Murphy Body Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 824 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Murphy Body Works, bic. and Local Ulni No.
3011 , United Brothherhoud of Cam Wd
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 1 I-CA-3589
February 26, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZA&ORIA
On September 20, 1968, Trial Examiner William
J. Brown issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in
violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision. He further
found that Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Thereafter, General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision acid a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the bearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and'
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts, the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Natiofal Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Nation•a1 Labor
Relations Board adopts as' its l'er 'the
Recommended Order of -tom Trial Exarrlinei, and
hereby orders that RYe;sle'ft, Mer ', Body,
Works, Inc., Wilson, N°oftit Carolina, its ' o- 'icers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the `action
set forth in the Trial Exaflintr's Recorttitlended
Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
WILLIAM J. BROWN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding
under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, hereinafter referred to as the "Act," came on
to be heard at Wilson, North Carolina, on June 18, 19,
and 20, 1968. The underlying charges of unfair labor
practices were filed on April 2, 1968, by the
above-indicated Charging Party, hereinafter referred to as
the "Union," and the complaint herein was issued on May
29, 1968, by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, acting through the Board's Regional
Director for Region 11. It alleged, in addition to
jurisdictional matter, that the above-indicated Respondent,
hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Company,"
engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging,
transferring, and warning employees in reprisal for their
activities on behalf of the Union, and engaged in unfair
labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees
through certain threats and information. The Company's
duly filed answer has denied the commission of the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint.
At the hearing the parties appeared and participated as
noted above with full opportunity to present evidence and
argument on the issues. All parties waived their right to
submit oral argument or file written briefs. On the entire
record herein and on the basis of my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The pleadings and evidence establish that the Company,
a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue
of the laws of the State of North Carolina, is engaged at
its Wilson, North Carolina, plant, in the manufacture of
refrigerated truck bodies. During the calendar year
preceding issuance of the complaint, admittedly a
representative period, the Company received raw materials
directly from points outside the State of North Carolina
and valued in excess of $50,000; during the same period
the Company shipped to points outside the State of North
Carolina finished goods valued in excess of $50,000. I
find, as the Company's answer concedes, that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find, in accordance with the pleadings and evidence,
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
'Member Fanning dissents iii part in relation to a statement of Plant
Superintendent James Stancil addressed to employee Stephen Barnes.
According to the credited testimony of Names, Stand approadhed him,
and, introducing the subject of the Union, stated, "Some of the men
around here are talking about a union " Barnes replied , "Yes, I know."
Stancil is reported as then saying ; "I'm afraid if we have a union we might
have to send some of you fellows home That's why we are moving you
around from one place to another , to try to keep from sending anyone
home "
Member Fanning finds this to be a thinly'veiled threat that, if the Union
succeeds in its efforts to become bargainoig repreae*lative for
Respondent's employees, Respondent will alter its policy of moving
employees to different jobs, rather than sending them home. It is,
therefore , a violation of Section 8(aXI) of the Act
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction and Summary of Events
The Company's manufacturing and assembly operations
are carried on in a modern single-story building located in
Wilson, North Carolina. In general overall charge of plant
operations is Douglas E. Murphy, Secretary of the
Company and Assistant General Manager; reporting
directly to Murphy and in immediate overall charge of the
plant is James E. Stancil, Plant Superintendent. The
pleadings and evidence also establish the supervisory
1'4 NLRB No. 126
MURPHY BODY WORKS - 825
status at material times of James E. Lamm, Foreman of
the Blacksmith Shop; - Harold Beaman , Refrigeration
Foreman; and Howard Stancil, Drop Frame Foreman.
Following unsuccessful Union attempts -at organization
of Company employees in 1961 and 1964, Union
Representative E. R. Dougherty, Jr., and Company
employee Silas Lucas launched a third Union
organizational drive in the Fall of 1967.' Lucas passed out
Union authorization cards and solicited employee
signatures both in the plant area on nonwork time and
uptown in the city of Wilson. He attended all but one of
the ten Union meetings. He was discharged on February
16, 1968; the General Counsel alleges this, discharge was
in reprisal for his Union activity, the Company asserting
that he was discharged for violation of Company rules
relating to absenteeism and tardiness.
The case also concerns the reason for the issuance of
warnings to and discharge of Larry Robbins whose Union
activity appears to have been limited to signing a Union
authorization card and attending one Union meeting in
downtown Wilson. The General Counsel alleges that his
discharge on February 9, 1968, was in reprisal for his
Union activity while the Company asserts that his
discharge, during his 6-month probationary period, was
based on his failure to meet Company performance
standards.
Employee Norman Luther Creveling was transferred
within the Refrigeration Department on or about January
15, 1968, and transferred from that Department to the
Mill Room on or about February 28, 1968. The General
Counsel alleges that these transfers were effected in
reprisal for his Union activities. The Company denies this
and asserts that Creveling has subsequently been returned
to the Refrigeration Department. With respect to the
allegation that a warning issued to Creveling on or about
April 3, 1968, was in reprisal for his Union activities the
Company denies this charge and asserts that the warning
was issued for sufficient nondiscriminatory reason.
Finally it is alleged in the complaint that James Lamm,
Blacksmith Department Foreman, and James Stancil,
Plant Superintendent, on or about January 30 and
February 8, 1968, threatened employees with loss of jobs
and layoffs on account of Union activity.
B. Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
With respect to the allegation of the complaint that
Blacksmith Department Foreman James E. Lamm, whose
supervisory status clearly appears from the pleadings and
evidence, threatened employees with loss of jobs as a
consequence of Union activity, Larry Robbins, an alleged
discriminatee, testified that about a week and a half
before his termination Lamm came to his work station,
asked his opinion of the Union and then said that a union
could cause the loss of his job if he was in the union or
attended union meetings. Lamm generally denied ever
discussing union activities with Robbins. Although
Robbins did not recall this incident until he was shown his
pretrial affidavit, . I was impressed with his candid
demeanor and credit his account of the conversation. In
accordance with the credit I accord Robbins, I find that
Foreman Lamm made the statement attributed to him in
the complaint and conclude that by this statement the
Company engaged in a threat constituting interference,
restraint, and coercion within the scope of Section 8(a)(l)
'The Company was firmly opposed to the union campaign. See G C
Exh. 2.
of the Act. -
Stephen Barnes, a former employee in layoff status
since February 9, 1968, testified that on the day before his
layoff, James Stancil came to him in the plant, introduced
the subject of the Union and then said that if the Union
came in the Company might have to send some employees
home. Stancil, according to Barnes , then added the
explanation that the Company was frequently shifting job
assignments to avoid sending men home when there was
no work in their assigned classifications. Stancil denied
making this statement attributed to him by Barnes. I
found Barnes a credible witness but even accepting his
testimony at face value it does not appear to make out an
instance of interference, restraint, or coercion. The
statement viewed in its totality appears to be no more
than a prediction of the possible adverse consequences of
a rigid job classification system which might - be
anticipated in the event of the Union's securing
representative status. I shall recommend dismissal of this
allegation of the complaint.
C. Discrimination
1. Silas P. Lucas
Silas Lucas was hired by the Company in September
1961 as drill press operator in the Blacksmith Shop. He
worked at that job until January 1968 when he was
assigned to operation of the steel saw also in the
Blacksmith Shop. Lucas was discharged on the morning
of February 16, 1968, by James E. Lamm, his foreman
who, at the time of discharge handed him a Company
form entitled "Warning Record" and stating that his
discharge was because of habitual absenteeism or tardiness
with three unexcused offenses within a month or 30-day
period.' The General Counsel contends that his discharge
was in fact in reprisal for his known substantial activity
on behalf of the Union's organizational campaign which
continued from the Fall of 1967 until his discharge. I
credit Lucas' testimony that Douglas Murphy had
knowledge of his activities in an earlier Union campaign
and I do not credit Murphy's denial of knowledge of
Lucas' involvement in the most recent organizational
effort of the Union. Lucas' Union activity was carried on
in the plant area and included revelation of his Union
support to supervisors Carroll and Batchelor; Lucas'
immediate supervisor, James E. Lamm, did not deny
knowledge of Lucas' efforts on behalf of the Union. There
is no denial from supervisory or management officials of
the Company that Lucas' work performance was entirely
satisfactory both as to quality and quantity of production.
The General Counsel has presented in evidence Lucas'
timecards for the 30-day period preceding his discharge.
(G.C. Exh. 8-A through H.) They reveal a tardiness on
January 26, an absence for which sick pay was received on
January 24, and a tardiness, hereinafter discussed on
February 16. General Counsel's Exhibit 11(u) is Foreman
James Lamm's report on Lucas tardiness of February 16.
It indicates that he arrived at the plant at 7:20 a.m. and
'Company Rules, rule No . 4, states as discipline for violation of the rule
on attendance. "Habitual absenteeism or habitual tardiness (that is defined
as more than two unexcused absences a month ). Written warning -
Discharge ." Since a number of the more serious offenses , e g., punching
another's timecard , insubordination, smoking in restricted areas, etc.,
provide for discharge without written warning, it is concluded that the
normal penalty for habitual tardiness or absence would be warning first
then discharge, notwithstanding Murphy's contrary interpretation which
apparently was not communicated to employees.
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
said that he had been stopped by law officers. Lucas
testified that this explanation was communicated by him
to Lamm and Stancil immediately on his arrival. He also
testified that he informed them that the law officers in
question (County ABC Officers Stutts and Sherrod) would
confirm his account. Stutts, however, testified credibly,
that he was not contacted by someone from the Company
until later that afternoon.
The Company has a policy, notwithstanding its rules on
absence and tardiness, of excusing for circumstances
beyond the control of employees, as for example the mass
forgiveness accorded on the occasion of a heavy snowfall
on January 12, 1968. It also appears that the telephone
call from some Company representative with access to a
telephone to Officer Stutts would not in fact have been
made if the genuine reason for Lucas discharge was such
that the circumstances of involvement with the law should
have made no difference in the situation.
Furthermore, with respect to the absence on January
24, it appears that Lucas received sick pay for that day
and in accordance with the established sick leave policy
outlined in the Company manual (General Counsel's
Exhibit 3, page 14) it appears that that day should not
have been regarded as an unexcused absence.
The case, then, is one in which an employee with
substantial length of service and one whose quality and
quantity of work has never been questioned, who was
known to management as the leader of the Union
campaign, was abruptly terminated under circumstances
which indicate that the assigned reason for his discharge
could not reasonably be regarded as the true reason. The
evidence appears to me to preponderate in favor of the
conclusion that Lucas was discharged in fact in reprisal
for his known and substantial support of the Union and
that his discharge was an unfair labor practice within the
scope of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. Larry G. Robbins
Larry Rqbbins started work for the Company about
October 1, 1967, on the metal cutting saw in the
Blacksmith Department. He worked under the supervision
of Lamm and James Stancil. His starting rate was $1.55
per hour and after about 3 months he was changed to
operating the drill -press, also in the Blacksmith
Department. His rate was $1.72' at the time of his
discharge on February 9, 1968. He attended one Union
meeting, on January 20, 1968, but was not otherwise
active on behalf of the Union campaign. His testimony is
that Lamm praised his work 3 or 4 times and Stancil
never commented on it. Although Lamm testified at one
point that he reprimanded Robbins several times for poor
quality of work and for cutting personal objects it appears
that his pretrial affidavit states that he did not remember
any warnings to Robbins and noticed no inattention on
Robbins' part until February shortly before his discharge.
Stancil testified that he criticized Robbins several times
and issued him a written warning on February 1, 1968.
(General Counsel's Exhibit 9.) Robbins was discharged on
February 9, 1968, at which time he was still within the
probationary period outlined in the Employee Manual,
General Counsel's Exhibit 3, page 6, which clearly
contemplates the possibility of discharge within, rather
than at the expiration of, such period.
'At the time of his hire Robbins was informed that there would be an
automatic increase at the end of 6 weeks ' employment.
David Cox, leadman in the Blacksmith Shop, testified
that Robbins made numerous errors in cutting material
and frequently cut such material into scrap rather than
retain it for salvage. He also testified that he reported
Robbins' poor work to Foreman Lamm. There is a
conflict in the evidence as to whether or not Robbins
engaged in the making of rings and like material for
personal use while on Company time and with Company
material. Cox testified that he did, as did Foreman
Lamm. I credit Robbins in his denial.
The evidence respecting the termination of Robbins is
considerably vague and inconclusive. He appeared to me
to be somewhat of a blithe spirit who, although he
impressed me as a truthful witness, could well have been
somewhat irresponsible and not of the type to be selected
for permanent employment with the Company which
appears to have relatively high standards of expectancy
from its employees. Robbins' activity on behalf of the
Union appears to have been limited to attendance at one
meeting and the signing of a Union card. The evidence is
wanting to establish that his activity in this regard was
known by Company officials.' I shall accordingly
recommend dismissal of the allegations relating to the
discharge of Robbins for want of a preponderance of
evidence establishing an unfair labor practice therein.'
3. Norman Luther Creveling
The complaint alleges that Norman Luther Creveling,
an employee with some 6 or 7 years of service with the
Company, was discriminatorily (1) transferred within the
Refrigeration Department on or about January 15, 1968,
(2) again transferred to the Mill Room on or about
March 15, 1968, and (3) issued a warning on or about
April 3, 1968, all in reprisal for his activities on behalf of
the Union. The Company denies any impropriety in the
transfers and warning and asserts that subsequent to the
transfers noted above Creveling has been retransferred
back to his original position.
Creveling appears to have been a principal assistant of
Lucas in the Union organizational campaign . He signed a
Union card early in the campaign , attended 6 or 7 Union
meetings , and solicited other employees to sign both in the
plant area during lunch time and at their homes, obtaining
somewhere between 5 and 10 employee signatures. I find
that the Company had knowledge of his relatively active
support of the Union both from the fact that it easily
could have acquired such in view of his activity in the
plant area and from the fact that Assistant Foreman
Bobby Beaman , who had authority to assign Creveling to
jobs and direct his work but did not testify, asked him
directly, after widespread talk about Creveling's Union
activity, if he was for the Union to which Creveling
replied that he was for it 100 percent.
Creveling's employment with the Company commenced
in the Refrigeration Department where he worked under
Foreman Harold Beaman running copper tubing in the
truck bodies. After some 6 months he was transferred
within the Department to the job of checking compressors
'Although I credit Robbins' testimony that Lamm (whose denial I do
not credit) questioned him about the Union and stated that he could lose
his job by going to Union meetings, I cannot read into this that either
Lamm or the Company had knowledge of his Union activity.
'The same considerations require dismissal of the allegations of
discrimination in the issuance of the warning to Robbins on February 1,
1968. In reaching my conclusions with respect to Robins I place no
reliance on testimony as to his subsequent employment record with another
Employer which appears immaterial to the issues herein
MURPHY BODY WORKS 827
at which he worked for about 5 1/2 years. About January
15, 1968, he was transferred back to the tube running job
and while working at that job, on January 29, he injured
his back. In connection with this injury he consulted a
chiropractor and two medical doctors, one of whom was
still treating him as of the hearing in the present case. The
Company's insurance carrier has paid all costs of his
treatments. Creveling testified that the work of checking
compressors is heavier work than that involved in putting
in tubing. On February 28 Creveling was again transferred
to the Mill Room where his work involved carrying
lumber as well as operating a saw. On May 27, prior to
issuance of the complaint herein or the filing of any
charges involving Creveling, he was transferred back to
the job of checking compressors in the Refrigeration
Department
The first question with respect to Creveling is whether
or not his January 15, 1968, transfer from checking
compressors within the Refrigeration Department to the
job of running copper tubing in truck bodies in the same
Department constituted discouragement of Union activity
by discriminatory treatment with respect to a term or
condition of employment. Undoubtedly a change in job
classification is a change in a term or condition of
employment, but there is no basis for concluding that the
job of running copper tubing was any more onerous or
disagreeable or less remunerative than that of checking
compressors. The fact that Creveling incurred his back
injury while engaged in the former, is not significant for,
as Creveling conceded, checking compressors is heavier
work. Creveling also conceded that, while he was engaged
in checking compressors a foreman would occasionally tell
him to hurry up, and employee Manning testified that he
observed that Creveling was slow in checking out
compressors.
The evidence relating to the reason for the transfer of
Creveling from checking compressors to the task of
running copper tubing is considerably unclear. I can see
no reasonable basis for inferring that this transfer was
based on discriminatory motivations or constituted
discriminatory treatment with respect to wages, hours, or
terms or conditions of employment and shall recommend
dismissal of this count of the complaint.
With respect to the February 28 transfer to the Mill
Room, Creveling testified that when it occurred Stancil
said that he had reports that Creveling was not doing his
job as he should and they were transferring him on that
account. Creveling testified that he had no prior
experience in use of the woodworking tools used in the
Mill Room. While in the Mill Room Creveling sometimes
complained to his foreman, Bennie Ivan Glover, about his
back but never stated he could not do the work nor does
it appear that he protested either the original transfer or
his subsequent assignments there. It does not appear that
Creveling suffered any economic or other damage as a
result of the transfer. The burden is not on the Company
to come forward and justify the transfer but on the
General Counsel to establish a basis for inferring an
unlawful motive in the transfer. I cannot see how the
evidence could fairly be said to preponderate in favor of
the conclusion that the transfer of Creveling to the Mill
Room constituted an unfair labor practice.
With respect to the issuance of a warning slip to
Creveling on April 3, 1968, it should first be noted that
such an action clearly appears on the evidence to involve a
term or condition of employment. This appears from rule
12 on page 29 of the Employee Manual and Handbook
which reads as follows:
(12) Restricting output. Making unnecessary scrap.
Failure to attain standard performance in work, either
in quality or quantity.
Written warning - Written warning - Discharge.
and clearly indicates that the issuance of two such
warnings followed by a third offense could constitute a
basis for discharge.'
The warning in question (G.C. Exh. 11), dated April 3,
1968, lists the date of Creveling's offense as April 2, 1968,
and bears the signatures of Stancil and Creveling's
immediate supervisor, Bennie Ivan Glover. It refers both
to poor workmanship and productivity, states that the
leadman (Glover) complained of him in these two
respects, and that Creveling had previously been orally
warned since his transfer to the Mill Room.
Creveling concedes that on one occasion Glover
informed him that he was a little slow but it appears from
the testimony of Douglas Murphy that there never was
any complaint about the quality of Creveling's work.
Glover also attested to the good quality of Creveling's
work in the Mill Room. The warning slip bears Glover's
signature but the testimony of Glover, whom I found to
be a thoroughly credible witness, is to the effect that he
affixed his signature to the slip at a time when his vision
was so blurred from medication administered to his eyes
in first aid treatment that he could not read it clearly.
Glover also conceded that he had complained seven or
eight times to Stancil about the slow pace of Creveling's
work but that on all such occasions he had informed
Stancil that Creveling's work was of good quality,
On the basis of all the evidence relating to the issuance
of the warning slip in question I am persuaded that it
preponderates in favor of the conclusion that the warning
in question would not have been issued had 'it not been for
the Company's opposition to the Union and its knowledge
of Creveling's relatively substantial efforts on the Union's
behalf. In reaching this conclusion I am influenced
substantially by the reference in the warning to poor
workmanship on the part of Creveling whereas the record
clearly establishes that Creveling's work, while slow at
times, -was never questioned as to its quality. The
reference to poor quality and the statement that Glover
had complained thereof, indicates to me that the warning
was not issued for the reasons asserted therein and, in
view of Creveling's relatively substantial activity in
support of the Union campaign, the Company's
knowledge thereof and its determined opposition to the
Union organizational effort, I conclude that it was issued
in reprisal for Creveling's Union activity. I conclude that
the issuance of the warning slip to Creveling constituted
discrimination with respect to a term or condition of
employment in reprisal for his Union activity and was an
unfair labor practice within the scope of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section III,
above, and there found to constitute unfair labor
practices, occurring in connection with the operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing such commerce and
'See Scolding Locks Corporation, 150 NLRB 1688.
828
the free flow thereof.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
In view of the findings above set forth to the effect that
the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices
it will be recommended that it be required to cease and
desist therefrom and take. affirmative action necessary and
appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view
of the finding that Silas Lucas was discharged in reprisal
for his Union activities it will be recommended that the
Company be required to offer him immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent
job and make him whole for lost earnings in accordance
with the remedial relief policies enunciated in F. W
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716.' In view of the findings
of discriminatory discharge respecting Lucas the cease and
desist provisions recommended are appropriately broad.
N.L.R.B . v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening an employee with the loss of his job
as a consequence of participation in activities on behalf of
the Union, the Company has engaged in unfair labor
practices defined in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discharging Silas Lucas and issuing a warning slip
to Norman Luther Creveling in reprisal for their activities
on behalf of the Union, the Company has engaged in
unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
6. Except as specifically found herein, the Company has
not engaged in unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case,
it is recommended that the Company, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, be required to
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Threatening employees with loss of their jobs as a
consequence of their participation in activities in support
of the Union.
(b) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf
of the Union or any other labor organization by
discharging, issuing warning slips to, or in any other
manner discriminating against employees with respect to
hire, tenure, or any term or condition of employment.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which appears
necessary and appropriate to effectuate the purposes and
policies of the Act.
'In the circumstances of this case it appears unnecessary to provide for
the unlikely eventuality of Lucas's service in the Armed Forces
(a) Offer to Silas Lucas immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him whole for loss of earnings
suffered as a result of the Company's discrimination
against him in the manner and to the extent set forth in
the section above entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Rescind and delete from his employment record the
written warning issued to Norman Luther Creveling on or
about April 3, 1968, and furnish Norman Luther
Creveling with written notification of such action.
(d) Post at its plant in Wilson, North Carolina, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 11, after being duly signed by the Company's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Company to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Board's Region
11, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply with the
provisions hereof '
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed with respect to allegations of unfair labor
practices not herein specifically found to have been
engaged in.
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the' words "a
Decision and Order "
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of their
jobs as a result of their participation in activities on
behalf of Local Union No. 3011, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discharge, issue warning slips to, or
otherwise discriminate against employees because of
their membership in or support of the above-named or
any other labor organization.
WE WILL offer reinstatement with backpay to Silas
Lucas and we will cancel the warning slip issued to
MURPHY BODY WORKS
Norman Luther Creveling on April 3, 1968.
WE WILL NOT in any way interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their right to join or
assist the above-named or any other labor organization,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
MURPHY BODY WORKS,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
829
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Ottice, 16th Floor,
Wachovia Building, 301 North Main Street,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone
723-2300.