Plastic Workers Local No. 929

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 419 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

PLASTIC WORKERS LOCAL NO. 929
Plastic Workers Local No. 929, International Brother-
hood of Pulp , Sulphite , and Paper Mill Workers,
AFL-CIO, CLC, and International Brotherhood of
Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-
CIO, CLC and Doughboy Recreational, Domain
Industries, Inc. Case 26-CB-677
November 24, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On July 24, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
William J. Brown issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions and 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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions3 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.
In its exceptions the General Counsel contends,
inter alia, that although the Administrative Law
Judge correctly found that Respondents violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by engaging in the
conduct alleged in paragraph 8(r) of the complaint,
i.e., by threatening to whip an employee unless he
quit working during the strike, the Administrative
Law Judge inadvertently confused the testimony of
Alton Dunlap with that of James Kimes. According
to the General Counsel, it was Kimes, not Alton
Dunlap, who testified in support of that allegation.
We agree. According to Kimes' testimony, on about
December 22, 1971, he was threatened by James
Dunlap to the effect that Dunlap would "just have to
whip up on" Kimes because he had returned to work
during the strike. Therefore, we find that by such
conduct, Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.4
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as herein
modified and hereby orders that the Respondents,
Plastic Workers Local No. 929, International Broth-
erhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers,
AFL-CIO, CLC, and International Brotherhood of
Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO,
200 NLRB No. 64
419
CLC, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order, as so modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a) of
the recommended Order:
"(a) Restraining or coercing employees of Dough-
boy Recreational , Domain Industries , Inc., in the
exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the
Act by threatening employees with bodily harm,
exclusion from pay increases , prevention from
working, loss of jobs , beating with clubs, burning of
the plant, tailgating employees ' automobiles , threats
to whip employees , impliedly threatening burning of
homes of employees who worked during the strike, or
in any other manner threatening employees of the
Company for refusing to support the union strike."
i The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972
2 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
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A 3). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
3 We affirm the Administrative Law Judge's dismissal of paragraph 8(c)
of the complaint alleging that Respondents, by Nathan Ashwood, their
agent, on or about October 1, 1971, threatened and coerced an employee to
sign a union card by telling the employee that if the Union had to set up a
picket line they would not allow anyone to cross the line, and if he did not
belong to the Union, he would be fired for not reporting to work. Although
the General Counsel correctly contends that the Administrative Law Judge
inadvertently considered that allegation in light of the testimony of
employee Eubanks , when in fact it was employee Blue who offered
testimony in support of that allegation , we note that Blue testified to only
one conversation with Ashwood. Ashwood's remarks during that conversa-
tion were found by the Administrative Law Judge to support the allegations
contained in two other paragraphs of the complaint In any event , a finding
that Ashwood's remarks also supported the allegation in paragraph 8(c)
would be cumulative ; accordingly, we find that the Administrative Law
Judge's inadvertent error was not prejudicial
4 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the
Administrative Law Judge's remaining conclusions that Respondents'
conduct violated Section 8 (b)(1)(A) of the Act, as set forth in the
Administrative Law Judge 's Decision
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 before the duly designated Trial Examiner at
Helena, Arkansas, on April 25, 26, and 27, 1972. The
original charge of unfair labor practice was filed January 4,
1972, by the Charging Party, herein was issued February 3,
1972 by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, acting through the Board's Regional
Director for Region 26. It alleged and the duly filed
answers of the Respondents denied the commission of
unfair labor practices defined within the provisions of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
At the hearing the parties appeared and participated as
noted above with full opportunity to present evidence and
argument on the issues. Subsequent to the close of the
hearing, briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent Unions and have been fully considered. On
the entire record herein and on my observation of the
witnesses I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
The pleadings and evidence establish and I find that the
Company maintains a plant and place of business at West
Helena, Arkansas , where it is engaged in the manufacture
of swimming pools, accessories, and toys. During the
calendar year preceding issuance of the complaint herein,
the Company sold and shipped products valued in excess
of $50,000 from its West Helena plant directly to points
located outside the State of Arkansas. I find, as the
pleadings establish, that the Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the purview of Sections 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The pleadings and evidence establish and I find that the
Respondents are, and have been at all material times, labor
organizations within the purview of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
For a period of some 3 years preceding the events herein
concerned, labor relations between the Company and the
local and International unions had been governed by the
terms of a collective-bargaining agreement which expired
according to its terms on October 1, 1971.1 Negotiations
for a new agreement proved unavailing and on November
29 the International union, hereinafter sometimes referred
to as the International, and the local union, hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the local, struck and picketed the
Company's West Helena plant. International Representa-
tive C. L. Hughes and Local Union President Homer Rose
had headed the Unions' bargaining team and also
managed the strike and picketing. The pleadings and
evidence establish their status as agents of the Internation-
al and the local, respectively. Early in the course of the
labor dispute herein involved the local and International
promulgated written rules governing picket lines and for
picket captains. The rules appear to be designed primarily
to insure the manning of the picket line with an adequate
complement of pickets but they also contain the provision
that the picket line captain on each shift should summon
the police to remove a picket who refused to leave the
premises after a union request to do so. I credit Rose's
testimony that Hughes instructed him to see to it that the
picket line captains be selected on the basis of their
responsibility in order to minimize trouble on the picket
lines.
The complaint alleges some 26 instances of union
restraint and coercion of employees on and away from the
picket lines 2 They are next hereinafter discussed in order,
including the allegations of paragraph 8(z) added by
amendment with leave of the Trial Examiner at the outset
of the hearing.
It is alleged in paragraph 8(a) of the complaint that
Respondents , by agents including Annie Rowlett, and on
or about December 13, threatened a company employee
that she would be beaten up if she continued to work
during the strike . Mrs. Betty Lou Blalock, hired December
8 as a cutting table worker , testified that on or about
December 13 Annie Rowlett , a union member and a
striker, drove her car near to where Blalock was standing in
the vicinity of the plant and offered Blalock a ride. When
Blalock was in Rowlett 's car the latter , according to
Blalock , said that she was going to have to beat Blalock up
if she continued to work during the strike . Annie Rowlett's
account of the episode is to the effect that she merely told
Blalock that she would appreciate the latter 's refraining
from crossing the picket line. I credit Blalock 's account of
this episode and find that the conversation took the course
indicated by the testimony of Mrs. Blalock.
In determining the question as to the accountability of
the local and International unions for this threat, the
statutory touchstone is the provision of Section 2(13) of the
Act to the effect that in determining agency the question of
whether specific acts were actually authorized or subse-
quently ratified shall not be controlling . Rose conceded
that although he told the local members to refrain from
violence on the picket line, he could not recall cautioning
them regarding violence away from the picket line. I credit
Blalock 's testimony and find that by the threat of Rowlett,
the local union engaged in an act of restraint and coercion
within the purview of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Paragraph 8(b) of the complaint alleges , and the
Respondents' answers deny that, through the agency of
Nathan Ashwood the Respondents, on or about October 1,
threatened an employee in the plant by stating that if the
Company granted a raise in pay and an employee were not
a member of the Union , he would not participate in the
pay raise . Employee Ira Blue, who signed a union card and
attended two union meetings but continued to work during
the strike, testified that shortly before the strike, Nathan
Ashwood told him in the plant that if the employees
received a pay increase and Blue were not a member of the
Union he would not rece've the increase . Ashwood, a
union steward and member of the Union 's negotiating
committee , testified with respect to other items alleged in
the complaint but did not directly deny the testimony of
Blue. I credit Blue's testimony and find that the allegations
of Section 8(b) of the complaint are sustained by the
evidence.
Union agents , including Nathan Ashwood , are alleged in
paragraph 8(c) of the complaint to have threatened an
employee in the plant on or about October 1 and to have
coerced him into signing a union card by telling him that
unless he signed , if the Union set up a picket line, he would
be fired for not reporting . Mathew Eubanks, a utility
employee with 7 years' service , testified that sometime in
October , Ashwood talked to him in the plant and solicited
him to join the Union while threatening him that if he
I Dates hereinafter, unless otherwise specified, relate to the calendar year of a prima facie case the allegations of paragraphs 8(f), (n), (o), (q), (s), (w),
1971 Both the local and International unions were parties to the agreement and (x)
2 At the hearing the Trial Examiner dismissed for want of establishment
PLASTIC WORKERS LOCAL NO. 929 421
didn't join and the Union picketed he would be kept from
entering the plant by clubs and sticks. It is plain that
Ashwood talked to Eubanks in October about the matter
of joining the Union; Ashwood denied, however, uttering
any threats of the type attributed to him by Eubanks. I
believe that Ashwood was the more credible witness and
recommend dismissal of paragraph 8(c) of the complaint.
It is alleged in paragraph 8(d) of the complaint that the
Unions, through Ashwood and others, on or about October
1, coerced a company employee in the plant to sign a union
authorization card by telling him that he would be sorry if
he did not join the Union. It appears that the General
Counsel relies on testimony of Ira Blue to establish the
allegations of paragraph 8(d). Blue testified that about
October 1 Ashwood solicited him to join the Union and
told him that if the Union struck and picketed, nobody
would cross the line when the Company called him to work
and he would lose his job. I credit Blue's testimony which
is not specifically controverted by Ashwood and find that
the allegations of paragraph 8(d) of the complaint are
sustained by Blue's credited testimony
The complaint's paragraph 8(e) alleges that Respon-
dents, by unknown agents, and on or about November 29
broke an employee's car window in the employee's home
driveway, thereby restraining and coercing employees
within the scope of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. This
allegation apparently relates to damage done to the car of
nonstriker Ira Blue who testified that he signed a union
card but worked during the strike. Blue's car was stoned
and a window broken by a thrown brick during the night
early during the strike. There is no evidence linking this act
to the Union or its agents and I recommend dismissal of
the allegations of paragraph 8(e) of the complaint.3
Paragraphs 8(g), (h), and (f) of the complaint allege that
agents of the Respondents, on or about December 17, at an
employee's home, pulled loose the gas line and motor wires
of the employee's car, cut the battery cable, and slashed the
tires. Nonstriker Lula Mae Carter testified credibly that
she was a veteran employee with 12 years' company service
and worked during the strike. Sometime during the strike,
according to her credited testimony, the gas line and wiring
of her car was pulled loose while the car was parked at her
home; she also credibly testified that shortly before
Christmas the car's battery cable was cut loose and on New
Year's Eve two tires were cut. Following the last act of
vandalism, according to Mrs. Carter, a striker, Mrs. Brown,
called and asked if her car was flat. There appears no
convincing evidence to tie these deplorable acts to the
Union or its agents and I recommend dismissal of these
paragraphs of the complaint.
The complaint alleges in paragraph 8(j) that the Union,
through agents including Homer Rose and James Dunlap
and commencing about November 29, coerced employees
of the Company by copying down their automobile plate
numbers as they arrived at and departed from the plant.
Rose and Dunlap admit that they noted automobile tag
numbers and they further credibly testified that Company
Personnel Manager Coolidge and other non-striking
employees also noted license numbers of some of the
strikers' automobiles. I cannot conclude that the mere
noting of license numbers in the circumstances here
involved amounted to an instance of restraint and coercion
within the scope of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The complaint alleges in paragraph 8(k) that the
Respondent Unions, by their agent James Dunlap,
threatened to whip a company employee unless the latter
stopped working during the strike. The company employee
allegedly threatened was Alton Dunlap, cousin of James
Dunlap. Alton, an employee of the Company with 3 years'
service, worked during the strike. He testified that James, a
striker, approached him downtown on the first day of the
strike, cursed him and threatened him, desisting only when
Alton Dunlap drew a knife. James Dunlap's account is to
the effect that he brought coffee to the picket line at the
occasion in question and merely asked Alton why he had
changed his mind respecting support of the Union. I credit
Alton Dunlap's testimony and find that, through James
Dunlap's threat at a time he was acting as picket line
captain for the Unions, the Unions engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in this portion of the complaint.
It is alleged in paragraph 8(1) of the complaint that the
Unions, through the action of Nathan Ashwood on
October 29 in the plant told an employee that if the Union
struck he would not be permitted to work and that the
Union would use sticks and clubs to prevent his working.
Employee Eubanks testified that he worked during the
strike and that Ashwood told him in October that if he did
not join the Union and was called to work the Union
would set up a picket line with sticks and clubs and would
prevent him from entering the plant. I credit Eubanks'
testimony and find that the allegations of the complaint in
this regard are sustained by his testimony.
The complaint alleges in paragraph 8(m) that the
Unions, by Johnny Smith and or about December 2,
threatened an employee on a street in West Helena by
stating that unless the Union prevailed the plant would be
burned down. Nonstriker Mathew Eubanks testified that
sometime in October striker Johnnie Smith told him that if
the Union didn't get what it wanted it would burn the plant
down. Smith denied the charge. Smith appears to have
been the union chief steward. I credit Eubanks' account
and find that the allegations of the complaint in this regard
are sustained by his credited testimony.
It is alleged in paragraph 8(p) of the complaint that
Respondents in late December coerced an employee by
following her car bumper-to-bumper for over a mile.
Arlease James participated in the strike for only 2 weeks.
After she had returned to work she was followed home
bumper-to-bumper, according to her account, by striker
James Williams, a distance of over a mile until she turned
off into her driveway. Williams was not located by the
Unions to testify respecting this allegation. I credit Arlease
James' testimony and find that the following bumper-to-
bumper coming soon after the return to work of Arlease
James occurred as she testified. I conclude that Williams
was acting in the interest of and as agent for the Unions in
this episode and that the Unions by this conduct engaged
3 While Blue credibly testified that some 2 weeks after the window would be broken, this testimony is no indication that the initial break was
episode striker Geneva Edwards yelled at him that another car window perpetrated by the Union or those acting on its behalf
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in unfair labor practice within the scope of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Paragraph 8(r) of the complaint alleges that Respondents
through agents, including James Dunlap, in a store parking
lot on or about December 22, threatened an employee with
a whipping unless he refrained from work during the strike.
Alton Dunlap, a nonstriker and a cousin of striker James
Dunlap who was a picket line captain, testified that at 4:30
p.m on the first day of the strike he was down town when
James Dunlap approached him, cursed him, and threat-
ened to whip his ass, whereupon Alton drew a knife and
James desisted. Although the cousins apparently subse-
quently made up, I credit Alton Dunlap's testimony and
find that the Union through James Dunlap engaged in the
unfair labor practices alleged in paragraph 8(r) of the
complaint.
Paragraph 8(t) of the complaint alleges that the Unions,
through Georgia Thornton, on or about December 8
warned an employee by telephone that she should not have
returned to work and that something would have to be
done and she would be sorry. Rosetta Peden testified that
she struck but abandoned the strike and returned to work
about December 8. After her return to work she received a
telephone call from Georgia Thornton who said that if she
kept on working something would be done. Thornton
denied ever speaking on the telephone to Peden. I credit
Peden's account and find the allegations of paragraph 8(t)
are sustained.
Paragraph 8(u) of the complaint alleges that Respondent
Unions, through Etta Beard and other agents, on or about
November 24 warned an employee at the plant against
working dunng the strike by stating that the Union was
talking about burning homes of nonstrikers as well as the
home of the plant manager. Mrs. G. I. Roberts, a nonunion
employee of some 14 years' service, testified that some 5
days before the inception of the strike Etta Beard asked her
if she was going to work during the strike and suggested
that she not work because the union supporters planned to
burn homes of nonstrikers including that of the plant
manager. Etta Beard testified that all she said in the talk in
question was to ask Mrs. Roberts if she had thought what
might happen to her small children if she crossed the line,
and that she asked the question from friendship and
concern, not malice. I credit Mrs. Beard's account and find
that the allegations of the complaint in paragraph 8(u) are
not sustained by the evidence and should be dismissed.
The complaint's paragraph 8(v) alleges that Respon-
dents, by agents including Elenora Williams, in late
December threatened an employee by telephone threats
that she would have to suffer the consequences if she
worked during the strike. Gurlean Williams, apparently no
relation to Elenora, testified that on her first day of work
Elenora Williams was captain of the picket line and said to
Gurlean that she would have to suffer the consequences.
This generalized prediction does not amount to a threat of
any special or even general misconduct and I recommend
dismissal of this paragraph of the complaint.
It is alleged in paragraph 8(y) of the complaint that
Respondents, by agents including Maxie Key, L G.
Bryant, Dorothy Jett, Georgia Thornton, and others, about
December 15, gathered in an employee's yard and
threatened to whip the employee for working during the
strike. The employee involved in this allegation , Rachel
Lewis, had worked some 10 years for the Company. She
attended union meetings and joined m the strike at its
beginning only to quit the strike and return to work 2
weeks later . Her testimony is that on the second day after
her return to work , strikers Arlease James and Maxie Key
were following her bus home from work. When she alit
from the bus near her home her young son told her that
some women had been in the Lewis yard and had said that
they were going to beat her up. This report of an
anonymous threat , not made to or in the presence of Mrs.
Lewis cannot be the basis of a finding of restraint and
coercion against her and I recommend dismissal of the
allegations of the complaint in this regard.
By amendment of the complaint at the hearing the
allegation was added as paragraph 8(z), to the effect that
Respondents by unknown agents on or about December 10
threw a fire bomb against the West Helena home of an
employee of the Company. Lula Carter, the employee
involved , testified that on the Saturday night before
Christmas , a fire bomb was thrown at her house. She
reported the incident to the police who investigated the
matter apparently without finding the thrower of the
bomb . There may be grounds for suspicion that union
supporters might have been responsible for the episode but
evidence thereof is lacking and I recommend dismissal of
paragraph 8(z) of the complaint.
In determining the responsibility of the International
and local unions it is fundamental that , in accordance with
Section 2(13) of the Act , actual authorization or subse-
quent ratification of specific acts shall not be controling. In
the instant case the evidence clearly establishes that, as
appears from the credited testimony of employee James
Kimes, early in the course of the strike President Rose
informed a meeting of strikers that something would have
to be done to keep people from crossing the picket line and
tacitly concurred in the statement that they would have to
bust some heads . Rose also made it plain that he was not
concerned with violence away from the picket line, as
appears from the credited testimony of Rachel Lewis.
Hughes tacitly concurred in the statements of Rose
concerning the permissibility of violent action away from
the picket line.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent labor organization set
forth above and there found to constitute unfair labor
practices, occurring in connection with the operations of
the Employer involved, 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 the free
flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of the findings above set forth to the effect that
the Respondent labor organizations have engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce it will be recommended
PLASTIC WORKERS LOCAL NO 929
that they be required to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action which appears necessary
and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act.
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 Doughboy Recreational , Domain Industries , Inc., is
an employer engaged in commerce within the purview of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondents herein are labor organizations
within the purview of Section 2 (5) of the Act
3. By restraining and coercing employees of the
Company in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices defined in Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
I hereby issue the following recommended 4
ORDER
Respondents, their officers, agents, representatives,
successors, and assigns, shall.
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Restraining or coercing employees of Doughboy
Recreational, Domain Industries, Inc., or any other
employer, in the exercise of rights guaranteed under
Section 7 of the Act by threatening employees with bodily
harm, exclusion from pay increases, prevention from
working, loss of jobs, beatings with clubs, burning of the
plant, tailgating employees automobiles, threats to whip
employees, impliedly threatening burning of homes of
employees who worked during a strike, or in any other
manner threatening employees of the Company for
refusing to support the union strike
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees of the Company in the exercise of their rights
under the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which appears
necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post at their business offices and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix" 5 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Board's Regional
Director for Region 26, shall, after being duly signed by
authorized agents of the local and International unions, be
posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not
altered, removed, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Mail signed copies of said notice to the Regional
Director for Region 26 for posting by the Company, if it so
desires, in places where notices to employees are regularly
posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
423
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.6
4 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 that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
6 in the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify our members, officers , representatives,
and all employees of Doughboy Recreational , Domain
Industries , Inc., that:
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of the
above-named Employer by threatening them with
bodily harm , exclusion from pay increases , prevention
from working, beatings, burning of the company plant,
tailgating automobiles , whippings , loss of jobs, or
burning of homes of nonstrikers in reprisal for their
refusal to support a strike called by the above-named
Unions
WE WILL NOT by any of the foregoing or in any like
or related manner restrain or coerce employees of the
Company in the exercise of their rights under the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
PLASTIC WORKERS LOCAL
No. 929 , INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF PULP,
SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL
WORKERS, AFL-CIO, CLC,
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF PULP,
SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL
WORKERS, AFL-CIO, CLC,
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or covered by any other material. Any questions concern - Building, Room 746, 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be Tennessee 38103, Telephone 901-534-3161.
directed to the Board 's Office , Clifford Davis Federal