Philo Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1978

236 N.L.R.B. 647 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

PHILO LUMBER COMPANY
Philo Lumber Company, Inc. and Local Union No. 3-
469, International Woodworkers of America, AFL-
CIO. Case 20-CA 12080
May 31, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENELI.O. MURPHY. AND TRUITSDAI.F
On December 2. 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Henry S. Sahm issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed a
brief in opposition to Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
'Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made hi the
Administrative l.aw Judge 1t is the Board, established rpollc not to i, er-
rule an Administratisve I aw Judge's resolutlilns aith respect Io credibhillt
unless the clear preponderance of all of the rele.anl eiidence conilrce, us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standird I)r, Hi/ll Produ,rlr Inc. 91
NLRB 544 (1950). enfd, 188 F2d 362 (('.A 3. 191 'AHe have carefuils
examined the record and find ln. hasis for reversing hi, findings
The Admnistratile L.ai Judge made the following inadl ertent err.r,
which are herebs corrected lThre dministratie I au. Judge referred I. 3
conersation bet'ween Hetiz arind Respoident s president, Miorgan indicat-
ing It occurred in elthet late September oorcaril ()ctobcr 197i [hI, retoil
reveals that the comnersation occurred In late September or earl ()Irtlcti
1975. Ihe Admminstrratle 1.a, Judge .lso found Ihat the lellitiile,s .f
former emipioiees Sutton and Ilellc and forlier Supertr Ilr Smlitrh coit,l f
rated Underwood's testimon. rhe tecord hotescr. tidictale thli o,1]
Sutton's testlinons is directls corroboialtie of I ndll .lood on a pirricltldl r
point t[he testimnns of Hencz and Snith It, .in rorc,r . I rcle.it it, esti.h
lishing Respondent's general tn1111i1 aninimu rathilr than olcrrohoraitn!i ( n-
derwood ,n a p .rticular insldent
Respondent has excepted particilalrl to the Administratixe I als JudcL
crediting of, and reliance on. the terftmlmi of foritcr enmployIrec Stitt,tl he-
cause his testimons on a collateral mailter, regrding Ithe clruni.stAicCs of
his separation fr, nm Respondent's elliplo)s, al leged lIi t.onlr:adltced hi
documentary evidence indicating that Stition did not resign bhit ia, i,-
charged. Although the Administrativ e Law Judge dil not resolve the ceth
bilil) conflict conrcrning the cirtllcustanices under hich Simnon left Rc-
spondenl's emplo)t. we find thit his failure it) do so do,' ie a.ifle, I tihe rcsulil
reached. No unfair labor practice finding Is predlcaited on Sutton's (lt cniIlit-
icted testlimoll. Therefore. eien aIsuail;ng, rarg,,nd.i, that Sutton lied .ihitl
the circumstances under whic h he left Resptrndtcnt' enlplo,. i natticer Mn.t inl
issue herein. the Adrlnisnirstrtise L a Judge I'as ii 1 errror it crediting
Sultton's testimirons on matters related to) !his prtceeding See, c . lg i 'I-
(orporal;on, 22L NLRB 1349. fn. I I19701: -rtlis,,i ,r I umh, (,ipinl.t,
227 NLRB 123 1130( 19771 )(testtin t, if MIaIgII,m
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Philo Lumber Company,
Inc., Laytonville, California, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HENRY S SAHM. Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding was heard on May 11, 12, and 13, 1977, at Ukiah,
California. The complaint which issued on December 6,
1976,' based on a charge dated October 28, alleges that
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed
by Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, by refusing to "reemploy" James Under-
wood on September 23 because he engaged in protected
concerted activities. Briefs were filed by the parties on July
1. 1977.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the testi-
monial demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I J:RISDICTION: THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent, a California corporation, owns three lum-
ber mills in northern California which are engaged in pro-
cessing lumber, Its main office is in Ukiah, California. The
Philo lumber mill, where the incidents occurred which gave
rise to this proceeding, annually sells goods valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside of
California and has annual gross sales in excess of $500,000.
It is found to be an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II THE L TNFAIR LI.BOR PRACTICES
A. The Testimony
James Underwood. the alleged discriminatee, was first
employed by Respondent in August 1973 at its Laytonville
lumber mill plant as a debarker. In the latter part of 1974,
this sawmill ceased operations because of economic rea-
sons. Underwood then obtained another job at the Har-
wood Products Company lumber mill where he incurred a
shoulder injury. In April 1975 Respondent Philo Lumber
Company resumed operations whereupon Underwood re-
turned to their employ on April 1., 1975, working principal-
ly as a debarker and occasionally as a bucksaw operator,
log loader, cleanup man, green chain operator. gangsaw
man, and off-bearman. At other lumber mills where he
"Ill A itets refei ;ti 1976 unless otherilse specified.
236 NLRB No. 72
647
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had worked in the past, he was a trim saw spotter and
resaw man, chipper operator, hula trim saw man, tallyman,
and carrier.
After he had signed a union authorization card in Sep-
tember 1975, he had a conversation at the mill the follow-
ing month with Landis Morgan. owner of Respodent.
Underwood's account of what happened is as follows:
. . .[Morgan] came up to the barking shack where I
was working and he was kind of upset because I
wasn't keeping logs peeled and stacked back in the
yard. So, I told him, "Well, when you are trying to
break in a new debarker and you have got only small
redwood to start with, it's hard to keep up with the
work in the mill in the first place."
Then I told him, "The only reason that I feel that
you are picking on me is because I organized the plant
here."
Underwood concluded this phase of his testimony by
stating that Morgan had never heretofore criticized the
quality of his work.
During the autumn of 1975. union organizational meet-
ings were frequently held at the home of Underwood who
was the most active employee-proponent of the Union. No-
tices that these meetings were to be held at Underwood's
home were posted on the plant's bulletin board. In addi-
tion, testified Underwood, the approximately 35 employees
in Respondent's plant were also notified orally of these
union meetings at Underwood's home.
Beginning in September 1975, when the union campaign
commenced, and during the entire campaign up until the
Board election, the following December, Underwood wore
to work a union button on his hat every day which read:
"International Woodworkers of America, AFL-('IO &
CLC."
In December 1975, the Board held an election at Re-
spondent's plant to determine whether the employees de-
sired the Union herein to represent them. Underwood was
the Union's observer and also present at the polls on the
day of the election was Morgan. owner of Respondent.
On April 1. Underwood testified on behalf of the Charg-
ing Party Uinion at a Board representation hearing. Also
present during the time that Underwood was on the ssii-
ness stand, testifying on behalf of the l.lnion, was Landis
Morgan, owner of Respondent. After the Board's represen-
tation hearing the Hearing Officer issued his report on
June 16.2
At approximately the same time as the Board election
was held, Underwood had a recurrence of his shoulder
pain incurred while working at Harwood Products Com-
pany, another lumber mill. See above. He was under
the care of a physician for some months which eventuated
in his being hospitalized for tests, and he finally underwent
surgery. Darrell Buzzard, the plant superintendent, who is
a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act, was kept informed of all these medical matters bh
Underwood.
2G.C(. E xhs aind 4 are the ltcaring ()fiicer s rcport dated June 1( I lth
respect to Rcspondenrit' oabectiins filed to the eie tlon. un.lciilu l
t!nderwood's Ietion\ hitch is ineorporated h rIecrerc fnd iadic a 1pait
of the tecord in this proceeding.
On February 26, the last day that Underwood worked
for Respondent, as his pain was such that he had to enter
the hospital, he told Buzzard during working hours that:
. .[I] had to take off to go have my surgery done
and I asked him if I would have a job when I came
back [from undergoing surgery] and he said I would.
After Underwood underwent surgery on May 3 and was
discharged from the hospital 3 or 4 days later, he was un-
able to work. At the time he left the hospital, he was unable
to move his right shoulder and arm which were swathed in
bandages, a cast, and splints which rendered those parts of
his body incapable of movement or use.
lie spoke to Buzzard at the plant during the lunch hour
in the presence of Jimmie Sutton. an employee, 3 weeks
after he was discharged from the hospital. Underwood's
testimony is as follows:
[Buzzard] asked me how I was doing and when I ex-
pected to be back at work. I told him I was doing
pretty good and as soon as I got my arm out of the
strap they had it in ... . I was feeling a little better
and just wishing they would hurry up and get it over
w ith.
About 5 weeks later in the early part of July, Underwood
again went to the plant and spoke to Buzzard. Underwood
testified that he "told him [Buzzard] that I was still under a
doctor's care and waiting for him to evaluate my situa-
tion." The doctor had informed him, Underwood told Buz-
zard, that his shoulder was improving.
Underwood visited the plant for a second time on Au-
gust 17, at which time he informed three of the employees
that the NLRB had certified the Union as the production
employees' bargaining agent. On the same day and while
he was in the plant. Underwood spoke to Buzzard who
inquired as to the state of his health to which Underwood
responded that he "was doing pretty good and I was sup-
posed to get released to come back to work in about three
weeks .... IBuzzardl said. 'That's good.'"
IThe following day, August 18, about noon, Morgan
came to Underwood's home unannounced. According to
Urndcrwood, Morgan said:
"Jim. I understand 'sou was out at the mill yesterday."
and I said, "Yes. I was." and he said, "Well, I don't
want you back out there anymore. As a matter of fact,
I don't want you back at my property anymore." Then
I said, "Okay." lie got into his pickup and left and I
went back in the house.
Underwood denied both on his direct and cross-exami-
nation that he had ever told Morgan or Buzzard that he
had "quit" his job.
On September 23, U nderwood telephoned Buzzard at
the plant and informed him that his "doctor planned on
releasing me on September 27 and I said I called to find
out if I still had a job and Mr. BuzzaiLd told me, 'No, I had
to replace you.' "
On or about September 27, testified U nderwood, his
physician informed him that he "could go back to work
He didn't limit me to any work or anything." ('on-
648
PHILO LUMBER UOMPANY 64
temporaneously with this release by the doctor, the disahil-
ity payments for the injury incurred while he was employed
by the Harwood Products Company lumber mill were dis-
continued by Harwood Products' insurance compan. At
or about the same time that Buzzard notified L nderwood
he had been "replaced," Underwood applied forjobs with
other employers but was unable to obtain ans stork.
While chopping firewood at home for his stove on No-
vember 14, Underwood reinjured his same shoulder where-
upon his doctor wrote a medical report which reads as fol-
lows:
9 Ma)y 1977
RE: James Underwood
To Whom It Ma' Concern:
This is to certify that the abthoe named patient was
released to return to work on September 27. 197h. l)ue
to the severity of his headaches and tenderness .ind
pain in his right shoulder, disabilil s was reinstated on
November 15, 1976.
Thank you.
s; Robert A. Kraft
Robert A. Kraft. M.D.
IUnderwood then delivered the doctor's letter to liar-
wood Products. his former emploser ;wlhen he had injuredl
his shoulder, whose insurance compans reinstated
Underwood's disability payments.
It was elicited on Underwood's cross-examination that.
when he learned that these medical tests revealed he wkould
have to undergo surgery. he so notifed Buzzard shortl'
thereafter and requested "time off." See above. In
response to questions by Buzzard in June alnd Jul. accord-
ing to Uinderwood, he advised him that he hadt not been
informed by his doctor how long it 'Awould be before he
would be able to return to work. Also. in response to a
question by Respondent's counsel, he testified that when
he spoke to Buzzard on August 17. at the plant, he told him
his doctor estimated that he should be pil sicall} able to
return to work in about 3 weeks. tnder further cross-ex-
amination. it was educed that Underwood telephoned Buz-
zard and informed him that the doctor was planning on
releasing him on September 27 "and I uanted to know if I
had my job . running the barker . . [Buzzard] said.
'No, I had to replace you.'"
On cross-examination he testified that on September 27
he had an appointment with his doctor who told him "that
I could go back towork." Upon learning this he did not cots, e
this information to any of Respondent's plant officials "to
request work" because, testified Underwood. Morgan had
forbidden him on August 18, when he came to his home, not
to ever "come back" to tbe plant. Underwood also testified
that, when Morgan told him on August 18 that he was fired.
he so informed Donald Nelson, business representative of the
Charging Party Union. Underwood continued. in answer to
a question by Respondent's attorne). that he telephoned
Buzzard on September 23 and "asked for work" but was
informed that he had been terminated.
Jimmie Sutton. an emploee from 1975 to Novemniber 19
when he voluntarily left the employ of Respondent, testi-
fied that. shortIv after Underwood entered the hospital on
f:ebruars 26. he was told by Buzzard that "[Underwood)
alwavs had his job there as soon as he got out of the hospi-
tal." On August 18, testified Sutton, he told Morgan at the
mill entrance that he was interested in buying his pickup
truck. and during this conversation he informed Morgan
that the day before "Underwood had come out to the mill
and told us we were certified union and that there was
going to he a union meeting at his house on Thursday
[August 191 . 'You mean [Morgan questioned Sutton]
he came out here [to the plantl and said that' and I said,
'Yes,' and he said, 'Well, we'lljust see about that.' and he left
and started walking toward the mill real mad."
Steve Hencz. an employee, testified that he had a con-
versation with Morgan in late September or early October
at the plant. According to Hencz. Morgan approached him
and "asked me who were the union pushers. He mentioned
a couple of names and said. 'If the union gets in, I'm going
to shut that son of a bitch down and I'm going to get a new
crcw.
(;arland Smith wXas formerly employed by Respondent
for 4-1 2 sears, 6 months of which he was plant superin-
tendent. lie testified that, during the Union's organiza-
tional campaign at the plant. Morgan told him in August
19)7 "that he would shut the damn mill down for three
scaris if the Union got in."
B. Re vlonelnt 'y Case
Darrell Buzzard. who is superintendent of Respondent's
Philo lumber mill. testified that Underwood never request-
ed a lease of absence to undergo tests at a hospital for his
injured shoulder which had been injured when he was em-
plos ed bx liarwood Products Company. Nor could Under-
wood estimate. according to Buzzard, when he might re-
turn to work. Therefore, continued Buzzard, it was
impossible for him to assure Underwood that his job would
he ax; ilalble hern his doctor certified him as being able to
pwork inaismuch as "1 had no assurance of when he would
eser be able to come back to work." When questioned
again Xwhether he had assured Underwood that when he
recos cred froli surgcrs he could return to his job. Buzzard
testified:
Your Ilonor, to set the record straight here, when Mr.
Undervwood caume to me at the mill and told me that
he guessed that he was going to have to quit because
he had to go into the hospital for an operation from
this old injurN, I told him at that time to hold on and
see how it turns out, because he was a good barker
operator and for a period of time up until I got m5
barker operator aind trained him, if Mr. Underwood
had come htick aith a slip from a doctor showing me
that he seas ph'sically able to go back to work, I
Aould hasve hired him, up to the date that I promoted
this barker trainee to barker operator.
Morgan. the owner of Respondent, testified on direct
examinatioln that he first learned Underwood would be en-
tering the hospital on February 26. which was a "few dass
before his last dai of work." He continued that he spoke to
9
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Underwood upon learning this and that Underwood told
him "he was quitting and I said, 'well, that's awful short
notice.' And I said that was kind of putting us on the spot.
And he said that he had to go and have an operation on his
shoulder." Morgan added that he neither recalls
Underwood's notifying him he was entering the hospital
nor does he remember Underwood ever requesting a leave
of absence. Morgan explained that Underwood "was put-
ting him on the spot" in that he gave Morgan "only three
or four days [notice] before he was going to leave." Thus,
added Morgan, he was put in a seriously precarious posi-
tion inasmuch as Underwood was the only employee in the
Philo plant at that time who was able to operate the de-
barking machine. Morgan concluded this phase of his testi-
mony by describing Underwood as "a good debarker oper-
ator." However, it appears that Morgan resented
Underwood's refusing Morgan's request that he postpone
his surgery and "give us a little more time," to which Un-
derwood responded, according to Morgan, "that he had
made arrangements."
On cross-examination, Morgan phrased his version of
the issue in this proceeding as follows:
[Underwood] mentioned to me that he was going to
quit and that he had to have an operation on his
shoulder .... I told him that was kind of putting us
on the spot .... He said he was quitting because he
had made arrangements to have an operation on his
shoulder . . . . And I said that we should have a little
more time.
On rebuttal, Underwood testified that he gave ample no-
tice to Respondent through Buzzard that he was entering
the hospital to take various tests which would last 2 weeks
and that he kept Buzzard informed of his tests, surgery,
and progress thereafter and told Buzzard, as soon as he
learned of it, his doctor's estimate of when he would be
able to return to work. He also testified that in the entire
time he was employed by Respondent he was absent from
work "maybe two or three days. And as far as being off
sick, maybe I missed one day or two, but not many." He
denied that he ever told either Morgan or Buzzard that due
to this shoulder injury he was "quitting his job."
C. Analysis of the Testimony; Credibility and Conclusions
The testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses is
credited based upon their testimony and demeanor while
on the witness stand which was both consonant with the
facts and delivered in a sincere, straightforward manner.
This is in contrast with Morgan's and Buzzard's incredible
testimony which is neither believable nor in accord with
the findings of fact.3 The version of Underwood is accept-
ed as the more accurate account of the various conversa-
tions he had with both Buzzard and Morgan when he
spoke to them regarding entering the hospital and thereaf-
ter when he underwent tests and surgery and the progress
of his state of health up until the time his physician dis-
charged him as physically able to resume his duties as a
debarker operator. Underwood's testimony, in conjunction
3 See Buzzard's self-contradictory testimony, vupra.
with the entire background of evidence adduced in this
case, merits belief. This conclusion is supported and
strengthened when it is considered that there is other testi-
mony corroborating Underwood's testimony; namely, the
testimony of Sutton, Hencz, and Smith. This impression
that Underwood and his corroborating witnesses were tes-
tifying truthfully is based on two cogent considerations:
They were not intelligently capable of successfully practic-
ing guile or deceit, and their testimony was not substantial-
ly shaken by able counsel for Respondent who vigorously
and thoroughly cross-examined them.
Moreover, the reasons advanced by Morgan and Buz-
zard for their refusal to rehire Underwood are unconvinc-
ing as their testimony did not tend to establish the factual
validity of the reasons assigned for Underwood's termina-
tion. Furthermore, for Underwood to quit his job immedi-
ately prior to entering a hospital knowing he would be in-
curring medical and surgical expenses, some of which
undoubtedly were not reimbursable, strains, if not shatters,
one's credulity. It is incredible that the reasons assigned
therefor were the ones in fact that were alleged by Respon-
dent to have been the reasons for Underwood's termina-
tion. On the contrary, it is believed that the reasons alleged
were deliberately spurious and a pretext to screen Respon-
dent's discriminatory motive; namely, retaliation for
Underwood's union activities in refusing to rehire him af-
ter he recovered from his disability. It is concluded that the
discredited defense that Underwood quit was manufac-
tured and "furnished the excuse rather than the reason for
IRespondent's] retaliatory action." N.L.R.B. v. Thor Power
Tool Companyr, 351 F.2d 584, 587 (C(.A. 7, 1965).
Under these circumstances and the record as a whole
and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, including the
testimony detailed above, as well as the corroborating testi-
mony of Underwood's three fellow employees, including
the background of Respondent's knowledge of
Underwood's intensive union activities, it is concluded that
this conflict in testimony is resolved in favor of the versions
told by the General Counsel's witnesses. Accordingly, it is
found that Respondent, when it seized upon the absurd
story that he quit his job as a pretext to rid itself of Under-
wood, an active union adherent, was discriminatorily moti-
vated and therefore such action was violative of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.4
nll I HE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act, it
shall be recommended that it be required to cease and de-
sist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to eradicate the effect thereof and to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily termi-
nated James Underwood by refusing to rehire him because
of his union activities, it shall be recommended that Re-
spondent offer him reinstatement to his former or substan-
tially equivalent job, and make him whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
4 :.I.R B S Schil Slel Prodlucti .Irn, 480 1 2d 586, 593 (('.A. 5, 19'3).
650
PHILO LUMBER COMPANY
against him, with all his seniority and other rights and priv-
ileges, by paying to him a sum of money equal to the wages
he would have earned from the date of Respondent's refus-
al to rehire and return him to his former debarkerjob until
his reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period.
with interest thereon to be computed in the manner pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NL.RB 651
(1977). 5
Upon the foregoing findings of fact. conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case. and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER
The Respondent, Philo Lumber Company, Inc., aI. ton-
ville, California. its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging its employees' membership in the
above-captioned Union or any other labor organization or
their concerted union activities by discharging them and:
or refusing to rehire them or by otherwise discriminating in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of their employment because of their concert-
ed activities.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations. to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent
permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the National l.abor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.7
2. Take the following affirmative action designed and
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to James Underwood immediate, full, and un-
conditional reinstatement to his former job or a substan-
tially equivalent one, if such job no longer exists, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights, privileges. or
working conditions, and make Underwood whole for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him in the manner prescribed in the
section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
National Labor Relations Board, or its agents, for inspec-
tion, examination, and copying. all payroll records, social
security payment records. timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary or useful in
determining compliance with this Order or in computing
the amount of backpay due as herein provided.
(c) Post at its Philo lumber mill at Laytonville, Califor-
nia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." '
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 20, shall, after being signed bh Re-
spondent's authorized representative, be posted by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
See. generall. vis PhrlngR & Heating ( ,,. 138 Nl RB 716 11962},
In the event no excepllons are filed as prosided by Sec 102 4t of the
Rules ailnd Regulatrions.l of the Nitlional I abhor Relations Board. the findings.
conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
1(12 48 of the Rules and Regulaitons. he adopted by the Board and bectome
its findings. conclusions, and Order. and all hobjectins Ihereto shall he
deemed a.i ied for all purposes
See Phlido Lumniher ({mpani, 229 NlRB 210 (1977)
In thle oeent that this Order is enforced hb a Judgment of a United
States ('ourt of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted bh Order
of the National Labohr Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
.ludgnment of the I nited States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
N.itrlinal I abhor Relalttons Board "
APPENDIX
NOT I( F To EMPI oYF[-s
POSr: ) Bs ORDI R OF THIF
NAIIONAI LABOR RELATIONs BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
F[ollowing a hearing in which all parties participated and
offered their evidence, it has been found that we violated
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. We have
been ordered to post this notice and to do what we say in
this notice.
WI sAt IH Nor discourage our employees from engag-
ing in concerted activity on behalf of Local Union No.
3-469, International Woodworkers of America, AFL-
('(). or any other labor organization, by discharging
or refusing to hire or rehire them or by discriminating
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
terms or conditions of employment.
WF UIL.. NOT in any other manner interfere with.
restrain, or coerce any of our employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Na-
tional lIabor Relations Act, as amended, to self-orga-
nization and to bargain through a union of their own
choosing, except to the extent set out by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act. which gives you the right to decide
not to become involved in any or all of the above
activities.
WV IIU.L offer James Underwood immediate, full,
and unconditional reinstatement to his former debark-
ing job or a substantialls equivalent position, and pas
him, with interest. for the wages and/or earnings he
mayr have lost because we refused to rehire him when
he recovered from his disability.
Plill ( I. MBlR CO()SPAN. IN(
651