployees' bargaining representative. I shall therefore recom-
mend a dismissal of the allegation of the complaint which
alleges the installation of the timeclock as a violation of
Section 8(a)( I ) of the Act.
On the other hand, some time during the early part of
June, Respondent, for the first time, posted at its Ashland
mill premises work rules, the breach of which could consti-
tute reasons for immediate dismissal, and which the record
does not establish were known to the employees prior
thereto, except in certain minimal respects. The posting of
these rules constitutes a matter which could affect the work-
ing conditions and employment status of the employees.
Therefore, these rules were matters which required consul-
tation with the employees' bargaining representative. Ac-
cordingly, I find and conclude, that the posting and institut-
ing of these rules and regulations unilaterally was, and is, a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act in that it
constitutes a refusal to bargain. The mere fact that Respon-
dent had established at other times, and in other plants
owned by the Kerschners, similar rules and regulations.
does not in any way modify the effect of what was done for
the first time at the Ashland chip mill.
In the same posting of the work rules. was included a
vacation plan for the employees. This plan was established
unilaterally and without consultation with the Union. Be-
cause this plan, unilaterally established, had a direct effect
upon wages, hours, and working conditions, it constituted a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act.
Respondent freely admits that it established and gave to
its employees a 50-cent wage bonus increase at the end of
July 1977. without consultation with the Union. I find this
to be a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act even though
Respondent had discussed the possibility of the same prior
to the advent of the Union. The mere fact that the Union
consented to the same after the fact does not detract from
the conclusion that the act was unilateral. affected the
wages of the employees, and that the Union was not con-
sulted to begin with. Quite naturally, the Union could not
he expected to have requested the Employer to withdraw
the wage increase even though it was granted unilaterally.
Accordingly, I find the granting of this increase to have
been a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Although one
of the purposes of the increase might well have been, as
contended by Respondent. to prevent the loss of valued
employees, nevertheless, the Union having been certified,
Respondent was under the duty to inlform the Union of the
desire to increase the employees' wages. This effect of the
increase was to demean the Union in the eyes of the em-
ployees.
We come now to the alleged discharge of employee Ron-
ald Rushinal. In coming to the conclusion hereinafter
reached. I have considered the General Counsel's argument
that the numerous unfair labor practices above-recited, the
fact that Rushinal was the individual who originally made
contact with the Union and at whose home the four union
designation cards were signed, the additional fact that The-
riault had committed an equally egregious act in walking
out after an argument with Mill Manager Ellsworth and.
finally. the written warning given to Rushinal which was a
clear change from Respondent's former policy with regard
to disciplinary proceedings. Nevertheless, even considering
the impact of' the foregoing, and considering Respondent's
definite antiunion attitude as exemplified by its earlier un-
f'air labor practices. I cannot reach the conclusion that The-
riault was either directly discharged for his union activity or
that there was a constructive discharge by planned treat-
ment of Rushinal for the purpose of forcing the latter to
quit.
In coming to this conclusion, I note particularly that Ells-
worth wIas at odds at various times with all of the employ-
ees. Second, I note that although there were only four em-
ployees and Respondent would, ordinarily, under Board
precedent" infer knowledge on the part of Respondent by
reason of the very small employee complement. I further
note that neither the initial telephone call by Rushinal to
the Union nor the meeting of the employees at his home
was anywhere near the plant. There is no evidence of any
discussion at the plant by the employees that the Union was
coming into the plant. The first formal notice of union ac-
tivities came only after the Union had filed its representa-
tion petition on April 25, 1977. While the Board's "small
plant" doctrine of inferring knowledge is normally appli-
cable in situations somewhat similar to that presented by
the facts of the instant case, I find that there is little to
support such finding beside the fact that the plant employee
complement was very small and that there had been some
14 Weiew Plow Welding C(o. In., 123 NLRB 616 (19591.
272
2'7
activity by the nion in other plants in the area. T'here is
nothing. however, to show that even if Respondent had
some suspicion that the Union was organizing its plant.
there is no supportive evidence that Respondent knew
through whom, when. or where the Union made its ap-
proach to the Respondent's employees. Accordingly. I can-
not find that Respondent had knowledge that Rushinal was
the union initiator and was, therefore. sought out by Re-
spondent for retaliation.
In fact. the record supports a contrary conclusion. As
noted above. Ellsworth at one time accused Theriault. not
Rushinal. of being one of those individuals who signed a
card in support of the Union. Moreover. it was Theriault
who for the most part. had the earlier arguments. and dis-
cussions with regard to conditions in the plant with the
Kerschners and Ellsworth. Additionally. it was Richards of
whom Respondent would more likely have been suspicious.
because he was known to Respondent to have been the
union steward in the shop. Accordingly. I find and conclude
that Respondent did not have knowledge that Theriault
was the individual who initiated the Union movement in
the shop.'
In addition, above all of the foregoing. is the fact that the
argument on May 30. which preceded Rushinal's walking
out, was an argument brought on by the temper of the
individuals the poor working conditions because of the
heat. the order to go back to work, the pressures of produc-
tion, all of which led to Rushinal's calling Ellsworth "Boy."
Ellsworth having become angered by what he considered a
demeaning expression to him, talked the matter over with
James Kerschner, and they decided to then initiate a policy
of written warning which heretofore has been found to have
been violative of the Act. But, I cannot conclude that this
was part of a plan or scheme to force Rushinal to quit.
There was undoubtedly some insubordination on Rushi-
nal's part which led to the warning.
The next day, June I, when Ellsworth gave-Rushinal the
written warning regarding the insubordination by Rushinal
the previous day. a conversation ensued which had some
overtones of union animus by Ellsworth. Nevertheless.
when, after thinking the matter over. Rushinal decided to
leave and was warned not to leave, he did so. despite the
warning that he could be discharged. This was a further act
of disobedience and insubordination by Rushinal.
Moreover, James Kerschner came out of the office when
Rushinal was seated in his truck to find out what the prob-
lem was. He asked Rushinal to come back to work. This
would indicate that there was no desire on the part of Re-
spondent to seek out Rushinal for discharge in retaliation
for the union activity or to discourage membership in and
support of the Union. It matters not whether Rushinal said
"I quit," whether he said "I will return tomorrow." or
whether Ellsworth then discharged him. The refusal to
work, even after James Kerschner's initial request that he
return, removed from Rushinal any protective blanket af-
forded by the Act. Accordingly. I shall recommend dis-
missal of that allegation of the complaint which alleges that
Rushinal was discriminatoril? discharged
" (f. 4B(' Body 14Work Inc, 201 Nt.RB 833 (1973)
I\. 111- iH-i-( I ()I IliI t Ni siR I ABOR PR\( I 1(i IS ()N
( ()OSIMI R( I
The activities of Respondent. set forth in section III.
above, occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in section 1. above, have a close. intimate. and suh-
stantial relationship to trade, traffic. and commerce a.roni
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes hurden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of conm-
merce.
\. 11i11 RI MII )
Having found that Respondent has engaged in. and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the incaning of
Section 8(a)( I) of the Act. it will be recommended that Re-
spondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom.
Having found that by unilateral actions Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, it will be recommended
that Respondent cease and desist therefrom. and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act. However, nothing herein or in the recommended
Order is to be construed as requiring Respondent to rescind
any benefit it has granted to the emploxees.
Co( I ONS (OF LANw
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. and it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees including
crane operators and debarket operators. but excluding sales
employees, office clerical employees. guards. professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. The Union is the Board certified, exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the aboxe-
described unit.
5. B making threats of reprisal and promises of benefit,
by interrogating employees regarding their union member-
ship, by predicting extremely protracted negotiations with
its employees' bargaining representative, and by telling its
employees they did not get a raise because they selected the
Union as their bargaining representative. Respondent has
violated, and is violating Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
6. By making unilateral changes in the wages, hours, and
working conditions of its employees and thereby hbpassing
the Union named above. Respondent has violated, and is
violating Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act.
8. Except as set forth above, the General ('ounsel has
not established by a preponderance of the credible ex idence
that Respondent violated the Act as alleged in the com-
plaint herein.
tIpon the foregoing findings of ;lict. conclusions off law,
and the entire record in this proceeding. and pursuant to
Section IO(c) of the Act. I hereby issue the fOllowing recom-
mended:
MOODY ('llP ('ORP.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER'6
The Respondent, Moody Chip Corp., Division of
Kerschner Enterprises, Inc., Ashland, Maine, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with reprisals, including pos-
sible discharge, if they join, assist, vote for, or in any man-
ner support United Paperworkers International Union,
AFL CIO, or any other labor organization.
(b) Refusing to discuss wages or other terms and condi-
tions of employment to discourage union activity.
(c) Interrogating employees regarding their union mem-
bership.
(d) Threatening employees that if they select the afore-
said Union or any other labor organization as their bargain-
ing representative, Respondent could prolong negotiations
indefinitely, thereby preventing any possible benefits the
said employees might gain from unionization.
(e) Granting employees benefits in order to discourage
union activity.
(f) Instituting new, formal disciplinary procedures be-
cause of its employees' union activities.
(g) Refusing to bargain with the Union, above-named,
by unilaterally and without notice to, or consultation with,
the Union, promulgating new work rules, instituting formal
'' 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.
disciplinary procedures and new vacation plans, and/or
wage increases.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify and bargain with the aforesaid Union as bar-
gaining representative of its employees in the unit hereto-
fore found appropriate regarding any proposed changes in
wages, hours, or working conditions of the said employees.
(b) Post at its Ashland, Maine, woodchip plant, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 7 Copies of the no-
tice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
1, after being duly signed by its authorized representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by it to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
I1l Is FURTHER ORDERED that those allegations in the com-
plaint as to which no violations have been found are hereby
dismissed.
1' In the event that this 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."
274