Nutmeg Coal Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 1098 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nutmeg Coal Company, Inc and Howard Thomas
Case 10-CA-11666
June 17, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On March 18, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
David S Davidson issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief and Respon-
dent filed a reply brief to the General Counsel's ex-
ceptions and 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
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Nutmeg Coal Company,
Inc, Jefferson County, Alabama, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in said recommended Order
1 The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings made
by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board s established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge s resolutions with respect to credibili
ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces
us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products Inc 91
NLRB 544 (1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID S DAVIDSON, Administrative Law Judge The
charge in this case was filed on November 28, 1975, by
Howard Thomas, an individual, and the complaint issued
on January 16, 1976 The complaint alleges that Respon
dent interrogated employees regarding their union mem
bership, activities, and desires and those of other employ-
ees, that Respondent threatened employees with discharge
if they engaged in union activities, and that Respondent on
or about November 7, 1975, and thereafter failed and re-
fused to recall from layoff employees Terry Goodwin and
Howard Thomas because they had filed a charge or given
testimony to the Board in an earlier case involving Respon-
dent In its answer Respondent admits the allegations of
interrogation and of threats of discharge, but denies the
allegation that it refused to recall Goodwin and Thomas
from layoff because they filed a charge or gave testimony
in the earlier case Respondent also denies that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act over whicn the Board would assert jurisdiction and
further contends that even if the Board were to assert juris
diction no remedy is necessary for the violations of the Act
which it has conceded
A hearing in this case was held before me in Birming-
ham, Alabama, on February 26, 1976 At the conclusion of
the hearing the parties waived briefs and the General
Counsel and Respondent argued orally on the record
Upon the entire record in this case, including my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent Nutmeg Coal Company is a Virginia corpo-
ration with its office in Charlotte, North Carolina At all
times material herein it has been engaged in the strip min-
ing of coal Respondent concedes that during the calendar
year preceding issuance of the complaint, a representative
period, it performed services valued in excess of $50,000
directly outside the State of North Carolina, that it pur
chased and received mining equipment valued in excess of
$200,000 for use in performing services in Alabama from a
supplier located in Alabama who in turn received the
equipment directly from outside the State of Alabama, and
that Respondent purchased and received fuel valued in ex-
cess of $4,000 per week for use in performing services in
Alabama from a supplier located in Alabama who in turn
received the fuel from another supplier located in Alabama
who in turn received it directly from outside the State of
Alabama
Respondent contends that the services performed out-
side the State of North Carolina do not represent direct
outflow within the meaning of the Board's jurisdictional
standards inasmuch as those sales constituted its entire
business at the time in question A portion represented ap-
proximately $16,000 worth of business performed by Re-
spondent in Virginia in early 1975, which constituted the
entire business being conducted by Respondent at that
time and the first receipts of Respondent following its com-
mencement in business The remainder constituted gross
receipts from services performed in Alabama where it is
presently operating The Alabama operations constitute its
only operations since leaving Virginia and commenced af-
ter Respondent left Virginia Respondent does not contem-
plate any other strip mining operations in any other loca-
tion in the foreseeable future Thus, while it maintains an
office in North Carolina, it contends that its principal place
of business for a portion of 1975 was in Virginia and for
224 NLRB No 155
NUTMEG COAL COMPANY 1099
the remainder of the year was in Alabama and that the
receipts received in each of these places do not constitute
direct inflow and that the services performed in each of
these places do not constitute direct outflow With respect
to the purchases and receipt of mining equipment Respon-
dent contends that these are capital expenditures of a kind
which the Board does not normally consider in determin-
ing direct inflow With respect to the purchases of fuel oil,
Respondent contends that these purchases do not meet the
Board's standards for indirect inflow because the supplier
from whom Respondent purchased the fuel did not itself
receive the fuel directly from out-of -State The General
Counsel contends that whether or not Respondent would
otherwise meet the Board's jurisdictional standards, it
meets the special standards adopted by the Board in cases
involving allegations of violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the
Act
As the Board stated in Philadelphia Moving Picture Ma-
chine Operators' Union Local No 307 I A T S E (Veho Ia-
cobucci), 159 NLRB 1614, fn 3 ( 1966), Where , as here, the
substantive allegations of the complaint charge interfer
ence with the statutory right of an individual to resort to
the Board's processes , public policy requires that the Board
exercise its jurisdiction to the fullest extent ' In that case,
as the record established the existence of statutory jurisdic-
tion the Board asserted jurisdiction without regard to
whether any of its discretionary standards for asserting ju-
risdiction had been met Here , as there , it is clear that stat-
utory jurisdiction exists , and pursuant to that decision and
the cases cited therein I find that Respondent is an employ-
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board
to assert jurisdiction herein Accordingly , I find it unneces-
sary to decide whether the jurisdictional facts would other-
wise support assertion of jurisdiction herein pursuant to
any of the Board's discretionary standards
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Mine Workers of America, referred to herein as
the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that Respondent by its admitted
supervisor and agent, Vice President Edwin W Kirby, on
or about October 9, 13, 15, and 17, 1975, in and about the
vicinity of its Jefferson County, Alabama, strip mine oper-
ation interrogated its employees regarding their union
membership, activities, and desires and the union member-
ship, activities, and desires of fellow employees The com-
plaint also alleges that Respondent by Kirby on or about
October 13, 15, and 17, 1975, in and about the vicinity of
its Jefferson County Alabama, strip mine operation threat-
ened its employees with discharge if they engaged in activi-
ties on behalf of the Union The answer admits these alle-
gations, and accordingly I find that Respondent by Kirby
engaged in the alleged conduct and that it thereby violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
While the evidence taken at the hearing to some extent
relates to the allegations admitted in the complaint, that
evidence was taken and is considered herein as back-
ground for the contested allegation of the complaint that
Respondent failed and refused to recall employees Good-
win and Thomas from layoff because they filed a charge or
gave testimony in Case 10-CA-11602
Respondent Company was formed in January 1975 It is
presently engaged in strip mining on contract in Alabama
for Invesco International Before that it engaged in a small
amount of contract strip mining in Western Virginia Its
gross receipts on that job were $15,700 It came to Ala-
bama in mid-July 1975, with a 3-year contract to perform
strip mining work for Invesco It performs no work for any
other company at this time and does not anticipate doing
so in the foreseeable future
When Respondent started to operate in Alabama in
mid-July, it hired three or four employees who worked un
der the supervision of Vice President Kirby The first 2
months on the job were spent in site preparation, and the
first coal was produced on the job in the last week of Sep-
tember 1975 Some anticipated delays were encountered
because of problems in getting leases from the property
owners
Sometime in early October two union organizers visited
the jobsite and told Kirby that the Union wanted a con-
tract covering the Respondent's operations Shortly there-
after around October 9 Kirby called the employees togeth-
er Kirby told them that he was giving everyone a
75 cent-an-hour raise effective the following Monday and
that the Union had approached him and asked him to sign
a contract Kirby told the employees that he was going to
recognize the Union, but that the Company was in serious
financial straits and he had told the Union he wanted to
wait a couple of weeks until Respondent started operations
on property which was to be leased from U S Steel to
which the Union had agreed Kirby asked the employees
one at a time who would stick with him and work without
a union until the lease on the U S Steel property came
through Horace Jones and Terry Goodwin replied that
they would go along with the Union Others including
Howard Thomas said that they would stick with Kirby or
that they were not in a position to say Kirby told Jones
and Goodwin that if they could not work on his terms they
should stay at home As a consequence of what Kirby said,
Horace Jones and Goodwin stopped reporting to the job I
About a week later, Respondent retained its attorney,
Hopkins, and Kirby and Bernard Rubin, a principal of
Respondent, visited Hopkins on October 17 Hopkins ad-
vised them to call Jones and Goodwin to apologize to
them, and to offer them reinstatement Kirby did so, telling
Jones at the time that Respondent would have to go union
as everyone in the area was union Jones returned to work
on the day shift Goodwin came back to work on the night
shift which had started up a few weeks before At that time
Kirby told Goodwin that he had another bulldozer coming
in and that he would move him to the day shift when the
bulldozer arrived a few weeks later
On October 20, the Union made a request for recogni-
1 These findings are based on the testimony of Jones and Kirby which are
not in material conflict
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion to Hopkins, and on October 24 Rubin, Kirby, and
Hopkins met with the Union Respondent then agreed to
recognize the Union and executed a copy of the standard
bituminous coal agreement At the request of Respondent,
the Union agreed that the agreement would become effec-
tive on October 28, following an impending holiday Re-
spondent also informed the Union at that time that it felt it
would not be able to afford the additional expense of oper-
ating the second shift under the agreement and that it
would be able to meet its coal requirements by operating a
single shift for slightly longer hours Respondent indicated
to the Union that it intended to lay off the second shift
On October 27 Respondent announced to the assembled
employees that the second shift was being suspended and
three of the operators on the second shift were laid off The
fourth, Henry High, who operated a front-end loader, was
transferred to the first shift because Respondent had just
acquired an additional front end loader and had need for
an additional loader operator on that shift Kirby told the
men that it was going to cost an additional $8,000 per
month to operate under the union contract and that the
night shift was not paying off Thomas asked why senior
employees on nights could not be transferred to the day
shift where junior men were working Kirby replied that
they could not bump other men because the union contract
was not yet in effect and there was no seniority Kirby also
said that he was not simply laying off Thomas and Good-
win but he was laying off the whole night shift and that the
day shift was qualified Kirby told Thomas and Goodwin
that he had taught them to operate the equipment and that
the chances were that they could go elsewhere and find
jobs Thomas asked what a qualified operator was, and
Kirby replied, citing Horace Jones as an example, that a
qualified operator was one who could build roads and drill
beds and mine coal Kirby conceded that he told Thomas
and Goodwin that if he put the night shift back he would
recall them 2
On October 28, the Mine Workers contract became ef-
fective, and on October 19 Thomas filed a charge in Case
10-CA-11602 alleging that Goodwin and Thomas had
been laid off because of activity on behalf of the Union 3
On November 6 Respondent resumed the operation of
the night shift It did not recall Goodwin and Thomas but
instead hired three experienced bulldozer operators who
were members of the Union and had been laid off by Pea-
body Coal Company a day or two earlier
Rubin testified without contradiction that the reason for
resuming the night shift was that Invesco International for
whom Respondent performed the strip mining operations
as a subcontractor had renegotiated its contract with the
power company which was its customer and had increased
its requirements from Respondent so that Respondent was
2 Both Horace Jones and Kirby testified as to what Kirby said when he
announced the layoff of the night shift Their testimony is not in conflict in
most respects However Jones testified that Kirby told Thomas and Good
win that they were qualified bulldozer operators while Kirby testified that
he did not recall discussing their qualifications As Jones also testified that
there was discussion of what constituted a qualified operator in which Kirby
cited Jones as an example I find Kirby s verson of the conversation in this
respect more plausible than that of Jones and I credit Kirby
This charge was later withdrawn on November 28 1975
no longer able to produce the amount of coal required by
Invesco with a single shift
Kirby informed Rubin that Peabody employees were
being laid off and asked whether Respondent could take
them on as qualified operators or would be required to take
back the night-shift employees who had been laid off After
conferring with Respondent's attorney, Rubin told Kirby
that the union contract did not require them to recall
Thomas and Goodwin and that they could hire the quali-
fied laid-off Peabody employees Rubin denied that at the
time of his conversations with Kirby he knew that Thomas
had filed the charge in Case IO-CA-11602
According to Kirby, he hired the laid-off Peabody em-
ployees because they had from 10 to 25 years' experience
running bulldozers on strip mining operations and were
available He did not recall Thomas and Goodwin because
their experience could not be compared to that of the laid-
off Peabody employees, and he wanted top experience be-
cause he had to pay top wages Kirby testified that a quali-
fied bulldozer operator must be able to clear brush, build
roads, level ground for planting of explosives next to high
walls, and work close to the edge of high walls Thomas
and Goodwin had come to the job without prior experience
as bulldozer operators Thomas had come to the jobsite for
2 or 3 weeks on his own time before he was hired to learn
to operate the bulldozer, and Kirby taught him when he
had a chance Goodwin had some prior experience running
a back hoe but had no prior experience operating a bull-
dozer When he was hired Kirby put him on a bulldozer
and started training him Each had at most 5 or 6 weeks of
experience operating bulldozers at the time of the layoff
Kirby testified that he had hired them without experience
and trained them because he could not find any qualified
operators to hire when the operation started up At the
time of their layoff neither had any experience working on
high walls or doing road work Kirby conceded that when
the night shift was reinstituted he recalled Moore, also a
bulldozer operator, who had less seniority than Thomas or
Goodwin However, Kirby testified that Moore had prior
experience operating the bulldozer in building roads and
clearing brush, and Kirby recalled him for that reason
A day or two after the night shift resumed, Kirby spoke
with a few of the operators at the j obsite before the start of
work Horace Jones, his cousin Edsol Jones, and William
McKinney were present Horace Jones initially testified
that Kirby said that the reason he had not recalled Thomas
and Goodwin was that they had gone to the Labor Board
and that he was going to fight it as long as he could On
cross-examination, Jones testified that before making that
statement Kirby said that he had hired the men from Pea-
body who were bulldozer operators and qualified for the
work and that he had to have men who were qualified to
do the work Jones conceded on cross-examination that
Kirby also said that he could not recall Thomas and Good-
win because they were not qualified and had found better
men He then testified that Kirby said he would fight the
qualifications of Goodwin and Thomas before the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board
Edsol Jones testified that Kirby said he guessed that they
had noticed that Thomas and Goodwin were not on the
night shift and that he wanted them to know that the rea-
NUTMEG COAL COMPANY 1101
son was that they had gone to the Labor Board and he did
not want anyone like that working for him On cross-exam-
ination Edsol Jones conceded that Kirby also said that the
former Peabody employees were experienced, that he need-
ed experienced men, that Thomas and Goodwin were not
qualified, and that he did not call Thomas and Goodwin
back because they were not qualified
Kirby testified that he could not recall any conversation
with Horace and Edsol Jones in which Goodwin and
Thomas were discussed and that to the best of his knowl-
edge he had no such conversation
McKinney testified that he did not recall any conversa-
tion about Goodwin and Thomas, but he did recall that in
a conversation with him and some others Kirby said that if
he had to pay top wages he had to have qualified men and
that the men from Peabody were qualified He then testi-
fied that he also heard Kirby say that Goodwin and Thom
as were not qualified to strip coal but that he never heard
Kirby say that they were not recalled because they had
gone to the National Labor Relations Board and filed
charges McKinney then testified again that he did not re-
call any mention of Thomas and Goodwin in the conversa
tion about the Peabody men
The credibility issue raised by the testimony of the two
Joneses, Kirby, and McKinney is not easily resolved On
the one hand Kirby's failure of recollection of any conver-
sation about the qualifications of Goodwin and Thomas
raises some suspicion, for he gave no contrary version of
the conversation which McKinney and both Joneses ap-
pear to remember on the morning after the night shift was
reinstituted, and if in fact he never said what the two
Joneses attributed to him it seems surprising that he would
not have remembered at least that much and have been
able to deny that he said what the Joneses attributed to
him With respect to McKinney, although McKinney de-
nied that he ever heard Kirby say that he did not recall
Thomas and Goodwin because they had gone to the Board
or filed charges, he vacillated in his testimony as to wheth-
er they were mentioned in the conversation McKinney ap-
peared hesitant as he testified and left some suspicion that
he was not stating fully everything that he did recall
On the other hand the testimony of both Joneses was
considerably shaken on cross-examination On initial di-
rect examination both omitted significant portions of the
conversation and stated in effect that Kirby simply said
that Goodwin and Thomas had not been recalled because
they had gone to the Board and either that Kirby was
going to fight it as long as he could or that he did not want
employees like that working for him On cross-examination
each conceded that Kirby had mentioned the superior
qualifications of the Peabody former employees as a rea-
son for hiring them before he said anything about having
failed to recall Goodwin and Thomas Ultimately, Horace
Jones testified that Kirby said that he could not recall
Goodwin and Thomas because they were not qualified and
that he would fight their qualifications before the National
Labor Relations Board, a significant change from his ini-
tial testimony Ultimately, Edsol Jones testified that after
mentioning the hire of the former Peabody employees Kir-
by said something to the effect that he did not call Good-
win and Thomas back because they were not qualified,
also a substantial variation from his initial testimony
While I am not inclined to believe that the testimony con-
cerning the mention of the Board and the filing of charges
was totally fabricated, the testimony of both Joneses leads
to the conclusion that the initial version that they gave was
substantially different from what Kirby actually said at the
time It is unnecessary to decide whether these versions
were a product of deliberate distortion or of faulty percep
tion or recollection It suffices that I find the testimony
initially given by both Joneses is not reliable and that
whatever Kirby said must have come much closer to the
final testimony that each of them gave than it did to the
statements they originally attributed to him Given the
context of the conversation and the prior mention of the
hiring of the former Peabody employees, I conclude that
on the occasion in question Kirby told the men that he had
hired the former Peabody employees because they were
qualified men, that he needed qualified men on the job,
and that he had not recalled Goodwin and Thomas be-
cause they were not as qualified as the Peabody employees
I find further that he did refer to the fact that they had
gone to the Labor Board and filed charges, but that any
statement he made in connection with filing those charges
was to the effect that he would fight the lack of qualifica-
tion of Goodwin and Thomas before the Board as long as
was necessary I find further that he did not say that he did
not want Goodwin and Thomas back because they had
filed charges with the Board
In the light of these findings I shall recommend dismissal
of the allegations of the complaint that Respondent failed
and refused to recall Goodwin and Thomas from layoff
because they had filed a charge with or gave testimony in
the prior unfair labor practice proceeding There is to be
sure some basis for suspecting Kirby's reasons in not re-
calling them The evidence concerning the violations of
Section 8(a)(1) shows some animus against the Union, al-
though the testimony as to the substance of the interroga-
tion and threats which Respondent concedes occurred in-
dicates that Kirby's opposition to the Union was not
totally intransigent Thus, Kirby acknowledged at the out-
set that ultimately he would be required to recognize the
Union and sought employees' cooperation only in giving
him more time before signing a union contract rather than
in rejecting the Union outright Nonetheless, his conduct at
that time with respect to Horace Jones and Goodwin
showed that he was prepared to view employees who did
not cooperate as unwelcome at the strip mining operation,
and there is a sufficient nexus between his conduct in send-
ing Horace Jones and Goodwin home in October and the
allegation of the complaint to infer animus against Good-
win and Thomas because of the charge The additional
evidence supporting the complaint is the timing of the fil-
ing of the charge in relation to Respondent's failure to re-
call Thomas and Goodwin after having told them at the
time of the layoff little more than a week before that it
would recall them if the night shift were reinstituted
The remaining evidence, however, all appears to point in
the opposite direction I have rejected on credibility
grounds the alleged damaging statement made by Kirby on
the morning after the night shift was reinstituted There is
no question raised in this proceeding as to the legitimacy of
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the economic motivation which led Respondent to termi-
nate the night shift when the union contract became effec-
tive because night-shift operations with Thomas and
Goodwin were inefficient and could not be economically
justified There is also no dispute as to the reason for
Respondent's reinstitution of the night shift little more
than a week later Kirby's testimony was uncontradicted as
to the skills required of bulldozer operators, the need for
those skills on the job, and the inferior qualifications of
both Goodwin and Thomas It is also undisputed that
when the union contract took effect the labor costs of Re-
spondent were substantially increased, that bulldozer oper-
ators became the highest paid employees on the job, and
that Respondent would have been required to pay Good-
win and Thomas, as qualified bulldozer operators, at a rate
substantially higher than what they had received prior to
the termination of the night shift Under all these circum-
stances, I conclude from all the above that Respondent
failed to recall Goodwin and Thomas, as Kirby and Rabin
testified, because it desired more experienced employees
and that the General Counsel has failed to prove that Re-
spondent failed or refused to recall them for the reasons
alleged in the complaint Accordingly, I shall recommend
that the allegation of the complaint as to the layoff of
Goodwin and Thomas be dismissed
IV THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act Although Respondent con-
tends that its conduct in recognizing the Union has
effectively remedied the admitted violations of the Act, its
recognition of the Union may well be viewed by its em-
ployees as a mere bowing to the inevitable rather than as
an indication of future intent to comply with the law Ac-
cordingly, I find it appropriate to recommend the usual
remedy in this case
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Nutmeg Coal Company, Inc, is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act
2 United Mine Workers of America is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 By interrogating its employees regarding their union
membership, activities, and desires and the union member-
ship, activities, and desires of other employees, and by
threatening its employees with discharge if they engaged in
activities on behalf of the Union, Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act
4 The General Counsel has failed to establish by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to
recall employees Terry Goodwin and Howard Thomas
from layoff because they filed a charge or gave testimony
to the Board in Case 10-CA-11602
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended
ORDER4
Respondent Nutmeg Coal Company, Inc, Jefferson
County, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating its employees regarding their union
membership, activities, and desires and the union member-
ship, activities, and desires of fellow employees
(b) Threatening its employees with discharge if they en-
gage in activities on behalf of United Mine Workers of
America or any other labor organization
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights to engage in or refrain from engaging in any or all of
the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post at its Charlotte, North Carolina, and Jefferson
County, Alabama, places of business copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix," 5 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10,
after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily post-
ed Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to in-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writ
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith
° 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
5 In the event the Board s Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT question our employees about their
union membership, activities, or desires or about the
union membership, activities or desires of their fellow
employees
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge
if they engage in activities on behalf of United Mine
NUTMEG COAL COMPANY 1103
Workers of America, or any other labor organization in any or all of the activities specified in Section 7 of
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere the National Labor Relations Act
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights to engage in or to refrain from engaging NUTMEG COAL COMPANY INC