Unijax Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 16, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 6 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jacksonville Paper Company , A Division of Unijax Corpo-
ration and Warehouse , Laundry, Janitor, Meat Packers,
Food and Factory ' Motel Union Local 589, affiliated
with National Council Distributive Workers of America.
Case 12-CA-4583
April 16, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On January 13, 1970, Trial Examiner William W.
Kapell issued his Decision in the above-entitled case,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and ' was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision 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 powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
`The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner made at the hearing and finds that no 'prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
' In finding thai employee Flood had been discharged in violation
of Section 8(a) (3), the Trial Examiner credited Flood's testimony
that, at his termination interview, Office Manager Warren had accused
him of having passed out union cards , Office Manager Warren and
Foreman Passmore denied this allegation, but gave varying accounts
of what Warren had actually said to Flood The Trial Examiner concluded
that Warren's version of that interview "differs materially" from that
testified to by Passmore, and he stressed this discrepancy in his rationale
for accepting Flood's testimony Passmore testified that Warren had
told Flood that he was, being discharged for having a "bad driving
record-something of that nature " Warren's testimony was that the
reason for discharge given Flood was "falsification of his application "
There obviously is a discrepancy between these accounts, on the other
hand, Passmore did qualify his version and, arguably, may not have
been listening attentively at the time of the interview We do note,
however, that Warren and Passmore also differed on a fact seemingly
more susceptible of recall- the number of times that Flood returned
to the office after being discharged Aside from this dispute, however,
we believe that the record sustains the Trial Examiner's finding of
an 8(a) (3) violation for the following reasons (1) Flood and another
employee had, just prior to Flood's discharge , engaged in solicitation
for the Union (2) General Manager Purser and Foreman Passmore
admitted that they had heard some reports about union activity but
no firm information While such admissions might indicate testimonial
candor, it also 'seems likely that any reports about union activity would
have included some details about the nature of the activity and the
participants in it (3) Purser testified that he had received all of the
adverse information against Flood, relating to his driving record and
work history, by Friday, but wanted to think about it over the weekend
On Monday, Purser called long-distance to Jacksonville from Miami,
where he had gone to a manager's meeting, and ordered that Flood
be discharged at the end of the workday This unusual course of
conduct seems to us more consistent with the discharge of an employee
for union activity than for any or all of the unambiguous nonunion-
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order
of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, Jacksonville Paper Company, Jacksonville,
Florida, its officer, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.
related reasons known on Friday (4) Purser's testimony at the hearing
was that he ordered the discharge because of Flood's past employment
history, his driving record, and his tardiness After saying this, the
following exchange took place between Respondent's counsel and Purser
Q And, was there any other reason9
A (Pause) These were the primary.
Q Did you compare the driving record with his application)
A Well, of course, the fact that he had falsified his record
certainly had a bearing on it, in addition
The nature of Purser's testimony stands in marked contrast to that
of Warren, who said that the only reason he gave Flood for the
discharge was Flood's falsification of his application. And, as to the
alleged tardiness, the evidence shows only that Flood had been a
capable employee with an "above average" attendance and punctuality
record (5) The retention of employee Lewis, who had concealed a
recent traffic violation on his application for employment with Respon-
dent, which falsification had thereafter become known by Purser, who
had, to Respondent's knowledge , falsified an application with a previous
employer, and who was known to have possibly had a heart attack
in 1964, cannot be satisfactorily reconciled with the discharge of
employee Flood For these reasons, and other circumstances more
fully spelled out in the Trial Examiner s Decision, we affirm his finding
that the discharge of Flood violated Section 8(a)(3)
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: This matter,
a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was
heard at Jacksonville, Florida, on November 12, 1969,'
with all parties participating pursuant to due notice
upon a complaint 2 issued by the General Counsel on
September 29. The complaint, in substance, alleges that
on or about July 21, Jacksonville Paper Company, a
division of Unijax Corporation, hereafter referred to
as Respondent or Company, discharged employee Willie
Frank Flood and thereafter refused to reinstate him
because he joined or assisted the Union or engaged
in other union or concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining and mutual aid or protection
in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
In its duly filed answer Respondent denied engaging
in any unfair labor practices.
All parties were represented and were afforded an
opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to file briefs. A brief was
received from Respondent and has been carefully consid-
ered. Upon the entire record in the case and from
my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
All dates hereafter refer to the year 1969 unless otherwise noted
s Based upon a charge filed on July 22 by Warehouse, Laundry,
Janitor, Meat Packers, Food and Factory Motel Union Local 589,
affiliated with National Council Distributive Workers of America, here-
after referred to as the Union'
182 NLRB No. 2
JACKSONVILLE PAPER COMPANY 7
FINDINGS OF FACT
I COMMERCE
Respondent has a place of business located in Jackson-
ville, Florida , where it is engaged in the business of
wholesale distribution of paper products In the course
and conduct of its business operations , Respondent,
within the past 12 months , received goods , supplies
and materials at its Jacksonville , Florida , location direct-
ly from points outside the State of Florida in an amount
valued in excess of $50 ,000 I find, and Respondent
admits, that at all times material herein it has been
engaged as an employer within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admitted at the hearing and I find at
all times material herein , that the Union has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On June 3, Willie Frank Flood applied for a truckdriv-
er's job at Respondent ' s place of business where he
filled out an employment application which, inter aha
asked for a list of all traffic violations and accidents
during the preceding 5 years In answer to this request,
Flood stated "None " At the hearing he readily admitted
that his answer was untrue , that his driving license
had been suspended for 30 days in 1966 after having
been charged with 12 points for running a red light
and speeding ,' and that he deliberately falsified his appli-
cation because he needed the job to support his wife
and children He began working on the job on June
4 with the understanding that he would be a temporary
employee for about 2 weeks during which his application
would be checked He became a permanent employee
on June 23
Not long after he began working, Flood learned that
a fellow employee , Otis Madison , was earning only
$2 18 an hour after working 27 years for the Company
He decided that they were in need of a union and
discussed it with employee Larry Williams " who
between July 10 and 17 obtained authorization cards
from the Union , which he and Flood signed, and they
then solicited several employees to sign such cards
Apparently , only Herman Johnson signed I out of the
9 or 10 employees working in the warehouse
On the morning of Thursday , July 17, the employees
and management attended a routinely held periodic meet-
ing at which safety measures , company practices, and
fringe benefits were discussed Flood proposed extending
the one-half hour lunch period to an hour and making
up the half hour by starting work at 8 a in instead
' All his violations occurred while he was driving his own car
" Foreman Thomas Passmore impressed by Flood s work asked
him to recommend a prospective employee Flood referred his friend
Larry Williams who filed an application on June 19 and started working
on June 23
of 8 30 a in General Manager Robert Purser rejected
the proposal because traffic would be too heavy at
8 a in Flood also suggested that fringe pension benefits
be paid currently rather than when the employee attained
retirement age of 65, but Purser brusquely refused to
consider it Flood then inquired whether employee Otis
Madison could discontinue driving a truck and work
in the warehouse When Purser replied that he could
but his pay would be cut from $2 18 an hour to $1 90,
Flood commented adversely on the appreciation shown
by the Company to a man who had worked for 27
years When the meeting disbanded , three of the employ-
ees remained behind to discuss with management a
deep-sea fishing trip in lieu of the usual annual employee
picnic
Following the filing of Flood's employment applica
tion, Office Manager Warren routinely and pursuant
to company practice ordered a personnel selection Ives
Ligation by the Retail Credit Company, which (G C
Exh 5 (a)) was prepared and sent directly to the home
office of Unijax , also located in Jacksonville A summary
of this report by way of an interoffice communication
(dated July 14) was sent by the home office to Respondent
and received by Purser on July 17 after the employee
meeting This communication showed that in 1965 and
1966, Flood had performed satisfactory work for Alter-
man Transportation Lines, but quit after an accident
and was not eligible for rehire because of excessive
absenteeism , that in 1968 and 1969 he had worked as
a foreman for Mullis Poultry, and had been dismissed
because of a conflict with the plant superintendent and
was not eligible for rehire , and that during 1969 he
had performed satisfactory work as a truckdriver for
Dixie Egg Co , had failed to report for work one morning
and was never seen thereafter , and was not eligible
for rehire Purser was disturbed by what he considered
adverse data in the interoffice communication and after
reviewing Flood's file with Office Manager Warren
decided he would consider the matter further
The following morning, Friday July 18, Purser heard
"hearsay report" about union activity in the Company I
He then visited the home office of Unijax on routine
business matters and talked about Flood to Mr Kelley
the director of industrial relations Kelley showed Purser
the home office file on Flood containing the personnel
selection investigation and also a report from Retail
Credit Company on Flood's motor vehicle record, which
had routinely been ordered by the home office and
had not, as yet, been sent to Respondent This report
showed that Flood had several traffic violations and
that his driver s license had been suspended in 1966
(G C Exh 5(b)) Purser then telephoned Warren,
revealed the information on Flood disclosed in the home
office file and stated that he was leaving for Miami
on company business and would call him on the following
Monday from Miami to advise him of his disposition
of the matter On Monday , Purser called Warren, told
him he had decided to terminate Flood, and instructed
He however denied having any knowledge of Flood s p irticip ikon
in these activities
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him to prepare Flood's check and discharge him at
the end of the day.' Purser asserted his decision to
terminate Flood was based primarily on Flood's negative
report on his work history and his tardiness,' and also
on his driving record and the falsification of his employ-
ment application. Purser also stated that it was company
policy to terminate an employee who was involved in
three truck accidents or to give him an opportunity
to work in the warehouse.
The above-related findings are essentially undisputed
However, the testimony concerning the actual termina-
tion of Flood is very much in conflict. Thus, Flood
testified that upon his return from a truck delivery
shortly before 5 p.m., on Monday, July 21, he was
told by Foreman Passmore to see Office Manager Warren
in the latter's office. Flood thereupon went to that office
where Warren told him, "I heard that you been givin'
out union cards, and I can't use you no more " He
then asked Flood to wait while he left the office and
quickly returned with Passmore to whom he stated that
he was terminating Flood and handed him a paycheck.
Neither Passmore nor Flood made any reply and Flood
left. He returned momentarily and asked Warren for
a statement as to why he was being terminated. Warren
replied that they did not give such statements and Flood
left again.
Warren's version of his meeting with Flood is as
follows- After receiving a telephone call from Purser
on July 21, he told Passmore to have Flood punch
out at 5 o'clock and to bring him to his office. Passmore
and Flood appeared in his office about,5 p.m., where
he told Flood that the information on his application
was incorrect, that he was being discharged for falsifica-
tion on his record, and that he had his check prepared
for the work which Flood had done through that day.
Flood replied that he wasn't as dumb as they thought
he was, that it was not the reason he was being dis-
charged, and that it was probably due to his color"
or maybe because he was trying to organize a union
in the warehouse, to which he, Warren, just shook
his head and said nothing. Flood then left but returned
momentarily and asked for a slip showing why he was
terminated. Warren replied that the check he had was
the only slip they give and Flood left again stating
that that was not the end of it and they would hear
from him again.9 Passmore testified that he was present
during Warren's entire conversation with Flood, that
Warren told Flood they had to let him go because
of his bad driving record and handed him a check,
that Flood said nothing and walked out, that he then
returned and asserted that he had a perfect driving
record, and that he was being let go because he was
trying to organize a union. Flood then left but returned
` Flood had been paid on the preceding Friday for work performed
during that week
Flood's termination record (G C Exh 8), however, indicates his
service and punctuality were above average
Flood is a Negro
" Warren also stated that he had no knowledge of Flood's union
activity, and had only heard general rumors of a union drive after
working hours on July 18
almost immediately and asked for a slip as to why
he was being terminated and Warren replied that his
check was his slip Passmore also testified that he heard
about union activity in the Company from an employee
but he refused to identify the employee or relate any
other information concerning the matter
I find that Warren's testimony differs materially from
that of Passmore as to the cause of Flood's termination-
the falsification of his employment application as con-
trasted with his bad driving record. I find further that
management was fully aware of the union activities
on or before July 18, and that although Purser, Warren,
and Passmore each denied knowledge of Flood's partici-
pation in these activities, it appears that he and Williams
were the only two employees actively engaged in solicit-
ing authorization cards from most of the other employees
of the warehouse unit. Considering the smallness of
the warehouse unit-9 or 10 members including Flood
and Williams-there is also a likelihood that management
observed their union activities or were informed about
them. 10
Based on the discrepancy between Warren's and Pas's-
more's testimony concerning Flood's discharge, the plau-
sibility of Flood's testimony, and on the record as
a whole, I credit Flood's testimony that he was told
by Warren that his union activity was the cause of
his discharge
In an attempt to prove that Flood was accorded
disparate treatment when discharged, the General Coun-
sel introduced evidence concerning three other employ-
ees, who, despite either, the revocation of a driving
license because of traffic violations,or the falsification
of employment applications, were nevertheless retained
in the employ of the Company I Thus, Judge Clark,
a truckdriver for the past 4 years, testified that in
May 1968 he hit a utility pole while driving his own
car and left the scene of the accident. The following
week he was arrested and, at his trial, paid a fine
and his driver's license was revoked for 1 year. However,
the police failed to pick up his license until December
4, 1968. He then told Purser about it and asked to
be put to work in the warehouse until his driver's
license was reinstated, which was done. He worked
in the warehouse until the beginning of January 1969
when both he and Purser wrote to the Department
of Safety at Tallahassee, Florida, explaining that he
needed his license to continue on his-job. Purser also
advised the Department of Safety of Clark's fine record
with the Company. As a result, his driver's, license
was reinstated and he resumed driving a truck for the
Company
The General Counsel also submitted the employment
application, the personnel selection investigation, and
an abstract of the motor vehicle report of employee
Herbert Lee Lewis and an interoffice communication
covering his employment. His application for employ-
ment shows that he had answered "none" in connection
with traffic violations or accidents, and his motor vehicle
I" See N L R B v Joseph Antell. 358 F 2d 880 (C A I), N L R B
v Dorn's Transportation Co 405 F 2d 706, 713 (C A 2)
' JACKSONVILLE PAPER COMPANY
report states that on March 3, 1967, he had been involved
in a traffic accident and a traffic violation (following
too close). The interoffice communication refers to a
heart condition and the falsification of an earlier employ-
ment application for a job at Sears Roebuck, and advises
extreme caution. Despite the fact that Lewis also gave
an incorrect answer in his application when applying
for a job with Respondent,'he nevertheless was retained
in the employ of the Company. Purser stated that Lewis'
driving record was not considered a problem.
Documentary evidence was also submitted in connec-
tion with the employment of Theodore Peterson. His
employment application indicates that he had traffic viola-
tions for parking in a wrong zone and a "red light
crossing." However, the information from the Depart-
ment of Safety indicates that he was also involved
in a traffic accident. Despite the inconsistency between
his employment application and the information from
the Department of Safety, he, nevertheless, also was
retained in the employ of the Company. Purser explained
that Peterson's driving record was inadvertently kept
at the home office of Unijax and had never been seen
by him.
CONCLUSIONS
The General Counsel has the burden of proving by
a preponderance of the evidence that Flood was dis-
charged for his union activities or membership and that
but for these activities he would not have been dis-
charged." However, "[r]arely, if ever, does an employer
admit that an employee has been discharged for participa-
tion in union activities. Discrimination must, therefore,
usually be proved by circumstantial evidence, and prop-
erly so." Betts Baking Co. v. N.L.R.B., 380 F.2d 199,
204 (C.A. 8). In reaching such a decision reasonable
inferences may be drawn,'and a choice made between
fairly conflicting views of the evidence. Thus, the key
issue to be resolved herein is one'of motivation, and
"[t]he rule is well established that although ample valid
grounds may exist for the discharge of an employee,
that discharge will violate § 8(a) (3) if it was in fact
motivated, even partially, by the employee's union activi-
ty [citations omitted]. Thus, where there are' legitimate
reasons . . . the question is whether those were in
fact the only grounds for the dismissal, or whether
they were `put forth as a mere pretext to justify an
impermissible discharge.' " N.L.R.B. v. Pembeck Oil
Corp., 404 F. 2d 105, 107 (C. A. 2).t2
Purser asserted that Flood was discharged because
of a bad work record, tardiness, and his driving record,.
and that the falsification of his employment application
also had some bearing on it. Were these the only consid-
erations affecting his discharge, then regardless of their
merit, the complaint should be dismissed, for an employ-
er can dismiss an employee for a bad reason or` no
reason, provided the dismissal is not tainted with antiun-
ion considerations -
J
N L R B v Kay Electronics , Inc , 410 F 2d 499 (C A 8)
2 See also Wonder State Manufacturing Co v N L R B , 331 F 2d
737 (C A 6) and N L R B v Whitin Machine Works 204 F 2d 883.
885 (C A 1)
9
I' find that by his proposals and comments at the
employee meeting on July 17, Flood aroused the ire
of Respondent. The disclosure of the falsification of
his employment application and the record of his employ-
ment history further displeased Respondent. Ordinarily,
these considerations, whether or not meritorious, would
have constituted reasonable justification to discharge
him, if Respondent so desired, in the absence of any
union involvement. However, his work performance
impressed Passmore and he was retained on the job.
Other employees had also falsified their employment
applications and had comparable driving records, but
were, nevertheless, retained in the employ of the Compa-
ny. I find that , Flood's discharge "is left unexplained
unless it is found rooted in discriminatory considerations,
the only apparent explanation that is fairly inferable
from the evidence adverted to above." Miller Redwood
Company, 164 NLRB 389. This inference is bolstered
by the timing of Flood's discharge, a highly significant
factor in ascertaining the true motive for his dismissal,"
shortly after Respondent' was apprised of the existence
of the union activity. The disclosure by Warren to
Flood that his soliciting of union cards made his-contin-
ued employment untenable clearly establishes that he
was discharged wholly or at least partially because of
his union activities."
Viewing the record as a whole, I find that the prepon-
derance of evidence and the reasonable inferences to
be drawn therefrom establish that the discharge of Flood
was, in fact, motivated by Respondent's opposition to
his union activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described, in section I, above,,have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and' constitute
unfair labor practices which tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing, commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
Upon the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all times material herein the Union has been
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
'1 See N L R B v Mira-Pak, 354 F 2d 525, 527 (C A 5), enfg
147 NLRB 1075, and Texas Industries, 156 NLRB 423, 425
" Nor under the circumstances herein, can it be urged that the
retention of Williams, the only other active union proponent, as an
employee, precludes an inference that the discharge of Flood was
unlawfully motivated Williams' termination was not litigated and it
does not conclusively appear whether, in fact, he quit or was terminated
If the latter, it would significantly indicate that the only two union
solicitors were ousted from the Company's employ because of their
union activities
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 At all times material herein Respondent has been
engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
3 By discharging Flood on July 21 and thereafter
refusing to reinstate him in order to discourage union
activities, Respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of his employment , in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act
4 By engaging in the aforedescribed acts, Respondent
has interfered with , restrained , and coerced employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act in violation of Section 8(a) (1)
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
THE REMEDY
The Recommended Order will contain the convention-
al provisions entered in cases involving findings of dis-
criminatory discharges in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act These will require Respondent to
cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found,
to offer reinstatement with backpay to the employees
discriminated against, and to post a notice to that effect
In accordance with usual requirements, reinstatement
shall be to the discriminatee's former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges He shall be made whole
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reasons
of the discrimination against him by payment to him
of a sum equal to that which he normally would have
earned from his date of discharge to the date of offer
of reinstatement, less net earnings during such period,
to be computed in the manner prescribed in F W
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716
It is also recommended, in view of the nature of
the unfair labor practices Respondent has engaged in,
that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7
of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and the foregoing
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that
Respondent, Jacksonville Paper Company, a division
of Unijax Corporation, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
I Cease a desist from
(a) Discouraging membership and activities in Ware-
house, Laundry, Janitor, Meat Packers, Food and Facto-
ry Motel Union Local 589, affiliated with National Coun-
cil Distributive Workers of America, by discriminating
in regard to the hire and tenure of its employees, or
by discriminating in any other manner in regard to
any term or condition of their employment
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
under Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action, which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer Willie Frank Flood immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered as the result of his discharge,
in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy
(b) Notify the above-named employee if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of
his right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Uni-
versal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Recommended Order
(d) Post at its warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "i,
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 12, after being duly signed by its
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith 16
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board
the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order
herein shall as provided in Section 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
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
'h In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board this provision shall be modified to read Notify said Regional
Director in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LAIIOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or discriminate against
our employees because they have joined or support-
JACKSONVILLE PAPER COMPANY
ed or will support Warehouse, Laundry, Janitor,
Meat Packers, Food and Factory Motel Union Local
589, affiliated with National Council Distributive
Workers of America, or any other union, or in
any other manner interfere with restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act Since the Board found that
we did so when we discharged Willie Frank Flood,
WE WILL offer him full reinstatement to his old
job and will pay him for any loss of earnings
he may have suffered as the result of his discharge
WE WILL notify the above-named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of his right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces
Dated By
JACKSONVILLE
PAPER COMPANY, A
DIVISION OF UNIJAX
CORPORATION
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
11
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, or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Second Floor, Federal Building, 400 Bay Street, Jackson-
ville, Florida 32202, Telephone 904-791-2168