Scott's Wood Products

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 1193 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

SCOTT'S WOOD PRODL CTS
W. H. Scott d/b/a Scott's Wood Products and Local
486, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica. Case 7-CA 14943
June 15. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS PENELLO. MURPHY, AND TRUESI)AI. E
On February 27. 1979. Administrative Law Judge
Michael O. Miller issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter. Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
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 Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, W. H. Scott d/b/a Scott's
Wood Products. Roscommon, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
i Respondent has excepted to certain cedibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge It is the Board's established polic) not to oerrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibilit unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant es idence cons Inces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Di Wall Products. Inc.. 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951). We hase carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
St A IMiNIS OF TiI CAS:
Mlt IAFI. O. M1t.tfR, Administrative law Judge: This
case was heard on October 23 and 24. 1978, in Roscommon.
Michigan. upon a charge filed by Local 486. International
Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauff'eurs. Warehousemen and
Helpers of America. herein called the Union. on March 8.
1978. as amended on March 16 and April 5. 1978. and a
complaint issued b the Regional Director for Region 7 of
the National Labor Relations Board. herein called the
Board, on April 28. 1978.' The complaint alleges that . H.
Scott d/b/a Scott's Wood Products. herein called Reppon-
'All dates hereinafter are n 1978. unless otherwise pecified
dent. violated Section 8(a)( I). (3). (4). and (5) of' the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act. Respondent denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate. to
introduce relevant evidence. to examine and to cross-exam-
ine witnesses. and to argue orally. Briefs were saived.
Upon the entire record including m) careful observation
of the witnesses an their demeanor, I make the tollowing:
Fili)i(;s o( F I
I. RSP)NI)E I S BUSINESS AND I) il I \()'S 5 I H()R
OR(iANZA III() SAItl'S- PREI.IItNARY ( N( tI Sl()sS O(
IAN\:
Respondent is a sole proprietorship engaged at Roscom-
mon. Michigan. in the manufacture. sale, and distribution
of wooden pallets. boxes and related products. Respondent
admitted that during the past calendar year it caused goods
valued in excess of $50.000 to be transported from its Ros-
common. Michigan. facilities directly to points outside the
State of Michigan. The complaint alleged and I find and
conclude that Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The complaint alleged. Respondent admitted. and I find
and conclude that the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of' the Act.
11. liit I NF it l AIit)R PRA( II( IS
A. The Fcr.
Respondent has two plants in Roscommon. Michigan.
located approximately I mile apart. During February.
March. and April Respondent emploed betwseen 20 and 30
emplo. ees.
William Eugene Earl as an employee of Respondent
from December 1976 until his discharge in March 1978. He
had been hired bh W. H. Scott. Respondent's owner, and
when hired had been told b Scott that there had been an
earlier union organizational attempt. Scott asked Earl to
inform him in the eent that Eari heard an'thing aboat ,t
union. Scott also m,ide similar requcsts of emplo.
Skagerberg and M\e) at arious times since Noember
1977.2
Earl was absent from stork due to an industrial injurt
during most of Januar and Februars. He had returned to
work on February 22. On that day he was assigned to \Work
with a nail gun. an instrument for mechanically driving
nails. According to Earl's uncontradicted estimony. the
nail gun frequently jammed and force was required to clear
it. On one occasion on February 22. he attempted to clear
the jammed nail gun by tapping it ith a hammer and
when he did so the trigger mechanism fell out. Earl took the
gun to his freman. James Near. ,aho said he saould fix it.
received another nail gun andi returned to ork. ()On the
: E*cerpl here ohers;xe indiLated the estimn, i' Cener.,l (Cur,,cl',
sitne-'es stalnl, unadenied . H. Scott chose t, represen hmcit n thl
proceeding He wls repealiedls iiad'ied h t hi', cornmertr, hen quetlnl nig
emploxe'. did not .'n',lhlte te,tirnlon.. anId lthough gien in pportlito
to ierilt ion hi, own heh:lit. he elected n t di, o e etiied nix hr:cft
as tn ad,.erse rehit.,l ,atne,, caIlled h the (ieneri (noupel Stii ail txrd
milch ,1 the -1l!,lcl Jt17rlbtlttd N" lhM
242 NLRB No. 169
1 193
DECISIONS OF NATIONAI LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
following day. Earl took leave for I day, with Near's per-
mission, for personal reasons. When he returned to work.
Scott told Earl that his excuse for the absence had been
insufficient and gave him a disciplinary layoff until March
1. Nothing was said about the incident with the nail gun.
On February 27. Earl contacted James Bohlen, business
agent and organizer for the Union. He received union au-
thorization cards and instructions on securing signatures.
The cards read as follows:
I the undersigned, hereby voluntarily choose and des-
ignate the International Brotherhood of' Teamsters.,
and/or its affiliates, as my representative for the pur-
pose of collective-bargaining.
On February 28, Earl signed a card and secured the signa-
ture of fellow employee Steven L. Skagerberg, with whom
he shared living quarters.
Earl returned to work on March 1. Nothing was said to
him during that day in regard to the nail gun incident. Dur-
ing the course of that day, Earl arranged with his fellow
employees to meet after work at Green's Tavern.
The meeting at Green's Tavern was attended by approxi-
mately 12 employees. Following his instructions from
Bohlen, Earl told the employees that by signing the autho-
rization cards they were asking the Union to be their bar-
gaining agent. He asked them to read and sign the cards.
Nine employees did so.' Only one employee attending the
meeting refused to sign.
On the following morning, March 2, as he reported to
work, Earl was met by Mr. Scott. Scott asked, "What kind
of shit I was trying to pull on him." Earl asked what Scott
meant and was told that Earl knew what Scott meant. Earl
denied it and was told that "due to [his] bad work record"
he was suspended for a month. On March 3 or 4. Earl
received a letter from Scott, dated March 2. That letter
terminated his employment, allegedly for destroying a nail
gun,4 attendance, work attitude, and alleged threats by Earl
to get even with the Company. Attached to the discharge
letter was a letter written by Scott but signed by an em-
ployee, Wiggins, and a foreman, Near, asserting that Earl
admitted throwing down the nail gun and breaking it and
asserting that Wiggins had requested to work at a place
away from Earl because of Earl's attitude toward the Com-
pany. Wiggins allegedly signed that attachment on March
2. Earl denied all of the misconduct attributed to him. The
testimony of the few witnesses who spoke on this subject
Richard Mrazik, Bill Yennior. Matthew Hall, Tim Doty. Thomas Jef-
freys, Dasid Auman, Randy Hadstate Floyd Tappen, and Phil Mey. Al-
though he acknowledged reading the card before signing it. David Auman
claimed that he was told that the card only meant that union representatives
would come and talk to them about the Union. Auman's testimony is contra-
dicted by that of virtually all of the other employees who testified in regard
to the card signing and his alleged understanding of the card is contradicted
by the plain language of the card which he signed Accordingly. I do not
credit his testimony in regard to what he was told concerning the card.
Employee Yennior testified that he looked at the card, "read it a little bit."
and did not want to sign it but only did so because the other employees kept
"bugging him" to do so. The "bugging" consisted of repeated requests that
he sign it. He also testified that similar repeated requests were made to
employee Tim Dot)y. Doty did not testify.
4 Scott also instituted legal action against Earl for the damage to the nail
gun rial was held in Michigan District Court on Jul) 28 and Scott received
a judgment against Earl for the gun's value.
and the documents concerning attendance indicate that ab-
senteeism was common, it not chronic, among Respon-
dent's employees. Neither Near nor Wiggins testified and
there was no probative evidence adduced to contradict
Earl's credible denials.
Steven Skagerberg had been absent from work between
February 24 and February 27. Upon his return to the plant
on February 28 he was suspended by Scott for a I-month
period and was told to report back to work on April 3. I'his
suspension was confirmed by letter from Respondent dated
March 1. However, by letter dated March 3, Respondent
converted Skagerberg's suspension to discharge, allegedly
as a result of checking Skagerberg's attendance record.
Skagerberg, an employee since February 26, 1976. denied
that his attendance record was any worse than anN other
employee's. His testimony is uncontradicted.'
Skagerberg returned to the Respondent's plant on March
10 to pick up his safety glasses and the paycheck of Gene
Earl, who was not allowed to come on Respondent's prop-
erty. Scott ordered him off the premises stating that he did
not work there any longer and did not belong on the prop-
erty.
Scott began to question his employees about their union
activity and direct remarks about the Union to them within
a couple of days after the March I meeting. Scott ap-
proached employee Philip Mey, complimented his work,
and asked him whether he had signed a card for the Union
and whether he was for the Union. Me, told him that he
had signed the card but was just checking it out. Scott then
told Mey that he was due for a 15-cent raise. That after-
noon, Scott approached Mey and employee Tom Jeffreys as
they were leaving work. Scott asked Jeffreys whether he
had gone to the meeting, was for the Union, and had signed
a card. Jeffreys acknowledged that he had signed a card
and Scott "said something to Tom about Smoke Meyer [the
sheriff] getting him his job and that he can easily lose it."
Scott then showed the employees a pistol, contained in a
plastic bag together with ammunition, and remarked that
the Teamsters were out to get him. He said he would use
this gun for his own protection. At about this same time 6
Scott spoke with Floyd T'appen. He told Tappen that he
had fired Earl because Earl had busted a gun and then
asked Tappen whether he had heard anything about a
union. When Tappen said that he had heard rumors about
a union, Scott asked whether Earl was starting the union
activity. Scott also remarked on the meeting that was held
at Green's Tavern. He told Tappen that he would not let a
union come into his business. Tappen was then told that he
was going to be given a 15-cent-per-hour raise and would
be helping his brother-in-law, Jim Near.
5 Skagerberg's payroll records fr 1977 and 1978 reveal that this minimum
wage employee had received a disciplinary suspension of I week in May
1977 for an unauthorized absence. was again suspended for a week for poor
attendance in October 1977. was suspended for a month for poor attendance
In January 1978 but was rehired on January 17. 1978. and had only worked
two full 40-hour weeks in 1978. The records do not reveal whether the short
workweeks in January and February were the result of unauthorized ab-
sences or layoffs. N. attendance records of other employees were offered for
comparison purposes notwithstanding that Respondent was apprised of the
necessity to adduce such evidence if he intended to contend that any of the
discharges herein resulted from poor attendance records.
I Certain errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected.
194
SCOTT'S WOOD PRODUC S
A couple of days later. Tappen came to work late, about
midafternoon, having had a doctor's appointment that
morning. When he came in, Tappen asked Scott if Scott
wanted him to work the remainder of the day. Scott said
"No" and made a remark to the effect that they probabl
would not be working there much longer. Scott then re-
moved the gun from his pocket, still wrapped in plastic. and
told Tappen that someone was going to get hurt. Scott
asked Tappen if Tappen wanted that on his conscience.
Scott said he had used a gun before and would use it again.
Finally, Scott once again referred to Earl having started a
union there and to having meetings in bars. He told Tappen
that he figured that Skagerberg had been involved with Earl
in starting the Union.'
Employee Mervin Beckett. who had started working for
Scott in June 1976, had been suspended for I week begin-
ning February 28 for absenteeism. He had not attended the
March 1 union meeting but had signed a union card at his
own home when Earl and Skagerberg visited him. He re-
turned to work on March 6. At the end of his shift he was
approached by Scott who asked him whether he had signed
a union card. Beckett said "Yes." Scott then ordered Beck-
ett to put on his safety glasses. As Beckett was reaching in
his pocket for his glasses, Scott called out to other employ-
ees, asking whether they had heard Scott's order to Beckett.
A day or two later, Beckett received a handwritten letter
from Scott. dated March 6. In that letter, Scott charged that
Beckett had been ordered on three different occasions to
put on his safety glasses. The letter recited Respondent's
safety responsibilities and stated that Beckett had had a
couple of serious accidents with the Company. For this.
Scott wrote, Beckett was terminated. The letter included
the following:
Witness the order to wear your glasses but refused are
two employees ....
and the purported signatures of Billy Ray Lewis and Roy
Underwood.8
Various employees testified that Respondent had a rule
requiring the wearing of safety glasses. That rule, however,
was honored more in the breach than by compliance. Scott
frequently directed employees to wear their safety glasses.
but never wore them himself. No one other than Mervin
Beckett was ever discharged for refusing to wear his safety
glasses. No evidence was adduced to support the statement
in Scott's letter that Beckett had refused three orders within
a single day to wear his safety glasses and Beckett denied
that he had been so ordered.
On the morning of March 8, employee Richard Mrazik
was called into Scott's office. Also present was his foreman,
Bob Dodd. Scott asked Mrazik if he had any knowledge of
the union activity or was involved with that activity in any
way. Mrazik admitted that he was interested in bringing in
a union and would support that activity. Scott told Mrazik
that "as long as he was there, there would never be a union
'Tappen's memory required substantial jogging through the use of leading
questions and references to his pretrial affidavit. However. his testimony is
uncontradicted and I credit it.
s Neither Lewis nor Underwood were called by Respondent to testif in
regard to this incident.
in Scott's Wood Products and that he would shut the plant
down before a union could be established there." As they
walked out of the building, Scott showed Mrazik his pistol
and told him "that there was no way that the Teamsters
would ever cross his gate onto his property." He told Mra-
zik "that he was disappointed in [Mrazik] for Ihisl actions
and that if any violence occurred Ihe] should feel directly
responsible.... "
On Friday. March 10. Scott spoke to the assembled em-
ployees. According to the credible testimony of Mrazik, as
the employees waited to receive their paychecks Scott told
them that a "union would never be established at Scott's
'Wood Products as long as he was owning the place and that
we would lose our jobs if the Union did get in." Scott re-
ferred to a prior union vote which the Utnion had lost, told
the employees that he knew of their union activity. and
referred to the Union as "htx)dlums and thugs." Hie told the
employees that as long as the Teamsters were trying to get
into the plant they should fear for their own personal safety
as well as that of their wives and children.
Following work on March 10, a second union meeting
was held at Green's Tavern. Five or six employees were
present. Two employees. Howard Baumann and Charles
Yager, signed authorization cards after Earl explained that
by doing so they would be designating the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
After the March 10 meeting, Scott questioned employee
Mey about his attendance at the union meetings. where
they were held, and what took place at those meetings.
On a Saturday morning in mid-March. Scott went to
Green's Tavern and confronted its owner, Larry Gordon.
Scott asked Gordon what he was doing holding union meet-
ings in his tavern. He made some comments about the al-
leged propensity of unions for violence and told Gordon,
"Well, that is why I have to protect myself," making a mo-
tion with his hand toward his side, as if gesturing toward a
concealed weapon. He told Gordon that he could report
Gordon to the iquor Commission as it was unlawful for
him to hold union meetings in his establishment. Gordon
ordered Scott out of his tavern.
On Monday, March 13, Scott closed Plant No. 2 and
announced a meeting of all employees at Plant . In this
meeting. Scott made derogatory remarks about the Union
and told the employees that he was closing the plant be-
cause someone had made the statement that an employer
could not close his own plant and he wished to prove that
he could. He said that he could close permanently and that
he would close his doors before he would let the Teamsters
into his shop. Scott also told the employees that the busi-
ness was losing money, threw his checkbook on the floor
and said that if he paid all of his bills the Company would
be bankrupt. He asked the employees who was signing their
paychecks, himself or Gene Earl. When some of the em-
ployees asked whether they should report to work the fol-
lowing day, Scott told them to show up and find out. Some
of the employees began to express antiunion sentiments and
stated that ift' the Union was going to keep them from work-
ing they did not want it any longer. Scott stated that if he
were one of the employees he would not let a few people
who were for the Union keep him out of work but would do
something about it. Once again, Scott brought out his pis-
1195
I)E('ISIONS OF NAlIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tol, showed it to the employees and stated that he would use
it to protect himself.9
Sometime following this meeting, according to Mey's tes-
timony, Scott stated that he knew what was going on
among the employees as he had someone keeping an eye on
them.
As Mey was leaving work either on March 13 or 14, Scott
told him that he had another place up north where they
would build pallets for him. Floyd Tappen similarly heard
Scott tell several other employees that there was a mill in
Grayling, Michigan. where he could send his employees to
make pallets.'" Scott asked Tappen whether he would drive
to Grayling to handle Scott's production.
On March 17, Scott drew up a petition stating that the
signatories agreed with Respondent's decision to terminate
Gene Earl because of his "chronic absenteeism and poor
work attitude" and that they believed that Earl was not
fired because of his union activities. He gathered the em-
ployees around a table on which he had placed this peti-
tion, told them that the statements in it were true, made
derogatory remarks about Earl, and told them to sign. Scott
also placed his pistol on the table, stating that he would use
it if Earl ever stepped on his property again, Approximately
25 employees and supervisors signed the petition.
Floyd Tappen had been late for work on March 17, be-
cause of the weather. and had called to report his tardiness.
When he arrived at work, Scott asked him to sign the peti-
tion. Tappen refused. Tappen was then told that his excuse
for being late was not good enough and that he was being
given a week's suspension. On March 18. Scott wrote Tap-
pen a letter, reiterating the suspension and threatening him
with further discipline unless there was an improvement in
his "work attitude" upon his return to work.
In this same time period, Mervin Beckett returned to the
Scott plant and, after unsuccessfully requesting reemploy-
ment from Scott's son Mark, met Scott outside the plant.
Scott took him to a lawyer's office where an affidavit was
drafted." On leaving the lawyer's office, Scott told Beckett
that Respondent would rehire him when the union matter
was concluded.'
Respondent's employees held a third union meeting, at
the Colonial Hotel in Roscommon, Michigan. on April .
During the course of this meeting, Scott was observed out-
side the hotel, repeatedly circling the block. He was also
observed stopping by the employees' vehicles, and copying
license numbers. Because of this conduct, the meeting was
terminated.'
9 The foregoing description of the March 13 meeting is a composite of the
credibly offered and uncontradicted testimony of Mrazik, Tappen. Mey, and
David Beckett.
10 Scott admitted telling his employees about offers from other employers
to perform his work.
11 In the affidavit Beckett denied involvement in union activity prior to his
termination, admitted that he had been warned three times to wear his safety
glasses on his last day of employment, and alleged that he never gave anyone
permission to file an unfair labor practice charge on his behalf' against Re-
spondent, The circumstances under which this affidavit was given, described
herein, render its contents worthless as probative evidence.
'2 Scott admitted telling Beckett that there was no way he would bring him
back to work while Beckett maintained an unfair labor practice charge
against him.
3 Scott did not deny the foregoing conduct. Rather, he contended that he
was on a public street which he frequently traveled. In his closing arg-ument.
but not in sworn testimony, Scott contended ti.at he recorded Earl's license
number in order to enforce a judgment of the Michigan District Court issued
By a stipulation of the parties executed on March 18, an
NLRB election in Case 7-RC-14760 was scheduled to be
conducted among Scott's employees on Friday, April 7. Be-
cause of the pending unfair labor practice charges the peti-
tion was dismissed and the election was canceled. On or
about April 7, Scott prepared and circulated another peti-
tion. This petition, partly in response to some employee
requests that an election be conducted, included statements
to the effect that the employees requested that the election
be held, charged the NLRB with favoritism toward the
Union, and requested the cessation of all union activity and
the dismissal of all unfair labor practice charges. Essentially
all of Respondent's employees and supervisors signed this
petition. After the signing of this petition. Scott conducted
what he called an "Easter Egg Hunt," hiding a six pack of
beer in the sawdust pile together with some eggs. He ex-
plained to his employees that he could shut down if he
wanted to and they could have an Easter egg hunt if they,
wanted to.
Following the meeting of April 7, Respondent conducted
its own election allegedly under the supervision of Roscom-
mon's Mayor. Not surprisingly, in view of all that had tran-
spired before, the employees voted unanimously against
union representation. Also around April 7. Scott told newly
hired employee Fowler that neither he nor anyone else at
Scott's wanted the Union to come in and that if the Union
did come in he would probably shut down.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
I. Violations of Section 8(a)( I)- Interference, Restraint,
and Coercion
(a) Interrogation--The questioning of one's employees in
order to determine their union leanings or in order to make
clear the Employer's opposition to unionization, has long
been found to have a tendency to coerce employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights and thus violate Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. See, for example, 'V.L.R.B. v. Virginia
Electric & Power Company, 314 U.S. 469 (1941); Struksnes
Construction Co., Inc., 165 NLRB 1062 (1967), approved,
N'.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co. Inc., et al, 395 U.S. 575, 609
(1969). The record in the instant case is replete with in-
stances of such interrogation, conducted in coercive circum-
stances, with no valid purpose for such interrogation either
existing or being communicated to the employees. Compare
Struksnes, supra. Thus, I find that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(l), as alleged in the complaint, by Scott's coercive
interrogation of Mey, Jeffreys, Tappen, Mrazik, and Beck-
ett, beginning shortly after the first union meeting of March
1.
(b) Surveillance and Creating the Impression of Surveil-
lance-An employer's intentional observation of his em-
ployees' union activities has an inhibitory effect on the or-
ganizing efforts of those employees and cannot be excused
merely on the ground that the surveillance occurred in a
public place. See Emilv Tweel Jacobs, Russell Jacobs, and
Emil Tweel d/b'a L. Tweel Importing Co., 219 NLRB 666
against Earl for the value of the nail gun. Scott did not explain how. on April
I. 1978, he could be seeking to enforce a judgment which was not entered
until July 28, 1978.
1196
SCOTT'S WOOD PRODUCTS
(1975). In this case, Scott was observed going out of his way
to take note of the employees union activities on April 1,
repeatedly circling the hotel where a union meeting was
being held and recording license numbers of employees at-
tending that meeting." By this conduct I find that Respon-
dent further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Similarly,
Scott's requests that employees report any union activity to
him, his statements indicating awareness of the time and
place of union meetings, and his statement to Mey that he
had someone keeping an eye on the employees and knew
what was going on would reasonably lead employees to
believe that their union activities had been placed under
surveillance. This conduct, I find, interfered with the exer-
cise of their statutory rights in violation of Section 8(a)( I) of
the Act. See, South Shore Hospital, 229 NLRB 363 (1977):
Crown Zellerbach Corporation, 225 NLRB 911 (1976): and,
Murcole, Inc., 204 NLRB 228 (1973).
(c) Promises and Benefits-The record reflects that in a
course of a conversation wherein Scott interrogated Mey,
Scott also said that Mey was due for a wage increase. Simi-
larly, while both interrogating Tappen and telling him that
he knew the employees had been meeting at Green's Tav-
ern, Scott promised Tappen a 15-cent raise." In the context
in which these statements were made it is clear that Re-
spondent was seeking to buy the employees' loyalties away
from the Union. As such, these promises of benefit violated
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, and I so find.
(d) Threats--The record herein contains undenied evi-
dence of many threats. Even before the advent of the Union
among Respondent's employees, Scott threatened to close
his facilities if the employees unionized. He continued re-
peating this most serious type of threat throughout the pe-
riod of the Union's organizational efforts, underscoring it
on one occasion by actually closing the plants for a portion
of a day and on another by conducting his "Easter egg
hunt." Such threats to close have long been deemed imper-
missible and violative of Section 8(a)( ) of the Act.
N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., supra. Additionally, Scott
threatened his employees and others with physical harm of
the most serious nature by repeatedly showing them his
pistol while making statements to the effect that he would
use that pistol on union organizers and employees. Addi-
tionally, there were threats to discharge employees such as
was related to Floyd Tappen in early March, and to move
the production facilities to another location, which Scott
admitted. By all of the foregoing threats, I find, Respondent
coerced his employees in the exercise of their statutory
rights and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(e) Miscellaneous conduct violative of Section 8(a)() of the
Act-In addition to all of the foregoing, and particularly in
the context of all of that conduct, I further find that Re-
spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced the em-
ployees in the exercise of their statutory rights, by directing
them to sign affidavits and/or petitions against the continu-
ation of the union activity, those who had engaged in it and
the processing of the cases pending before the National La-
bor Relations Board. In this same vein, I find that Respon-
"4 Scott's justification for this conduct, an alleged reliance on an event
which had not yet occurred, was patently contrived
"I This latter raise was granted and subsequently taken away from Tap-
pen.
dent's "election" of April 7, following all of the unfair labor
practices committed up to and on that day, and contrary to
the direction of the Regional Director, without any of the
safeguards inherent in a National Labor Relations Board
election, further violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
111. VIOIATIONS OF SECTIONS (a)(3) AND (4) OF THE ACT-
DISCRIMINATION
The General Counsel has alleged that Respondent dis-
charged William ugene Earl, Steven Skagerberg. and
Mervin Beckett and disciplined Floyd Tappen because of
their union activities. Respondent alluded to other reasons
for these terminations but adduced virtually no evidence in
support thereof. General Counsel, of course, bears the bur-
den of proof. In this case. I find that the General Counsel
has sustained that burden as to all these allegations.
In order to find the "true. underlying motive" for a dis-
charge the Board looks to certain established factors:
knowledge of union activity, animus, timing, and the valid-
ity of the reasons asserted for the discharge. See, for exam-
ple, Jeffrey P. Jenks dh/a Jenks Cartage Company, 219
NLRB 368 (1975). In the instant case, each of these factors
unerringly points to the union activity as the raison d'etre of
the discharges and discipline.
Respondent had a demonstrated antiunion bias long an-
tedating the union activity involved herein. Its animus is
clearly and amply demonstrated by the description of the
8(a)(1) conduct, supra. Such "anti-union bias and demon-
strated unlawful hostility are proper and significant factors
for Board evaluation in determining motive." N.L.R.B. v.
Dan River Mills Incorporated, Alabama Division, 274 F.2d
381 (5th Cir. 1960).
That Respondent quickly acquired knowledge of the
union activity may be readily inferred from the small size of
the work force and the community, Scott's interrogations
and requests that employees report union activities, his sur-
veillance, his statements that he knew of the union activi-
ties, knew its leaders and where it took place, and was keep-
ing an eye on it, and his threat to tavern owner Gordon.
Such evidence, both circumstantial and direct, is sufficient
to support a finding of knowledge. See Jenks Cartage Com-
pany, supra. Moreover, by his statements regarding Earl
and Skagerberg following their discharges, Scott admitted
both his knowledge of their union activities and gave evi-
dence of his motivation.
The timing of the discharges and discipline herein further
support findings of Section 8(a)(3) violations. Thus, all of
this conduct occurred almost immediately upon the start of
the union activity. Earl was discharged on the first morning
following the initial union meeting. Skagerberg was dis-
charged the following day. Beckett was discharged almost
immediately after Scott interrogated him and learned that
he had signed a union card. Similarly, Tappen was repri-
manded and suspended immediately after refusing Scott's
order to sign a petition supporting Respondent against
Gene Earl. The alacrity with which Respondent acted after
long histories of tolerating absenteeism, tardiness, and other
alleged misconduct is evidence that it was the union ac-
tivity, not the alleged misconduct, which motivated Scott.
Finally, in this regard, it is well established that an em-
ployer's unconvincing reasons for discipline or discharge
1197
[)E('ISIONS O() NATIONAL LABOR RELA IIONS BOARD
tend to support the General Counsel's primall /iice case and
prove that the real reasons are unlawful. Paramount Metal
&, Finishing Co.. Inc. and Paramoun Plating (')., intc., 225
NLRB 464 (1976). In this case, Respondent did no more
than to charge these employees with having committed in-
dustrial oftienses warranting discharge. Although repeatedl
advised of the necessity to adduce evidence in support of'
his alleged reasons, Scott failed to do so. Hlis failure to sup-
port his allegation is thus evidence that his stated reasons
for the discharges were false and that the real reasons are
unlawful.
Moreover, viewed independently, Scott's stated reasons
do not withstand scrutiny. Earl. Scott claimed, was dis-
charged for damaging a nail gun. Yet there was no mention
of the nail gun all during the week following the alleged
damage. Skagerberg was discharged while already on a dis-
ciplinary layoff. Beckett was discharged for allegedly refus-
ing orders to wear safety glasses, although virtually every
employee testified that the requirement of wearing safety
glasses was honored in the breach by all, without discipline.
Similarly, Tappen was allegedly disciplined for tardiness
although he had called in and although tardiness because of
adverse weather conditions was a frequent and anticipat-
able occurrence during the winter in central Michigan.
Accordingly, after due consideration of all of the forego-
ing factors, I find that the evidence supporting findings of
unlawful motivation far outweighs any evidence in this rec-
ord warranting any contrary conclusions. I must therefore
conclude that Respondent discharged William Eugene Earl.
Steven Skagerberg, and Mervin Beckett and disciplined
Floyd Tappen, because of their union activity, thereby vio-
lating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The complaint also alleged that Respondent refused to
reemploy Mervin Beckett because he was named in a
charge filed with the Board. Respondent admitted that he
told Beckett that he would not reemploy him so long as
there was a charge outstanding involving Beckett. Such a
refusal is proscribed by Section 8(a)(4). prohibiting dis-
crimination because of the filing of charges and giving of
testimony under tb, Act. By this conduct I find that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(4) and (I) of' the Act.
IV. Itl RFUtSAI. 10 ARGAIN
A. The Unit
The following unit, as stipulated by the parties, is appro-
priate for the purpose of collective bargaining:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees employed by the Employer at
its facilities at 460 S. Main Street and 554 W. Federal
Highway, Roscommon. Michigan, hut excluding all of:
fice clerical employees, guards. and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
B. Demand and Rejiisal
The Union demanded recognition for the purposes of
collective bargaining as the exclusive representative of' Re-
spondent's employees by letter dated March 3, 1978. That
letter was received by Respondent on March 4. 'The record
contains no evidence of Respondent's having responded to
the UInion's demand.
(C. lThe l nion, v Ma/orin' .S[ant.
General Counsel introduced clear and unambiguous des-
ignations of' the Union as collective-bargaining representa-
tive signed by 14 individuals between February 28 and
March 10. 1978. General C'ounsel also introduced Respon-
dent's payroll record for the pay period ending March 19.
the payroll period for election eligibility agreed to in the
Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election. The
record for that payroll period lists 23 names, including
Mark Scott. Robert V. Dodd, and James O. Near, who
General Counsel contends should be excluded from the
bargaining unit. General ounsel's contention in this re-
gard is well-foinded. Mark Scott is the son of Respondent's
proprietor and is in charge of the business in his fither's
absence. He testified that he was the manager of' Plant No.
2., and that he exercised supervisors authority. James Near
was referred to, in a letter prepared by Scott, as the man-
ager of' Plant No. 2. Robert Dodd was the manager of Plant
No. 1. All three, the record indicates. assigned work and
responsibly directed the work force. I therefore conclude
that they must he excluded from the collective-bargaining
unit as supervisors.
Excluding the three supervisors from the payroll list but
adding the names of Earl. Skagerberg. and Mervin Beckett
whom I have found to have been unlawfully discharged.
there were 23 employees on the payroll during the payroll
period ending March 19. Although General Counsel con-
tended that Respondent's refusal to bargain began on
March 4. 1978. the March 19 payroll is the only one in
evidence.
As noted, General Counsel introduced 14 union authori-
zation cards. While one employee testified that he signed as
the result of repeated requests by a fellow employee and
another testified that he understood that he was signing the
card to bring the union representatives in for an explana-
tion, the evidence is clear that the employees receied full
explanations of the real meaning of the authorization cards,
both from the cards themselves and from Gene Earl. All of
the cards, therefore, are valid designations of representa-
tive. See Gissel Packing C'o., supra at pages 606 and 607.
However. one of these cards purported to be signed by
Matthew Gene Hall on March 1. Hall's name does not ap-
pear on the March 19 payroll and there is no probative
evidence as to whether or when he was employed or as to
when he terminated his employment. I cannot, therefore.
count Hall's card.
The evidence before me establishes that the Union se-
cured 13 valid authorization cards in a unit of 23 employ-
ees. It therefore had a clear majority as of the payroll pe-
riod ending March 19, 1978.
ID. IWfhether a Bargaining Order I. Warranted
'Ihe starting point for consideration of' whether the un-
lawful conduct found herein, interrogation, discharges of'
the leading union adherents, surveillance and the impres-
sion of surveillance. threats with a gun and threats of' plant
1198
SCOTT'S WOOD PRODUCTS
closing and other reprisals, warrant or require a bargaining
order is N.L. R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., supra. Therein, the
Supreme Court held that such an order would he an appro-
priate remedy for: (I) "'exceptional' cases marked by 'out-
rageous' and 'pervasive' unfair labor practices ... of'such a
nature that their coercive effects cannot he eliminated by
the application of traditional remedies. with the result that
a fair and reliable election cannot he had.' " and. (2) "less
extraordinary cases marked by less pervasive practices
which nonetheless still have the tendency to undermine ma-
jority strength and impede the election process." The Court
went on to point out that the Board, "li]n fashioning a rem-
edy" could "properly take into consideration the extensive-
ness of an employer's unfair labor practices in terms of their
past effect on election conditions and the likelihood of their
recurrence in the future." Gissel, p. 614. Considering the
instant case pursuant to these standards, as the Board has
applied them, I conclude that a bargaining order is required
to protect the free expression of employee sentiment, as
demonstrated by the signed authorization cards.
The dominant theme of Respondent's antiunion cam-
paign, often repeated, and underscored by an actual tempo-
rary plant closing, was its threat of plant closure. In tMilg,
Industrial, Inc., 203 NLRB 1196, 1200 01 (1973), the Board
stated:
... threats of plant closure and job loss in the event of
the Union's advent are plainly actions which in and of
themselves are egregious enough under the rule of Gis-
sel to come within the first category there specified, of
"unfair labor practices of such nature that their coer-
cive effects cannot be eliminated by the application of
traditional remedies ... ."
Similarly, in Automated Business S.vstenms, a Division of l.it-
tan Business Systems, Inc., a Subsidiaro of Litton Indu.stri.,
Inc., 205 NLRB 532 (1973), the Board stated at 536:
It needs no extended discussion or lengthy list of au-
thorities to demonstrate that threats of plant closings
are among the most serious and the most flagrant in-
terferences with the right of employees to decide for
themselves the question of union representation. A
threat of moving the plant is intrinsically of almost
equal coercive effect....
Thus, it would appear that Respondent's threats to close
his business, alone, would warrant a bargaining order rem-
edy. However, as shown herein, those threats hardly stood
alone. Rather, there was a panapoly of serious unfair labor
practices. In addition to the threats of plant closing, the
instant record reflects that Respondent discharged the two
leading union adherents immediately upon the outset of the
campaign and discriminated against others thereafter. Re-
spondent's owner, Scott, further emphasized his contempt
for the rule of law by refusing to rehire an employee be-
cause that employee was named in an unfair labor practice
charge and by conducting his own pseudoelection after the
Board has dismissed the representation petition because of
his unfair labor practices. Most significant was Respon-
dent's recourse to the gun to impress upon his employees
his complete rejection of the collective-bargaining principle
and their statutory rights. Few acts could have a longer
lasting effect, an effect less likely to be eliminated by the
application of traditional remedies than the threat inherent
in Respondent's purported willingness to kill to keep the
Union out.
Considering all of the foregoing circumstances, the num-
ber and seriousness of the unfair labor practices. the Re-
spondent's contempt for the Act and the orderly processes
of the Board as demonstrated by those unfair labor prac-
tices, the small size of the unit and the fact that Respon-
dent's coercive conduct reached everyone in that unit, and
particularly the Respondent's threatened illingness to
commit economic suicide or actual homicide to aoid bar-
gaining with a union. I find it unlikelx. if not impossible.
that the Board's traditional remedies would "dispel the co-
ercive atmosphere this Respondent has labored so assidu-
ously to create." El Rancho M.arket. 235 NLRB 468 ( 1978).
I therefore conclude that this is one of those cases Aherein
"employees sentiment once expressed through cards would.
on balance. be better protected by a bargaining order." (is-
.sel Packing (o... supra at 615. See also. N.L.R.B. v. Emplirc
(orporation. 518 F.2d 860 (6th Cir. 1975). nig. 2 18 NI.RB
623 (1974).
Accordingl', I find that Respondent unlawfull, refused
to bargain with the Union as of March 19. 1978. in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
v'. 1til1 RsI:DY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)( 1 ). (3). (4).
and (5) of the Act. it will be recommended that Respondent
be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
It having been found that Respondent discriminatoril,
discharged and refused to rehire or reinstate William Eu-
gene Earl, Steven Skagerberg. and Mervin Beckett. Respon-
dent shall offer them immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions. without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
and shall make them whole for any losses they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them. Ad-
ditionally, as Respondent reprimanded Floyd Tappen and
suspended him for 5 days for discriminatory reasons it
shall be recommended that the written reprimand given to
lappen be expunged from all of Respondent's records a;nd
Respondent shall be required to make him whole for an'r
losses he may have suffered by reason of' the discriminator!
suspension. Similarly, all letters or warnings given to em-
ployees Earl. Skagerberg, and Beckett on and after March
1, 1978, shall be ordered expunged from Respondent's files.
All backpay due under the terms of this Order shall be
computed with interest in the manner prescribed in ' WI'.
W oolvorth (or Cmparn. 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florilda
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).1t
As previously indicated, I have concluded that Respon-
dent's unfair labor practices have made a free and fair elec-
tion unlikel',. if not impossible. even with the application of
such traditional Board remedies as reinstatement and back-
pay for the discriminatees. the posting or even reading of a
' See. general. Is Plmhing & Heauring Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
1199
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice, and a cease and desist order. I shall therefore recom-
mend that a bargaining order issue.
"A violation of Section 8(a)(3) goes to the very heart of
the Act." It therefore further warrants that Respondent be
required to cease and desist from infringing in any other
manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7
of the Act. Pan American Exterminating Co., Inc., 206
NLRB 298, fn. 1 (1973); Entwistle Manufacturing Company,
23 NLRB 1058 (1940), enfd. as modified 120 F.2d 532 (4th
Cir. 1941). shall so recommend.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interrogating employees concerning their union ac-
tivities: by engaging in surveillance of, and creating the im-
pression that it was engaging in surveillance of, the union
activities of its employees; by requesting employees to re-
port on the union activities of other employees: by threat-
ening its employees with plant closing, discharge, or the
transfer of its plant to a more distant location; by threaten-
ing employees with a gun; by coercively inducing employ-
ees to sign petitions and affidavits in regard to their union
activities and the union activities of other employees: by
promising employees benefits in order to discourage them
from engaging in union activities: and by conducting a co-
ercive poll of its employees, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By discharging William Eugene Earl, Steven Skager-
berg, and Mervin Beckett, and by disciplining and suspend-
ing Floyd Tappen, because those employees had engaged in
union activities and in order to discourage membership in
and support of the Union, Respondent has violated Sec-
tions 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By refusing to reinstate or reemploy Mervin Beckett
so long as there was an outstanding unfair labor practice
charge on his behalf, Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act.
4. All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees employed by Respondent at its fa-
cilities at 460 South Main Street and 554 West Federal
Highway, Roscommon, Michigan, but excluding all office
clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a union appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act.
5. Since on or about March 19, 1978, and at all material
times thereafter, the Union has represented a majority of
the employees in the above-described appropriate unit and
has been the exclusive representative of all said employees
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(a) of the Act. Respondent was on that date,
and has been since, legally obligated to bargain with the
Union as such.
6. By refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
the Union with regard to its employees in the appropriate
unit, since on or about March 19, 1978, Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. The above-described unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. Respondent did not engage in any unfair labor prac-
tices other than those found herein.
Upon the basis of the entire record, the findings of fact,
and the conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER'7
The Respondent, W. H. Scott d/b/a Scott's Wood Prod-
ucts, Roscommon, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activity and the union activities of other employees.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge, moving the
plant, or closing the plant because they or other employees
had engaged in union activities and to discourage such
union activities.
(c) Threatening employees and others with a gun in or-
der to discourage employees from engaging in union activi-
ties.
(d) Promising employees benefits in order to discourage
them from engaging in union activities.
(e) Engaging in surveillance or creating the impression
that the Employer is engaging in surveillance of the em-
ployees' union activities or requesting that employees re-
port on the union activities of other employees.
(f) Coercively inducing or requiring employees to sign
affidavits and petitions in regard to the union activity.
(g) Coercively polling its employees concerning their de-
sires for union representation.
(h) Refusing to rehire employees because they have filed
or are named in unfair labor practice charges.
(i) Discriminatorily discharging, reprimanding, or sus-
pending its employees because of their union activities and
in order to discourage membership in or activities on behalf
of Local 486, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or
any other union.
(j) Refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the
above-described unit.
(k) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named labor
organization, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer William Eugene Earl, Steven Skagerberg, and
Mervin Beckett immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
'' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulaticas 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.
1200
SCOTT'S WOOD PRODUCTS
other rights and privileges, and make them, and Floyd Tap-
pen, whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them, in the manner
set forth in the section of this Decision titled "The Rem-
edy."
(b) Expunge from the Companv's records all letters of
discharge and reprimand sent to William Eugene Earl. Ste-
ven Skagerberg. Mervin Beckett, and Floyd Tappen on or
after March 1. 1978.
(c) Upon request. recognize and bargain with the Union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the ap-
propriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours.
and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
written, signed agreement.
(d) Post at its places of business in Roscommon. Michi-
gan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by W. H.
Scott as Respondent's representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places. including all places wheie notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing.
within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
t' In the event that this 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
19 The Loray Corporaion, 184 NLRB 557 (1970)
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give
evidence, an administrative law judge of the National La-
bor Relations Board has found that we violated the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, and has ordered us to post this
notice.
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization:
To form, join, or help unions:
To bargain collectively through a representative of
their own choosing;
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection:
To refrain from any or all these things except to the
extent that membership in a union may be required
pursuant to a lawful union-security clause.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with. re-
strains, or coerces our employees with respect to these
rights. More specifically.
WE WI.L NOT discharge, suspend. reprimand, refuse
to rehire, or otherwise discriminate against any' em-
ployee for supporting Local 486. International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America. or any other union.
WE WIL. NOT coercively interrogate employees con-
cerning their union membership. activities, or support.
WE WILL NOT request employees to spy or report on
the union activities of other employees.
WVE WrII. NOT engage in surveillance or create the
impression that we are engaging in surveillance of our
union activities.
WE VlLI. NOT threaten you with plant closing. plant
moving, discharge, or other reprisals if you select Local
486. International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. or any
other labor organization as your collective-bargaining
representative or engage in any other union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with guns or
other forms of physical harm.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees pay raises or
other benefits in order to discourage them from engag-
ing in union activities.
WE Will NOI induce or require our employees to
sign affidavits or petitions in regard to their union ac-
tivities or the union activities of other employees.
WE WI11. NO refuse to bargain collectively with the
above-named union as the exclusive representative of
our employees.
WE Wiil. NO1 coercively poll our employees in re-
gard to their union sympathies or desires.
WE WII.t. NOT refuse to rehire employees because
there are pending unfair labor practice charges.
WE WI.L NOT, in any other manner, interfere with.
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization. to form, join, or assist
Local 486, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or any other labor organization, 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,
or to refrain from any or all such activity.
WE WII.L offer William Eugene Earl, Steven Skager-
berg. and Mervin Beckett immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former positions or, if those positions no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and W\E WIt.L make them
and Floyd Tappen whole for any loss of pay suffered
by reason of our discrimination against them, with in-
terest.
WE WILL expunge from all of our files and records
all of the letters of reprimand and discharge given or
sent to William Eugene Earl, Steven Skagerberg, Mer-
vin Beckett, and Floyd Tappen on and after March 1.
1978.
1201
I)DFCISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wi. wil... upon request., bargain collectively with Lo-
cal 486, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
('hauffeurs. Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of' all the
employees in the unit described below with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours. and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, and, if an agreement is reached,
embody such understanding in a written, signed agree-
ment. The bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees of Scott's Wood Products
employed at its facilities at 460 S. Main Street and
554 W. Federal Highway. Roscommon. Michigan.
but excluding all office clerical employees. guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
W. H. S(() 0l D/B/A S('()li WOO()) PROI)U( IS
1202