Vanover Coal Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1339 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

H. R. VANOVER COAL COMPANY 1339
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board,
and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we
hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals because of , or interrogate them
as to, their membership in or activities on behalf of any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization , to form labor organ-
izations , to join or assist United Gas, Coke, and Chemical Workers, C.LO., 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 activi-
ties except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in
Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to join or assist any labor organization, and to engage
in any self-organization or other concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from such activities except
to the extent that such right is affected by an agreement made in conformity with Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
DETERGENTS, INC.,
Employer.
By ........ ............................ ............... ........
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
H. R. VANOVER d/b/a H . R. VANOVER COAL COMPANY
and ALEX EVANS, STEVE GRAY, CLAUDE LEVEL, and
TRUMAN SMITH, Individuals . Case No . 9-CA-564 . February
26, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 31, 1953, Trial Examiner Samuel Binder issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support
of the Intermediate Report.
The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied as the
record, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents
the issues and positions of the parties.
107 NLRB No. 286.
1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report , the Respondent's
brief and exceptions , the General Counsel's brief , and the entire
record in the case and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.,
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent , H. R. Vanover
d/b/a H . R. Vanover Coal Company , Owensboro , Kentucky,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization by
discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of his employees.
(b) Interrogating or questioning employees concerning their
union membership , activities , connections , or sympathies.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization , to form, join , or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid of protection, or to
refrain from any and all of such activities except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board
finds necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Alex Evans, Steve Gray, Claud Level, Truman
Smith, and Charlie Moorman, each, immediate and full re-
instatement to his former , or a substantially equivalent,
position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges and in the manner set forth in the section of
the Intermediate Report entitled " The Remedy" and to place
those employees for whom employment is not immediately
available upon a preferential list in the manner set forth in
said section , and thereafter in said manner offer them em-
ployment as it becomes available and make them whole, in
,Board Member Rodgers would not find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent
independently violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating employees as to their
union affiliation and activities He believes that where, as here, there are no other inde-
pendent violations of Section 8 (a) (1), mere interrogation generally does not amount to
interference , restraint , or coercion within the meaning of the Act. Furthermore he would
not issue a broad cease-and-desist order in this case.
Chairman Farmer agrees with the majority finding of independent 8 (a) (1) violation
here because the interrogation was directly related to the discriminatory discharges found.
H, R. VANOVER COAL COMPANY 1341
the manner set forth in the said section, for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of Respondent ' s discrimination
against them.
(b) Upon request make available to the Board and its agents
for examination and copying all payroll and other records
necessary to a determination of the amount of back pay due
under the terms of this Order, as well as all other records
necessary to a determination of the availability of employment
and the establishment of the aforesaid preferential hiring list.
(c) Post in conspicuous places at Respondent ' s mine and
office, including all places there where notices to employees
are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached to the
Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix."' Copies of said
notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth
Region, shall , after being duly signed by Respondent or his
representative , be posted by him, as aforesaid , immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained for at least sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) File with the said Regional Director for the Ninth Region,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, a report in
writing, setting forth in detail the steps which Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
2 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations
of a Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof the words "A Decision and Order." Inthe
event that this Order is enforced by a United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall
be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to charges filed by Alex Evans, Steve Gray, Claude Level, and Truman Smith,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued his complaint dated February 13, 1953, against
H. R. Vanover d/b/a H. R. Vanover Coal Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance and the
answer denied that the Respondent through his agents and representatives : (1) In violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act (a) interrogated his employees concerning their membership
in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of the United Mine Workers of America, herein
called'the Union; (b) threatened to dischargehis employees and make other economic reprisals
against them because of their membership in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of the
Union; (c) engaged in surveillance to discourage membership in, sympathy for, and activities
on behalf of the Union; and (d) informed employees that he knew of their attendance at union
meetings to discourage membership in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of the Union;
and (2) in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) discharged Alex Evans, Steve Gray, Claude
Level, and Truman Smith on or about May 13, 1952, because of their membership in the
Union.
337593 0 - 55 - 86
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Owensboro , Kentucky , on April 6, 7, 8, 27, and 28,
1953, before the undersigned Samuel Binder , Trial Examiner , duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner The General Counsel , the Respondent , and the charging parties were rep-
resented at the hearing by counsel The General Counsel moved and over objection was
granted leave to amend Ins complaint by adding thereto allegations to the effect that Respondent
had violated Section 8 ( a) (1) and (3) by discriminatory statements made to Charles Moorman
and by discriminatorily discharging him on or about August 19, 1952 i Full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross - examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence on the issues
was afforded all parties The parties waived oral argument Briefs have been filed by
the General Counsel and the Respondent and they have been carefully considered
FINDINGS OF FACT
L THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, an individual doing business under the name of H. R. Vanover Coal Company,
is engaged in the mining, sale, and distribution of coal The Respondent denied that lie is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act but entered into a stipulation in which
he agreed, among other things, that he had during the calendar year 1952 sold coal valued
in excess of $ 50,000 and delivered such coal in his trucks from his mine to the Owensboro
Municipal Utility, a public utility owned and operated by the city of Owensboro, Kentucky,
which is engaged in the production and sale of electricity and in addition had sold coal in
excess of $50,000 to other individuals, partnerships, and corporations and each of said
individuals, partnerships, and corporations shipped annually materials valued in excess of
$ 25,000 to points located outside the Commonwealth of Kentucky 2 Based on such stipulation
the Trial Examiner finds that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act 3
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Mine Workers of America (hereinafter called the Union) is a labor organization
admitting employees of the Respondent to membership and as found later is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act 4
i It may be noted that the motion was granted on April 8, 1953; that the proceeding was
continued until April 27, 1953, and counsel for Respondent conceded that the adjournment
would afford ample time within which to prepare his defense to the amended complaint.
See Section 102.17 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Section 15 (b) Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure.
tGeneral Counsel's Exhibit No. 2.
3Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, 91 NLRB 618; Hollow Tree Lumber Com-
pany, 91 NLRB 635; W C. King d/b/a Local Transit Lines, 91 NLRB 623.
4The Respondent denied the allegations of the complaint setting forth that the Union is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. Counsel for the Res-
pondent stated that the reasons for denying this allegation of the complaint were that the
agents of the United Mine Workers had not taken the "non-Communist oath" or filed it
with the Board and were not entitled to recognition by the Board. In addition he stated
that he did not have any knowledge of the United Mine Workers except what he saw in the
newspapers. Head, an international representative of the Union, testified that the United
Mine Workers is an association of coal miners which processes grievances of employees,
bargains for their wages, rates of pay, hours, and conditions of employment, and acts as
representative in coal disputes His testimony was uncontradicted and is credited. The
Union is not a charging party. The charging parties are individuals authorized to file a
charge within the meaning of Section 102.9 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Cf. Raw-
leigh Company v. N L R. B , 190 F 2d 882 (C A 7); Southern Furniture Mfg. Co v. N.L
R B., 194 F. 2d 501 (C.A 5); Globe Wireless, Ltd., 193 F 2d 748 (C A.9); N.L R B v. In-
diana R, Michigan Electric Co., et al., 318 U S 9, 17-18; Augusta Chemical Company 83
NLRB 53; Olin Industries Inc., 86 NLRB 203.
H. R. VANOVER COAL COMPANY 1343
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES5
A. The credible and uncontradicted evidence as to the
termination of the alleged discriminatees ' employment
On Friday, May 9, 1952, 5 of Respondent's employees, viz, Evans,6 Gray,7 Level,8 Smith9
(hereinafter sometimes called the discrimmatees or alleged discriminatees ), and Penrod
(who did not file a charge against the Respondent and who was not called as a witness in this
proceeding) went to Leet's grocery store at Panther, Kentucky, shortly after their working
day had ended , where Head , an international representative of the Union , sometime between
3:30 and 4 p m. (inthepresenceof a man named Lane, a union adherent, who had accompanied
Head) "administered the oath" to the aforesaid 5 persons, (r e., they joined the Union).10
The oath was administered at the left side of Leet's store as one faced the store from the
highway The arrangement by the alleged discriminatees to meet Head, the union representa-
tive, followed a conversation or conversations which Evans and Gray had with Colman, another
employee of the Respondent who had joined the Union on or about May 2, 1952. At the time
the oath was being administered or very shortly thereafter, Respondent's truck carrying
Barrantine , a foreman employed by the Respondent , Hill , the latter ' s son-in-law , and several
other employees of the Respondent arrived at Leet's store It was a customary practice for
sortie of Respondent's employees to go to Leet's store on Friday, which was payday, to cash
their paychecks and to purchase Coca-Cola and other commodities, and this practice was
followed on the day in question. After the oath was taken, the alleged discriminatees and
Penrod, Head, and Lane all came around to the front of Leet's store where the Respondent's
truck was parked.
Barrantine knew Head was an organizer for the Union because the latter had been out to
his home to see him and had talked to him about the Union. Foreman Barrantine testified
that he had heard that Lane , a former employee of Respondent , was a union man and was trying
to get men to join the Union Lane knew that Barrantine was a foreman and asked if he had
any objection to his talking to the men on the truck and Barrantine said he did not Barrantine
testified that he had the idea that Lane had asked his permission to talk to the men on the
truck because he was a foreman. Lane told the men on the truck that Mr Head, the union
organizer, was there, the purpose for which the latter had come, and asked if some of them
would get off the truck and "take the obligation ." According to Foreman Barrantine, Head
also talked to the men on the truck.
At the time of the "oath taking" or immediately thereafter an automobile carrying two
Kentucky State troopers , viz, Russell and Byrd, passed Leet's store followed very shortly
thereafter by the Respondent in his automobile . The State troopers stopped and parked at
Nalley's store which was between 300 to 500 feet from Leet's store Vanover also parked
5 The testimony concerning some of the incidents involved in this proceeding is conflicting
and contradictory and the findings of fact made herein result from the undersigned's attempt
to reconcile the evidence and determine what probably occurred. The findings of fact are
based upon a consideration of the entire record and observation of witnesses. All evidence on
disputed points is not set forth so as not to burden unnecessarily this report. However, all
has been considered and where required resolved. In determining credibility the under-
signed has considered, inter alia, the demeanor and conduct of witnesses; their apparent
fairness, bias, or prejudice; their candor or lack thereof; their interest or lact thereof;
their ability to know, comprehend, and understand matters about which they have testified;
and whether they have been contradicted or otherwise impeached.
6Evans became an employee of Respondent in the summer of 19b1 and remained in the
latter's employ until May 13, 1952.
7Gray had worked for Respondent for a little over 2 years until May 13, 1952.
8 Level started working for the Respondent on January 14, 1952.
9Sntith worked for Respondent in September 1951 for 2 days and left, worked for Re-
spondent in December 1951 and left again, and his last employment with Respondent com-
inenced about May 4, 1952, and was terminated May 13, 1952.
loPenrod did not accompany the alleged discrimmatees to Leet's store but arrived there
by himself. Lane asked Penrod if he wanted to "take the oath" and Head administered
the oath to the alleged discrimiatees and Penrod at the same time.
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at Nalley's store but claimed that he parked further in from the highway than the State
troopers had parked.ii
The circumstances under which Vanover went to Nalley 's store were as follows:
Sometime before 3:30 p in. on the day in question; State Trooper Russell while accompanied
by State Trooper Byrd had had a conversation with a young man about 14 or 15 years old
at a little restaurant and grocery store near Panther , Kentucky , (Russell testified that he
believed it was called Nalley's ) in regard to some men stopping Vanover ' s trucks. The young
man "said the men were up at the other store." The troopers got in their car and sat there
a while and , seeing nothing of interest , drove over to Vanover ' s mine.
When Russell and Byrd got to the Vanover mine they saw some of Vanover's employees,
asked as to Vanover's whereabouts, and were told to try over at the "scale house." The
State troopers said "Chaney and Morgan are up at Leet's store." 12
The girl in Vanover's office told Respondent that the highway patrolmen had been there
and that Mr. Chaney was "up to Panther, at Leet's store."
Vanover got in his car and went past Leet's store and stopped at Nalley's store where
the State troopers had parked their car. The State troopers had observed on their way back
from Vanover's mine that "this car this boy was speaking of was still parked up there,"
i e , Head's car was still parked at Leet's store.
A short time after the " oath taking" the alleged discriminatees got into Evans ' car and
went off. Thereafter Union Organizer Head and Lane got into the former's car and passed
Nalley's store. Vanover followed Head and Lane as far as Sleepy Hollow where he stopped
at a restaurant . The State troopers also stayed at Nalley's store until Head 's car " came along
and after it passed" they followed along behind it "on in to the intersection of 81 and 56."
On their way back to Owensboro they checked on the ownership of Head's automobile
On Monday , May 12, 1952 , Fugate , 13 Respondent 's foreman , told Evans at the close of the
working day to "wait down at the truck." At that time and place , in the presence of Evans,
Level, and Gray, Fugate said, "I want to ask you all a question. I know you will tell the
truth about it." Fugate asked whether they had joined the Union and Evans told him that they
had, to which Fugate replied, "I wouldn't have thought ft of you." Fugate also said he "knowed
it before the sun went down" and "I don't know why you done me that way." The next day,
May 13, 1952, the alleged discriminatees and Penrod were "laid off "
Evans, Gray, and Smith were told by Foreman Bar rantine that they were "laid off." Foreman
Fugate told Barrantine on the day of the "layoff" to tell these men that "Mr. Vanover lost
a contract and he was going to have to lay some men off, and he was going to have to lay the
11 Counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent's counsel stipulated that from a loca-
tion on the left side of where the State troopers' car was parked at Nalley' s store a person
could observe the left side of Leet's store and they further stipulated, in substance, that
from the position where Respondent claimed that he stopped his automobile at Nalley's
store a person could not observe any activity at Leet's store,
S Stoy Hillard, one of Respondent's employees who was in or near Respondent' s truck
at the mine together with others at the time the State troopers arrived and heard their
statement and who with others went to Leet's store in the truck, testified that Morgan was
president of the United Mine Workers of America, District 23, at that time, and that Chaney
was an organizer for District 23. Counsel for Respondent stated that they would stipulate
for the record that Chaney is a paid organizer for the Union, and an inmate of the Union
County jail for violence in connection with organizational activities of the Union. Vanover
testified that a couple of years ago during working hours Chaney had "made our truck
drivers dump some coal, run them off from the coal mine," Vanover had heard a lot about
and saw a lot about Chaney in the papers.
i3Respondent states in its brief that "Fugate had not been in Respondent's employ for
some months prior to the hearing, was not found in Owensboro, and was unavailable for
testimony." In this connection, it may be observed that Barrantine, a foreman employed
by Respondent, was called as a witness and testified that he had seen Fugate "here a couple
of weeks ago" and Fugate had told him that he lived in Providence, Kentucky, Although Fugate
was referred to repeatedly from the inception of the hearing, no claim was made by Re-
spondent at anytime during the course of the hearing that a search for Fugate had been
made and that he could not be found. As a matter of fact no request for a subpena addressed
to Fugate was ever made to the Trial Examiner and no claim was made at the hearing that
he was unavailable as a witness.
H. R. VANOVER COAL COMPANY 1345
men off that lived far away from the mines and keep men that lived in his houses and rode
his trucks and fellows that worked regular ." A Barrantine told the men what. Fugate told him
to tell them.
Vanover told Foreman Alvey that he lost part of the Green contract , and that "we" have
to lay off some men . Vanover told Alvey specifically he wanted to have the alleged discrimi-
natees and Penrod " laid off." Foreman Alvey went to Level and Penrod and told them that
Vanover had lost a contract and that they were among the men to be "laid off."
After Evans was told that he was laid off, he got all his tools together and went to the
"bottom" to get on the cage to get out of the mine. He saw Fugate there and asked Fugate
what was wrong . Fugate said if you want to know any more about it see Vanover. Evans
replied Vanover " ain't there" and told Fugate that he was discharged over joining the Union.
Fugate ran and got on the cage and made no reply to Evans . Evans and Smith said "they got
fired, they knew why they got fired , they didn' t get laid off, they got fired." Alvey heard their
statement and denied that they had been fired and said they were " laid off."
Vanover testified that following this incident he wrote a letter to each of the discriminatees
dated May 22, 1952, to the effect that he would be unable to employ them "any longer because
of the lack ofcoal sales ." He testified that the reason he wrote the letters was because the men
had raised a disturbance when notified of the layoff , claimed they were fired because they
joined the Union , and were going to a union meeting that night and would compel Respondent
to pay for it. Respondent had never notified any employees in writing theretofore in regard
to layoffs and the letter gave no reason other than that described above for the layoff.
About a week after the layoff, Harry Colman , a miner in Respondent 's employ, was called to
Vanover's office. Vanover told him that he had heard that Colman had joined the Union and
Colman admitted that he had. Vanover told Colman that he did not think that the mines in
Daviess County would ever be organized . Colman told Vanover that he was "past the age
for a miner ," that the United Mine Workers "had a pension for its members ," and that he
wanted to get a pension. Vanover told Colman that for him to be eligible for such a pension
he believed that Colman would have to work in a union mine for a period of a year and since
he (Vanover) didn't think his mine and the mines in Daviess County would ever be able to
operate as union mines , Colman, if he wanted a pension , ought torwork in some union mine.'
Colman subsequently left Vanover ' s employ although advised that he could continue to work
for Respondent.
On May 19, 1952 , Littlefield , Bethel , and Barnes were hired by Fugate and they reported
for work on May 20 , 1952.16
The circumstances of their hiring were as follows
On May 19, 1952 , Littlefield approached Foreman Fugate and asked for jobs on behalf of
Bethel , Barnes, and himself . Fugate asked Littlefield where he was from and whether he
belonged to the Union . Littlefield told Fugate he was from Muhlenberg County, Central City,
and was a member of the Union . Fugate also asked whether Bethel and Barnes belonged to
the Union and Littlefield said he did not know Fugate said he needed men. He added that he
would take a chance at hiring them but that "If Mr. Vanover finds out I hired you he will
fire the whole damn bunch of us."
i4 The alleged discriminatees all lived in Central City, Kentucky , which was claimed to
be about 40 miles from the mine. Penrod , who joined thetJnion at the same time as the
alleged discriminatees, was also laid off at the 'same time as the alleged discriminatees,
but did not file a charge and was not named in the complaint . Alvey, another foreman for
the Respondent , testified that Penrod lived at Miller ' s Lake which he judged to be about
5 or 6 miles from Vanover ' s mine.
E Respondent , in his brief "admits that he does not want a Union mine , for it would be
impossible to pay Union pension fund and wage scales , work the Union three-day week,
and still meet the competition of the large railroad mines and other more economic pro-
ducers."
16 General Counsel ' s Exhibit No. 7, a document setting forth the names and number of hours
worked each week by Respondent ' s employees for the period between the week ending April
5, 1952, through the week ending July 12, 1953 , was received in evidence and Respondent
stipulated that the document set forth the "accurate number of hours worked by the men."
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Littlefield worked for Respondent 5 days and quit. Littlefield testified he quit because
he had no means of transportation after Barnes quit.
B. Respondent's knowledge regarding discriminatee's union
membership
It is clear that when Foreman Barrantine arrived at Leet's store on Friday afternoon,
May 9, 1952 , after work and saw the alleged discriminatees and Penrod coming from around
the side of Leet's store with Head and Lane and when the latter asked his permission to speak
to the men on Respondent ' s truck, and when Barrantine observed them talking to the men on
the truck , Barrantine had good ground to suspect or believe that the alleged discriminatees
and Penrod had joined the Union.
Moreover, Vanover had been alerted by Russell and Byrd, the State troopers, to the
possibility of union activity at Leet's store. It appeared that Vanover was apprehensive that
Chaney, a union organizer, was in the neighborhood of Leet's store and might be engaged
in some unlawful activity on behalf of the Union. It was in connection with his apprehensions
regarding Chaney that Vanover left his mine to go to Leet's store to find out what was
happening . He passed Leet's store either at the time the allegeddiscriminatees and Penrod
were taking the oath or shortly thereafter. It turned out that Chaney was not present at
Leet's store but that Head, another unionorganizer, was present and that Foreman Barrantine
was an observer of some of Head's activities on behalf of the Union.
These circumstances on Friday followed by the interrogation of the alleged discriminatees
on Monday by Fugate, Respondent's foreman, and the admission of Evans to Fugate that
they had joined the Union at Leet's store on Friday, makes it reasonable to conclude, and
the Trial Examiner finds, that the Respondent learned before the layoff on Tuesday, May 13,
1952, that the alleged discriminatees had joined the Union on Friday, May 9, 1953.
C. Respondent ' s "economic defense" and the evidence
relating thereto
In substance the Respondent contended that the termination of the alleged discriminatees'
employment was brought about because he had received on May 2 or 3, 1952, a letter dated
May 1, 1952, from Green Coal Company (hereinafter sometimes called Green) stating:
This is to advise you that as of May 10, 1952 we will not be able to receive coal from
you in excess of 100 tons per day.
We are giving you this advance notice in order that you may arrange your schedule
accordingly.
The letter was signed on behalf of Green by W. M. McCarter, business manager of the
Green Coal Company.
The implication sought to be drawn from this document is that prior to its receipt, Re-
spondent's deliveries of coal to Green materially exceeded 100 tons per day.17 The position
of the Respondent was that because of the reduction in the amount of coal which Green would
take from him it was necessary to reduce his work force and this was the reason the alleged
discriminatees and Penrod were laid off. The validity of Respondent's position was challenged
by the General Counsel and the charging parties. The resolution of this problem presents
the primary issue in this case.
The Respondent and General Counsel both introduced data purporting to show the tonnage
delivered to Green in the period preceding and following the date of the layoff, May 13,
1952. These data may be summarized, in part, as follows:
17 Vanover testified that he had a verbal contract with Green prior to May 1, 1952, under
which the latter agreed to take as much coal as Vanover could furnish. Vanover also testi-
fied that at the time of the "layoff" he had no agreements with other persons which were re-
duced }n any way.
H. R. VANOVER COAL COMPANY 1347
(1)
Delivery charges by
tons according to
testimony of Harpe,
Respondent's book-
keeper
(A) 401
(B) 226
(C) 723
(D) 511
(E) 512
(F) 840
(G) 678
(H) 350
(1) 533
(J) 4774 total ton-
nages
(K) 2373 total ton-
nages
(L) 3213 total ton-
nages
(M) 474 av. wkly
tonnages
(N) 535 av. wkly
tonnages
(2) (3) (4) (5)
Date
No of de-
livery days
per week
Deliveries accord-
mg to Respondent ' s
Exhibit No. 10
Average ton-
nage per de-
livery day
3/29 to 4/4 5 419.350 83.87
4/5 to 4/11 3 343 860 114.62
4/12 to 4/18 5 732.775 146.555
4/19 to 4/25 4 512.900 128.225
4/26 to 5/2 4 718.500 179.650
5/3 to 5/9 5 842.725 168.245
5/10 to 5/16 5 507.475 101.495
5/17 to 5/23 3 525.050 175.016
5/24 to 5/30 4 535.050 133.765
3/29 to 5/30 5137.685
3/29 to 5/2 2727.385
x/29 to 5/9 3570.110
3/29 to 5/2 545.5
3/29 to 5/9 596
According to the figures furnished by Green, the Respondent's customer (see Respondent's
Exhibit No. 10), the coal deliveries made by Vanover to Green for the 5-week period prior to the
receipt on May 2 of Green's May 1 letter, totaled 2727.385 tons an average of approximately
545k tons per week. (See column(4) line (M).) For the 6-week period ending May 9 the average
would be approximately 596 tons per week. (See column (4) line (N).)
According to the figures furnished by Harpe, Respondent's bookkeeper who testified with
Respondent's records before her, the total number of tons which her records showed had
been charged as delivered to Green between March 29 and May 2 amounted to 2,373 tons,
(see column ( 1) line ( K) i.e , an average of only 474 tons a week . (See column (1) line (M).)
There is no evidence to show that on or before May 2 or 3, the date when he received
Green's letter, Respondent had requested any figures from Green regarding the amount of
coal deliveries he had been making to the latter and it is reasonable to infer that he was aware
of what his own books showed Thus on the basis of the figures taken from hiw own records
it would appear that Green's letter would indicate to Respondent that instead of a decrease
in the amount of his business with Green he might be able to increase deliveries slightly.
However, if at the time of the layoff, deliveries made through the week ending May 9 were
considered , Respondent ' s figures show an average of approximately 535 tons delivered per
week for the period in question. Thus, anaverage reduction of only 35 tons per week appeared
to be involved. Vanover testified that a "fair miner" would load 14 or 15 tons per day. Thus
the layoff of 1 "fair miner" would have been more than sufficient to take care of this insub-
stantial reduction in his business.
If we assume that the Green figures are more accurate than Respondent's own records,
and if Respondent had been cognizant of such figures and felt that he needed to reduce pro-
duction by approximately 100 tons per week, dismissal of 2 "fair" miners would accomplish
this reduction. However Respondent laid off 4 miners despite the fact that on Tuesday,
May 13, the day of the layoff and on the preceding day, Monday, May 12, 6 employees who
had been on the payroll the week before failed to appear for work
The evidence as to these absences comes from General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7 which shows
the names of six of Respondent's employees, viz., Marlin, Scott, Orville Frances, Darrel
Frances, Ford and Jolley as appearing on the payroll for the week ending May 10 and further
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shows that they did not appear as being part of Respondent's work force on Monday, May 12,
or at any other time for the week ending may 17, 195218
General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7 also shows that Manuel Pulley and Leslie Sparkes, who had
not been employed by the Respondent for at least 6 weeks before the week ending May 17,
worked 21 hours and 27 hours respectively during the week ending May 17, 1952. The ac-
cession of these two employees to the payroll during the very week that the alleged dis-
criminatees and Penrod were laid off cannot be said to be without significance.
It also appears that despite Green ' s letter toVanover purporting to cut back coal deliveries
after May 10, the Respondent for the week ending May 16 delivered 507 475 tons, for the week
ending May 23 delivered 525.050 tons, and for the week ending May 30 delivered 535.050
tons to Green. (See column (4) lines (G) (H) and (I) of preceding table.)
McCarter , Green's business manager , stated in response to questions put to him by
Respondent ' s counsel that the difference in tonnage, i e., above 100 tons, which his company
took after' May 10 was based on orders from Mr. Green It thus appears that despite the
letter of May 2, the Respondent received authority thereafter from Green to continue making
deliveries after May 10 in substantially the same amount that he had been making before the
receipt of the letter. The exact date when Green's order was issued to take coal deliveries
above those set forth in the May 1 letter is not disclosed in the record but the fact is that
deliveries in excess of 500 tons per week were maintained following the receipt of the letter
throughout the month of May. (See column (4) of the preceding table.)
Respondent testified that Green ' s letter meant he could deliver not more than 100 tons on
the days when Green 's barges were in Owensboro . This testimony does not appear consistent
with the terms of the May 1 letter itself or McCarter's understanding of the letter or for that
matter with the statistics of deliveries actually made by Respondent to Green. (See column
(5) of preceding table.)
It will also be observed that despite Respondent's claim that he expected that he would have
to decrease the amount of coal he could deliver to Green after May 10, he did not "lay off'
the alleged discriminatees and Penrod on Friday, May 9, which was a payday, but waited until
Tuesday. May 13, 1952, i.e., until after they had joined the Union after work on May 9 and
after the discriminatees had been interrogated by Respondent's Foreman Fugate on Monday,
May 12, concerning their union affiliations
It is noted from General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7 and the testimony in the records that
there was a substantial turnover in Respondent 's work force . 19 Thus, for example , for the
period between the week ending April 5, 1952, through the week ending May 10, 1952, the
weekly average number of employees fluctuated from 39 to 44 and averaged 42. However,
in order to maintain an average employment of 42 persons in this period it was necessary
to put 52 persons on the payroll because of absenteeism or quit, i e., it was necessary to
hire approximately 25 percent more employees than would otherwise have been necessary had
Respondent ' s work force been of more stable character.
The Respondent testified that he would not say that half of his employees had been employed
by him for over a period of 5 years; that approximately half of them had been steadily employed
by him for the year before the layoff and the other half was a turnover group that did not work
steadily.
18 in explaining how he, came to employ Bethel, Barnes, and Littlefield, who lived in Cen-
tral City, Kentucky, only a week after laying off the alleged discruninatees, Vanover pointed
out that at the time employees Martin, English. Meritt Borkm, Hill, Ford, Devine, and Lee
Borkin had not appeared for work.
General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7 shows that English, Hill, Martin, and Murry Boykin
had been on the payroll for the week ending May 17 and were not on the payroll at any time the
week ending May 24. It also shows Ford was not on the payroll for the week ending May 17, or
the week ending May 24, that Devineworked 49 hours the week ending May 17 but only 38 hours
the week ending May 24, and that Glendale Boykin worked 44 hours the week ending May 17 and
43 hours the week ending May 24. In the Trial Examiner's opinion, the Respondent's statement
as to employee absences at the time he took on Littlefield, Barnes, Bethel, and another man
named Lohman as employees is substantially consistent with General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7
and Vanover's statements regarding the absences of such employees at the time is credited.
It also illustrates the fact that Respondent had a large turnover problem, as described later in
the text of this report.
19 See General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7.
H. R. VANOVER COAL COMPANY 1349
Indeed it appears from the testimony of Alvey that turnover and absenteeism were so pro-
nounced that even when layoffs were necessary he kept on the payroll more employees than
he needed to produce the amount of coal he set out to obtain. He testified in this connection,
"But usually when I am cut down we have a layoff, I am to run so much coal, I generally have
two or three men extra, that is to have a crew there to run full production of what we are
going to run that day." Alvey also testified, "But on the usual we always had four or five
men extra more than we really needed, you know, to run the amount of coal we were supposed
to run."
Respondent's need for employees prior to the dismissal of the alleged discriminatees and
Penrod was expressed by Foreman Alvey as follows:
But at this time before these men was laid off, I could use all the men I could get hold of.
If I could get 50 I would have been all right, because I could run all the coal that I wanted
to, that was my instructions that I had 20
In the same connection, Vanover testified that on "May 1, 1952 I was producing all the coal
that I could, and I had a sale for all I could produce." He then testified that it was the
receipt of Green's letter which affected his needs for coal production. He also testified
that the Green contract was the "only contract" he lost.
The record considered as a whole shows that the "cut back" in coal deliveries claimed
to have been occasioned by the Green letter was insubstantial and that at least six em-
ployees who had worked during the prior weekdid not appear for work on Monday or Tuesday,
May 13, the day of the layoff.
In the light of the Respondent's own records and statements and that of Alvey his foreman,
as well as the records of Green, his customer, it would appear that if Respondent and his
foreman were telling the truth as to the number of men Respondent needed before Respondent
received Green's May 1 letter (and there is no contradiction of their statements on the
subject), there was not any reasonable basis for Respondent to have concluded that a reduction
in force was necessary when he received the Green letter.
D. The reasons for the layoff
The basic reasons urged by Respondent for the layoff were the reduction in the amount of
coal he could deliver to Green and the seasonal character of his business While Respondent's
claim that he was engaged in a seasonal business is credited, such fact had no relation to the
layoff in May Based on Respondent's testimony and that of Foreman Alvey and the records
referred to above, the Trial Examiner concludes that the seasonal decline had not occurred
on or before May 13 So far as deliveries to Green are concerned no substantial decline oc-
curred until June when there was a material decrease in deliveries to such customer.
(See Respondent's Exhibit No 10.)
It has been found that Green's letter caused no material reduction in the amount of coal
which Respondent would be permitted to deliver to such customer as compared to the amount
Respondent had been delivering prior to the date of the receipt of the letter and that a sub-
stantial number of employees had failed to appear for work on the day of the layoff.
Under the circumstances the Trial Examiner concludes that the claim of the Respondent
that the layoff was brought about by the receipt of Green's letter was not well founded
As his brief asserts Respondent believed the unionization of his mine would have been
disastrous to him because he would have found it "impossible to pay union pension fund and
wage scales, work the union three day week, and still meet the competition of the large
railroad mines and other economic producers." No other reasons for layoff having been
advanced than the alleged reasons referred to above and such reasons having been found to
be without substantial basis in fact, it is clear that all the layoffs were motivated entirely by
a desire to avoid unionization of Respondent's mine and such layoffs were made in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, as amended.2i
20 Respondent in its brief claimed that because of the orders he had on his books before
the receipt of the Green letter employment was available for a marginal workman such as
he claimed Smith to be.
21 The Respondent elicited evidence to the effect that there were other members of the
Union in Respondent's employ who were not laid off. It may be pointed out that such fact
is not controlling. The Board has frequently held that an employer need not engage in a com-
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent took the position throughout the proceeding that if he had not received the
May 1 letter from Green and thus been put under a necessity to reduce materially the amount
of coal he could deliver , he would not have laid off any employees . Having found that the Green
letter had no material effect on Respondent ' s business , it is unnecessary to go into the reasons
asserted by Respondent as to why he selected the alleged discriminatees rather than others
for layoff. 22 In passing it may beobserved that such reasons as were given appear , in general,
to be wholly unpersuasive
E. Moorman
Moorman worked for Respondent in 1950 and again in 1951. He was hired again in 1952
by Foreman Barrantine and was put to work laying track on August 18. Moorman (who was
president of the local union ) testified that at about 8:30 the next morning, August 19, 1952,
Foremen BarrantineandAlveyasked himifhewere still going to union meetings and he replied
that he was . Barrantine and Alvey then told Moorman that if he were still going to union
meetings he was against Vanover and Vanover would rather not work him . That night Moorman
was driven home to Owensboro by Barrantine and Hill in Respondent's truck . When Moorman
got home he was told by Barrantine that because a machine broke down he would be laid off
until the machine was repaired and that then he would be called back. He was never called
back.
The testimony of Alvey and Barrantine was to the effect that a "cutting machine" broke
down and consequently Moorman was to betaken off his track- laying job There was, however,
need for coal loaders. According to Alveyheoffered Moorman a job loading coal but Moorman
made no reply to this offer.
Foreman Barrantine testified that he told Moorman when he. put the latter off the truck at
his home "that there wouldn't be any more track laying until this machine was repaired"
and told him nothing further.
Hill , Barrantine 's son-in-law who was a miner in Respondent ' s employ, testified that on the
way to Moorman ' s home nothing was said but that after they got there Barrantine told Moorman
"he would be temporarily laid off on account of the machine being broke down."
Moorman testified he was never offered a job loading coal His testimony is credited.
It may be pointed out however that if the testimony of Respondent's foremen were taken as
correct Moorman never actually refused to load coal , and when Barrantine let Moorman off
at his home he was not asked what his decision was as to taking a coal loader ' s job nor was
he offered such a job . Barrantine ' s testimony , corroborated by Hill, is to the effect that when
they reached Moorman's home he was told he was "laid off."
The Trial Examiner concludes that Moorman was laid off because of his union membership
and activity and that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) thereby.
F. Surveillance and interrogation
The General Counsel claimed that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) by going to
Leet's store to ascertain what Chaney was doing there.
plete housecleaning before it can be established that certain employees were discrimi-
nated against Cf California Willys , 98 NLRB 325; Duro Test Corporation , 81 NLRB 976;
Stewart-Warner Corporation , 55 NLRB 593 ; N. L R. B. v, Nabors , 196 F . 2d 272 (C.A.5).
The number of union members in Respondent ' s mine appeared to be substantially less
than the number of nonunion members. In this case it will be noted that every employee,
without exception , who joined the Union on Friday , May 9 , 1952 , was laid off on Tuesday,
May 13, 1952 , and no non- union employees were laid off. Moreover , the relationship in
point of timc of the employer 's action in effecting his reduction in force to the time when
the alleged discriminatees joined the Union appears significant and this is particularly so
in the light of the finding that the asserted economic reason has no merit. The Respondent
also contended in his brief that union officials or somebody else induced the alleged dis-
criminatees to make false charges against him to put him out of business . No credible
evidence to support this claim was presented and the claim appears to be without merit.
22Respondent 's counsel conceded that if the General Counsel showed that the notice from
Green was a small factor or no factor at all, "the whole issue is foreclosed,"
H. R. VANOVER COAL COMPANY 1351
The testimony is to the effect that Chaney had in the past caused Respondent's drivers
to dump coal out of their trucks and had otherwise engaged in unlawful and violent activity.
It appeared that Vanover was apprehensive as to what Chaney might be doing to his trucks or
drivers and that was why he went past Leet's store where he had been informed Chaney was.
In the Trial Examiner's opinion, Vanover, in the light of his past experience with Chaney
and the latter's methods, did not engage in any unlawful conduct in going to Leet's store.
He was within his rights under the circumstances in going there and in attempting to find out
whether Chaney was again interfering with his trucks or business operations . Vanover,
under the circumstances, was not engaging in unlawful activity when he stopped at Nalley's
store upon seeing the State troopers or in attempting to ascertain whether Chaney or anyone
else was interfering with his employees or his property.
There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether Vanover stopped his automobile at a place
at Nalley's store where he could see what was going on at Leet's store or whether he parked
at some other place in the vicinity of Nalley's store where he could not observe what was taking
place at Leet's store. There was also a conflict whether Vanover spoke with the State
troopers or not.
in the Trial Examiner's opinion, in the context of the situation described above, it is un-
necessary to resolve this conflict since it makes not the slightest difference insofar as the
Act is concerned where he stopped at Nalley's store, whether he looked towards Leet's store
or not, or whether he did or did not talk with the State troopers. His purpose in stopping
at Nalley's appeared to be entirely lawful. He had a right to protect his employees and his
property from any unlawful interference which he may have suspected was going on and, in
this connection, he had a right to talk with the State troopers.
It did not appear from the evidence that he was aware when he stopped at Nalley's store
that Head, rather than Chaney, was at Leet's store and was enrolling his employees as
members of the Union. It affirmatively appeared that he feared some damage by Chaney to
his property or some interference with his operations. The Trial Examiner holds under these
circumstances that if Vanover looked towards Leet's store such looking would not constitute
surveillance even if his activity resulted in the acquisition of knowledge of union activities
by his employees.
It would appear to the Trial Examiner, on the testimony taken as a whole, it is more likely
that the "oath taking" had been completed before Vanover parked his car at Nalley's. The
Trial Examiner also doubts that such a fleeting glance as Vanover might have had an oppor-
tunity to make when he was driving past Leet's store would enable him to determine whether
the discriminatees were engaged in taking the oath and, as has been indicated, the Trial Ex-
aminer is inclined to believe that the "oath taking" was concluded when Vanover passed
Leet's store. In any event the Trial Examiner believes in the circumstances of this case
such looking, if any took place, did not involve a violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
The Trial Examiner cannot determine whether Respondent followed Head on the mistaken
assumption that Head was Chaney or for some other reason. Respondent's purpose in fol-
lowing Head and Lane may have simply been precautionary to prevent any interference
which he suspected might occur with his trucks. Under the circumstances the Trial Examiner
holds that the General Counsel has not established that Vanover's actions in this regard vio-
lated Section 8 (a) (1).
The testimony of Evans, Gray, and Level regarding their interrogation by Fugate, Re-
spondent's foreman, on May 12, 1952, is credited, and 4 is found that by such interrogation
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1).
The interrogation of Colman by Vanover whether he was a member of the Union also comes
within the proscription of this section.
The testimony of Littlefield that Fugate asked him whether he was a member of the Union
is credited as is the testimony of Moorman regarding his interrogation by Alvey and Barran-
tine. Such interrogations violated Section 8 (a) (1).23
The fact that Foreman Barrantme was at Leet's store on May 9, 1952, does not constitute
surveillance. Going to Leet's store on Friday afternoon was a customary practice to enable
employees to cash checks and to obtain commodities. The suspicion or knowledge of union
activity of the alleged discriminatees obtained by Foreman Barrantine was not secured through
a plan to spy upon them but by the fact that he arrived at Leet's store at or shortly after
the time the oath taking was in process.
23See Syracuse Color Press , 103 NLRB 377.
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Millard Hillard , an employee of Respondent , testified that when he arrived at Leet ' s store
in Respondent ' s truck he saw thediscriminatees and Penrod with Head , and saw that their hands
were raised No one else on the Respondent ' s truck corroborated his testimony in this regard.
The Trial Examiner doubts Hillard ' s credibility on this point While the discriminatees
and Head obviously did not intend to advertise what they were doing , their activities were
discovered , in the Trial Examiner ' s opinion , without any plan or purpose on the part of Vanover
or Foreman Barrantine to spy upon them . Under the circumstances the Trial Examiner con-
cludes that Foreman Barrantine was not engaged in surveillance on May 9, 1952.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with
his operations as described in section I, above, have a close , intimate , and substantial
relations to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States , and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) and Y3) of the Act, it will be recommended that he cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Respondent by his discrimination against the chargingparties resorted to the most effective
means at his disposal to deny what the Supreme Court has termed "the principal purpose of
the Act," namely, its guarantee to employees of "full freedom of association and self-
organization." Wallace Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 323 U.S.251. The Trial Examiner will
therefore recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights of employees as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. May Department
Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U.S. 376.
Having found that Respondent discriminated against Alex Evans, Steve Gray, Claud Level,
Truman Smith, and Charlie Moorman because of their union membership and activities,
the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered because of the discrimination against them, by payment to them of a sum of
money equal to the amount they would have earned in their employment with Respondent, in
the cases of Evans, Gray, Level, and Smith from May 13, 1952, and in the case of Moorman
from August 19, 1952, to the date of an offer of reinstatement less their net earnings during
the aforesaid periods 24 to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by
the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company 25 The offer of reinstatement shall be without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
Since the Respondent is engaged in a seasonal business, if there are insufficient positions
now available for all or any of the aforesaid laidoff employees because of a nondiscriminatory
reduction in operations, he shall place such persons on a preferential hiring list, with priority
among them determined in accordance with such nondiscriminatory practices as have been
applied heretofore in the conduct of his business. Thereafter in accordance with such pref-
erential hiring list such employees shall be offered reinstatement to positions as provided
above, as such employment becomes available, and before other persons are hired for such
work 26
It will also be recommended that the Respondent make available to the Board on request
payroll and other records convenient for or necessary to the determination of back pay and
for the other purposes referred to in this report.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case , I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The United Mine Workers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
24Grossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440.
25 90 NLRB 289.
26 Cf. Luzerne Hide and Tallow Company, 89 NLRB 995.
H. R. VANOVER COAL COMPANY 1353
2. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of Alex Evans , Steve Gray,
Claude Level, Truman Smith, and Charlie Moorman , Respondent has engaged in ahd is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3).
3. By the interrogation of Evans, Gray , Level , Moorman, Colman , and Littlefield in
regard to union affiliation and activities , Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced his employees in respect to rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and thereby
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations
Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, I hereby
notify my employees that:
I WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce my employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or
assist any labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all of such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized by Section 8 (a)
(3) of the amended Act.
I WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed , and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
Alex Evans Steve Gray
Claud Level Truman Smith
Charlie Moorman
All my employees are free to become or remain members of any labor organization except
to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8
(a) (3) of the amended Act. I will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or
activity on behalf of any such lal or organization.
R. H VANOVER D/B/A
VANOVER COAL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ............... By.......................................... ...................................... .
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.