Z and L Lumber Co. of Columbus

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 13, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 75 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

Z AND L LUMBER CO. 75
Z and L Lumber Company of Columbus and United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America , Local No. 2783, AFL-CIO. Case
9-CA-5065
October 13, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
as so modified below.
Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and reletter
the following paragraphs, accordingly:
"(b) Notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces."
TRIAL EXAMINER ' S DECISION
On July 22, 1969, Trial Examiner James T.
Barker issued his Decision in the above-entitled
case, finding that Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. He further found that Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner 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.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that Respondent, Z and L Lumber Company
of Columbus, Columbus, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
'We have carefully examined the record herein and find Respondent's
allegation of bias on the part of the Trial Examiner to be unwarranted
in the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Trial
Examiner's dismissal of 8(a)(3) allegation concerning the discharge of
James Slaby, and the failure to find an 8(a)(l) violation concerning
Manager McGowan's conduct at the meeting of February 14
'We note that the Trial Examiner's conclusion is based in part on the
fact that Scurlock, Ault, Horn, and Syar had not been replaced at the time
of their request for reinstatement It is immaterial whether these employees
had been replaced, as unfair labor practice strikers they had an absolute
right of reinstatement upon their unconditional application We also note
that the Trial Examiner at some points found that Respondent unlawfully
discharged Ault, Horn, Scurlock, and Syar However, the record shows
that Respondent unlawfully refused to reinstate these employees These
findings are accordingly corrected
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. BARKER, Trial Examiner This matter was
heard at Columbus, Ohio, on May 13 and 14, 1969,
pursuant to a charge filed on February 24, 1969, by
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 2783, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the
Union, and a complaint and notice of hearing issued on
April 11, 1969, by the Regional Director of the National
Labor Relations Board for Region 9 The complaint
alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, hereinafter called the Act
The parties timely filed briefs with me
Upon consideration of the briefs and upon the entire
record in this case, and my observation of the witnesses I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Ohio corporation engaged in the
business of retail and wholesale sale of lumber and
lumber-related products at its place of business in
Columbus, Ohio
During the 12-month period immediately preceding the
issuance of the complaint herein Respondent purchased
and caused to be shipped to its Columbus, Ohio, place of
business goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
other firms and suppliers located outside the State of
Ohio. During the same 12-month period Respondent had
total sales to consumers in excess of $500,000
Upon these admitted facts I find that Respondent is
and has been at all times material herein an employer
engaged in commerce and in operations affecting
commerce as defined in Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 2783, AFL-CIO, is admitted to be a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act, and I so find
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Issues
The complaint alleges that, (1) by and through its
manager Howard McGowan Respondent unlawfully
interrogated employees concerning their activities on
behalf of and support of the Union and threatened
employees with economic reprisals and loss of job
179 NLRB No. 11
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
promotions for engaging in union activities, (2) on
February 15 and 17, 1969 ,' respectively , Respondent
discriminatorily discharged and refused to reinstate
employees James Slaby and James Veeck, (3) on February
17 employees of Respondent engaged in an unfair labor
practice strike which was terminated on February 19 by
virtue of their unconditional offer to return to work, and
(4) on February 19 Respondent discriminated against
employees Albert Ault, Gary Horn, Robert Scurlock, and
Charles Syar because of their strike activities
The Respondent denies the commission of any unfair
labor practices and contends , affirmatively , that Slaby and
Veeck were terminated for cause , that Ault, Horn,
Scurlock, and Syar voluntarily quit their employment and
were not strikers , and that, in any event , Scurlock was a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act
B Pertinent Facts
1. Background
In the month of January the Union commenced an
organizational campaign at Respondent's Columbus,
Ohio, plant. By letter dated February 13, the Union
claimed to represent a majority of Respondent's
employees and requested Respondent to engage in
collective bargaining The letter was received by
Respondent on February 14 and on February 19 the
Union filed a representation petition in Case 9-RC-8054
Subsequently, the Union filed the instant charges on
February 24, accompanied by a request that the
representation petition be processed.
On March 18, a representation hearing was held in
Case 9-RC-8054 and on March 21 a decision and
direction of election issued. The election was held on April
10 and a tally of ballots issued on April 25 revealing that
four employees had voted for the petitioning labor
organization, six votes had been cast against the
petitioning labor organization and eight ballots had been
challenged Thereafter, on May 1, the Union timely filed
objections to the election.'
2. The alleged unlawful conduct
a The interrogation
On the morning of February 14 Howard McGowan,
manager of Respondent's Columbus facility, spoke with
employee Gary Horn at Horn's duty station at the service
counter on the sales floor As McGowan approached
Horn he said, "Did you sign a card to go Union" Horn
answered that he had. McGowan then asked two other
employees, Conrad and Lewis, who were working at the
sales counter, if they had signed a card and they answered
in the negative '
During the workday of February 14 McGowan spoke
with James Veeck a truckdriver, forklift operator and
yard man McGowan stopped Veeck as he was walking
from his truck to the customer showroom proximate to
McGowan's office McGowan requested Veeck to step
into his office and after the two had entered the office
'Unless specifically indicated otherwise all dates herein refer to the
calendar year 1969
'The foregoing is based upon the stipulation of the parties at the hearing
and upon documentary evidence of record
'The foregoing is based upon the credited and uncontradicted testimony
of Gary Horn
McGowan asked Veeck if he had signed a card for the
Union Veeck answered that he had and McGowan asked
the reason Veeck asserted that he did not feel he was
getting paid "what [his] job [was] worth." McGowan
responded, "Well, do you realize that if the Union comes
in the hours [of work] will be cut down to 40"" Veeck
answered that this was a matter which McGowan would
have to discuss with the Union Thereupon McGowan
instructed Veeck to return to work and said that he would
speak with Veeck later
When Veeck returned to work in the yard he observed
McGowan speaking with Albert Ault and Robert
Scurlock ° McGowan had initially approached Scurlock
who was working in the yard with employee Albert Ault
McGowan asked Scurlock if he had joined the Union
Scurlock asked the identity of the union to which
McGowan had reference and McGowan answered "the
Carpenters union " Scurlock thereupon answered that he
had not joined the Union because he already belonged.
McGowan then turned to Ault and asked him if he had
joined the Union and Ault asserted that he had always
been a union man McGowan then remarked to Ault that
if the Union got in he would have to drive a forklift. Ault
responded that that was all right and that he thought he
could drive it as well as anybody else 5
As McGowan spoke with Scurlock, Veeck and Ault in
the yard he had in his possession the Union's demand
letter and during the conversation with Scurlock he
proffered the letter to Scurlock who read it 6
After Ault and Veeck had left to return to their work
tasks, McGowan requested Scurlock to come into his
office and Scurlock and McGowan started toward
McGowan's office Enroute they stopped in the yard and
McGowan stated that he would close down the yard
Scurlock responded this was his privilege as manager
McGowan thereupon asked Scurlock if Andy Chapin, a
stockboy, had signed a card and Scurlock stated, "I
suppose he did." McGowan responded with a profane
utterance in a loud voice. The two men proceded to
McGowan's office
In the course of their conversation in the office,
McGowan asked Scurlock why the employees wanted a
union and Scurlock asserted that they desired a union
"because of their wages, and safety conditions, and etc "
McGowan answered that the Company was going to build
some new yards and that Scurlock would be made
manager of one of them Scurlock answered, in effect,
'The status of Ault as a rank-and -file employee is not in issue but the
Respondent , contrary to the General Counsel , contends that at pertinent
times Scurlock was a supervisor
'Albert Ault made no reference in his testimony to the assertion by
McGowan with respect to any prospective assignment to forklift duties
However, both James Veeck and Robert Scurlock testified that McGowan
made this statement and their testimony is not refuted Veeck speculated
that upon his hire , Ault was assured that because of his age he would not
be assigned to forklift duties However, the status of this testimony in the
record is hearsay and is not independently corroborated
'The foregoing is based upon a composite of the credited testimony of
Robert Scurlock, Charles Syar, Albert Ault, and James Veeck Syar
testified that he observed McGowan with a piece of paper in his hand as he
approached Scurlock in the yard , thus tending to support Scurlock's
testimony that McGowan had in his possession the demand letter I do not
credit the testimony of Robert Scurlock to the effect that as Veeck joined
the conversation in the yard , McGowan asked him if he had signed a union
card Veeck made no reference to such inquiry in his testimony and
McGowan had inquired of Veeck concerning this matter just a few minutes
earlier It is thus unlikely that McGowan would so soon again broach the
subject I am convinced that Scurlock was in error in attributing to
McGowan this inquiry of Veeck
Z AND L LUMBER CO. 77
that the Company had not consulted with him concerning
this eventuality and so he had acted [with respect to the
Union] as he thought best In this connection, he asserted
that the employees were "quite unhappy" and that he
wanted a raise . The conversation ended when an employee
entered the office and informed Scurlock and McGowan
that he needed help in the yard
As Scurlock departed from the office, McGowan
followed him and as they proceded toward the yard
McGowan asked Scurlock if he had been the "instigator
of the Union " Scurlock answered that he had been and
that he was the one who had had the cards signed
McGowan then asked Scurlock to return to his office
when he was through with the task at hand
Scurlock did so and when the conversation resumed
McGowan informed Scurlock that he was going to have
to tell management in the home office at Pittsburgh that
Scurlock had been the instigator of the Union and that it
was going to cost Scurlock his opportunity of becoming
manager of a new yard Scurlock answered that he
"imagined" that this would be the result of what had
transpired but that if management wanted "an answer" he
would "give it to them " Thereupon, McGowan requested
Scurlock to inform the employees that he wanted to meet
with them in his office that evening
Scurlock went into the yard and spoke with the
employees and returned to McGowan's office Upon
Scurlock's return the conversation between them was
resumed and McGowan stated, "Well, about this union
matter . we can't afford it" McGowan then showed
Scurlock a small book and pointed out entries in the book
which he asserted substantiated his contention.
That evening at approximately 8 30 p.m., a meeting
was held in the showroom in the Company' s sales
department just outside the office of Howard McGowan
Approximately 10 employees attended the meeting
McGowan commenced the meeting by asking each
employee individually to state those matters pertaining to
his work with which he was dissatisfied As each employee
did so McGowan recorded the items on a pad of paper
The wage level and safety conditions were subjects of
general complaint The inadequacy of the insurance
program and other benefits also received some attention
During the meeting McGowan asserted that he would
investigate the wage level at other yards operated by the
Company and would endeavor to adjust the wage level at
the Columbus yard to that of the other facilities.
McGowan also observed during the meeting that he
wished the employees had come to him with their
problems and had not resorted to the Union for
collective-bargaining purposes to further their demands
He also stated that in his opinion the Union could not
offer the employees more than the Company was already
offering.'
3 The alleged unlawful discharges
a James Slaby
On February 15 employee James Slaby was terminated.
Slaby worked in the employ of Respondent as a stockboy
from January 6 until February 15 During the course of
his employment Slaby worked with Andy Chapin, another
stockboy. Slaby was a full-time student but worked
approximately 40 hours each week at his duties which
were comprised principally of marking merchandise by
machine
Slaby was terminated at the end of his shift on
February 15. He was informed by McGowan who
effectuated the termination that he would no longer be
needed at the store because the marking machine had
been broken and the merchandise would have to be priced
by hand "
McGowan testified that he terminated Slaby because,
as a consequence of his conversations with other
personnel, he had learned that merchandise was being
marked incorrectly and because all marking machines had
become inoperative obviating the need for Slaby's services
McGowan testified that he had spoken with Robert
Scurlock approximately a week earlier and had informed
Scurlock that he was going to let Slaby go. He testified
that Scurlock had indicated his agreement with this
determination. McGowan further testified that, in
substance, in terminating Slaby he endeavored to let Slaby
"down easy" by ascribing his termination solely to the
inoperative state of the marking machines rather than to
the unsatisfactory nature of his work performance
The marking machines which the stockboys use had
frequently become inoperative and the hand marking
machine which just prior to Slaby's discharge had become
inoperative broke while being used by employee Chapin '
Slaby conceded that on occasion he had been
reprimanded for falling behind in his work output
Scurlock denies having conversed with McGowan
concerning Slaby's work performance
Andrew Chapin, a high school student who worked on
a part time basis as stockboy, testified credibly that
approximately 2 or 3 weeks elapsed from the termination
of Slaby to the retention of a replacement for Slaby
Slaby had signed a union authorization card prior to
February 15 and had informally discussed the matter of
unionization with Andrew Chapin and with Clarence
Lewis, a salesman These discussions had transpired on
plant premises Additionally, he attended the meeting of
February 14 and in response to McGowan's inquiry had
indicated that he felt that his job as stockboy "merited
more than the minimum wage "
b The termination of James Veeck
James Veeck worked in Respondent's employ from late
November 1968 until February 17.
'The foregoing is based upon a composite of the credited testimony of
James Slaby , James Veeck, Robert Scurlock, and Gary Horn I do not
credit that portion of the testimony of James Slaby which infers that
during the meeting McGowan said that the Company could not afford to
pay the wages that he believed the Union would demand and that more
than likely the Company would close down if the Union got in No other
witness made reference to this asserted statement and the statement
attributed by Slaby to McGowan seems out of keeping with the
conciliatory atmosphere which appears to have prevailed at the meeting
The foregoing is based upon the credited testimony of James Slaby, as
augmented in some respects by the testimony of Andrew Chapin and
Howard McGowan I rely upon the testimony of Slaby as to the content of
McGowan ' s discharge statement to him McGowan 's testimony in this
regard was cast in conclusionary terms and is not inconsistent with the
more definitive testimony of Slaby concerning this
'The credited testimony of Andrew Chapin establishes this latter finding
and his testimony considered together with that of Robert Scurlock and
James Slaby supports the finding concerning the frequency of machine
breakdowns
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In early February, Veeck was dispatched to Wicke's
Lumber, a lumber supply firm, to pick up a load of
plywood This was Veeck's first dispatch to Wicke's
Lumber He picked up 160 pieces of plywood which he
counted, and signed an invoice which contained thereon a
description of the merchandise but did not specify the
quantity being delivered McGowan testified that he had
placed an order for 240 pieces and that the difference in
the billing cost of the quantity shown on the invoice to
have been received and the quantity actually received
amounted to approximately $900.
McGowan testified that he observed the discrepancy
while processing the invoice as part of his routine paper
work duties which he was performing on Sunday,
February 16 McGowan further testified that, as a
consequence of this discovery, he determined that he had
had "enough of [Veeck's] lackadaisical attitude of driving
and picking up" and determined to terminate him.
McGowan also testified that, as he had received a
demand letter from the Union, he determined that he
should receive advice concerning his legal rights As a
consequence, at the beginning of the workday on February
17, he contacted James Rector, his labor relations
consultant, and summarized for Rector the details of the
lumber pickup and invoicing incident involving Veeck He
pointed out to Rector also that the Union had made a
bargaining demand upon him. Rector advised him that he
was legally justified in terminating Veeck.
Later in the morning, after conversing with James
Rector, McGowan took the Wicke's Lumber invoice into
the yard and spoke with Scurlock. McGowan asked to see
the plywood which Veeck had picked up and asked
Scurlock if he had checked it in. He requested that
Scurlock count the plywood. Scurlock did so and found
160 sheets Thereupon, McGowan observed that while the
employees wanted a union in the yard the Company could
not afford to have men around that cost the Company
$900 Scurlock suggested that McGowan could call
Wicke's Lumber and speak with the director of inventory
control and could thereby straighten out the matter.
Contrary to McGowan, Scurlock testified that on the
occasion of the Wicke's Lumber pickup McGowan had
informed him that Veeck was to pick up 160 sheets of
plywood He stated that he raised no question concerning
the delivery when Veeck returned because he had the
amount which McGowan had specified.
Soon after McGowan spoke with Scurlock, Veeck
returned to the yard from a run Veeck went to the
showroom where he was approached by McGowan who
requested that he step into the office.
When Veeck entered McGowan's office James Rector
was present McGowan commenced the conversation by
asking Veeck if he had picked up the load at Wicke's
Lumber Company and proffered to him the invoice which
he had in his possession and which bore Veeck' s signature
McGowan asked Veeck if he had checked out the load
that he had picked up and Veeck stated that he had
picked up the quantity he had been instructed to pick up.
However, McGowan disputed this Thereupon Veeck
recounted that he had been instructed to pick up 160
sheets of plywood The invoice charged the Company for
240 sheets Thereupon McGowan answered that he could
not have an employee working with the Company who did
not pay sufficient attention to his work to check on a load
involving so substantial an amount of money as the one in
question.10
The foregoing findings with respect to the content of the discharge
On two prior occasions - the times of which are
unspecified in the record - Veeck had been involved in
incidents which caused a loss of money to the Company.
On one occasion pieces of paneling blew off the truck and
were lost to the Company because they had not been
properly secured On that occasion Veeck stopped the
truck but found that the paneling had been damaged and
he left it lying in a field near the road where the wind had
blown it. McGowan had set the loss incurred by the
Company on this occasion at between $50 and $60.
On a separate occasion Veeck damaged some copper
tubing on a construction site as he was being directed in
backing his truck by a construction employee.
McGowan testified that Veeck voluntarily informed
him of this latter incident and that, pursuant to Veeck's
explanation, he had not given him "too strong" a
reprimand.
However, McGowan further testified that he learned
that, with respect to the damaged molding and paneling
which had blown off the truck, Veeck had returned to the
plant, picked up substitute material, and delivered it to the
customer.
With respect to the consequences of the lost paneling,
Veeck testified as follows
A Well, I don't know about the policy [of picking
up material dropped from the delivery truck] If it was
something real important, I think he'd have jumped on
me for not bringing it back He didn't say anything
about not bringing it back He didn't ask me why I
didn'g bring it back. So I don't think it was important.
It probably was important but it didn't seem to him it
was important, so I ', didn't worry about it. If it was
important, he'd have asked me to go back up and get it.
Veeck testified that he had signed an union
authorization card
4 The walkout
Immediately after being informed by McGowan of his
discharge, Veeck went back into the yard and informed
Scurlock that he had been terminated. Scurlock suggested
that he return to the office and endeavor to obtain his
paycheck Veeck did so immediately He spoke to
McGowan and requested that he be given his paycheck
McGowan answered that the paychecks came from the
home office in Pittsburgh and Veeck retorted with an
obscenity and insisted that he wanted his paycheck "now "
McGowan agreed to pay him and did so after calling the
home office to obtain the deductions from which to
calculate Veeck's net pay."
interview between McGowan and Veeck is based principally upon the
credited testimony of James Rector as augmented by that of James Veeck
and Howard McGowan The testimony of Rector more accurately reflects
the actual exchange that transpired between McGowan and Veeck I am of
the opinion that the testimony of both Veeck and McGowan was more
conclusionary and terse than the actual conversation was I do not credit
Veeck's testimony to the effect that he specifically informed McGowan he
had counted the plywood after returning from Wicke's I do, however,
specifically credit Veeck's testimony to the effect that he informed
McGowan that he had picked up the quantity of merchandise which he had
been instructed to pick up
"Howard McGowan testified credibly concerning the content of this
conversation However, I credit the testimony of Veeck to the effect that
after conversing with McGowan and being informed of his termination he
spoke with Scurlock in the yard But, contrary to the testimony of Veeck,
I credit Scurlock to the effect that he suggested Veeck return to the office
Z AND L LUMBER CO. 79
After Veeck received his paycheck he returned to the
yard and informed employee Syar and Ault of his
termination. Scurlock joined the conversation and the
group discussed the fact that Slaby and Veeck had been
terminated, that each of them had signed a union card
and that they, like Slaby and Veeck were vulnerable to
discharge The employees agreed to leave work and seek
advice from the Union.' 3
Without being specifically designated by the group
Scurlock took it upon himself to inform McGowan of the
employees' intention He entered the building with Veeck.
Scurlock went to McGowan's office while Veeck stopped
at the counter where employee Horn was working and
informed Horn of his termination Horn obtained his coat
and left the building."
While Veeck stopped at the service counter to converse
with Horn, Scurlock proceeded to McGowan's office. He
entered the office and found McGowan conversing with
Rector Scurlock stated to McGowan merely, "We're
going home " Thereupon Scurlock and Veeck left the
sales area and McGowan followed them directly to the
yard. There he obtained the keys to the warehouse from
Scurlock.'
for his pay Veeck 's testimony that he decided to return of his own volition
is not credited
"The testimony of Scurlock and Syar, which I credit, reveals an
intention and purpose on the part of the four employees to seek union
guidance concerning what they discerned as a developing threat to their
own job tenure The testimony of Veeck and Syar reveals , but none too
clearly, that following the termination of Slaby but prior to Veeck's
termination , the employees had discussed a possible course of action in the
event of a subsequent termination of a card signer
"The foregoing findings are based upon a synthesis of the testimony of
James Veeck, Robert Scurlock, Gary Horn, Charles Syar, and Albert
Ault I have considered the testimony of James Rector concerning the
sequence of events which transpired between the time Veeck was
terminated and Veeck and Scurlock returned to the office as an incident of
Scurlock advising McGowan of the employees' intentions Contrary to the
testimony of Veeck and Scurlock, Rector's testimony indicates that Veeck
first informed Scurlock of his termination on the sales floor near the office
during the interlude when he returned to the office to obtain his paycheck
The testimony of Veeck and Scurlock with respect to the time , place and
manner in which Veeck advised Scurlock of his termination is convincing
and mutually corroborating and the testimony of Horn concerning the
sequence of Veeck ' s entry and exit, as well as his presence in, the sales
office area of Respondent ' s premises is similarly convincing While I do
not reject the thrust of Rector's testimony revealing that Scurlock and
Veeck did, in fact, converse in the office concerning matters pertaining to
Veeck's termination I am convinced he was in error concerning the
substance of their discussion Further, while Rector is credited in his
testimony revealing that Scurlock used the telephone I am convinced that
this occurred when Scurlock entered the sales area with Veeck for the
purpose of informing McGowan of the employees ' intentions Moreover,
while the testimony of Rector accurately recalls Scurlock informing Veeck
to meet him outside in the yard, I am convinced that this too transpired
during the time span when Scurlock entered the sales area to inform
McGowan of the employees intentions
"The finding with respect to the statement of Scurlock concerning the
intentions of employees is based upon the testimony of Robert Scurlock I
have considered the testimony of Howard McGowan and James Rector
concerning his remarks and contrary to their testimony find that he did not
in specific terms use the word "quit " or "quitting" to define the actions
and intentions of the employees I am convinced upon a consideration of
the testimony of the employee participants in the incident that they
planned to take defensive action as a protest against what they construed
to be discriminatory personnel actions by the Respondent While the
testimony of employee Horn reveals that he considered this defensive
action to encompass the necessity of him obtaining a new job, this
consideration does not appear , by the testimony of other participants, to
have permeated the intentions of the other employees Moreover, I am not
convinced that in light of the previous ground work that had been laid
through the discussions of the employees among themselves , Scurlock, an
After the employees departed the premises on February
17, McGowan, his stockboys and his salesmen manned the
yard McGowan contacted the Respondent's home office
concerning his need for assistance and employees of the
Company from other yards were dispatched to
Respondents Columbus facility For at least a week
following February 17 the Columbus facility was manned
by personnel from other yards working in conjunction
with McGowan and his contingent of salesman and
stockboys.' S
After leaving Respondent's premises Veeck, Scurlock,
Horn, Syar and Ault proceded to the union hall where
they spoke with George Guist, business representative of
the Union. Pursuant to Guist's instructions Scurlock,
Horn, Syar, and Ault returned to Respondent's yard at
approximately I p.m. on February 19 Scurlock spoke to
McGowan in the presence of the other employees and
informed McGowan that the employees desired to return
to work and that while they did not like the manner in
which Slaby and Veeck were discharged they were willing
to put that aside until the Union and Company had
resolved their bargaining efforts McGowan answered that
he had nothing to say to the employees and that they did
not have a job.' 6
Scurlock testified that during the year of his
employment by Respondent it was "customary procedure"
for an employee who was quitting to return certain
designated uniform clothing. Scurlock testified that he did
not return his. There is no evidence that Horn or Ault did
SO.''
5. The duties of Robert Scurlock
Robert Scurlock worked in the employ of Respondent
from March 1968 to February 15, 1969 He commenced
working for Respondent in the capacity of a salesman but
at the request of McGowan in June 1968 he transferred to
the yard In September, incident to a leg operation, he
resumed his duties as a salesman One Bucklin assumed
Scurlock's duties in the yard In January 1969, Scurlock
returned to the yard to resume his former duties at the
request of McGowan who urged him to assume the job in
order to straighten out the warehouse.
At the time of his hire in March 1968, Scurlock was
informed that he would receive a monthly bonus
commencing after the third month of his employment He
received this bonus during the period he worked as a
salesman as well as during his tenure in the yard Like
Scurlock Bucklin received a bonus while working in the
yard. All salesmen received a monthly bonus
Scurlock's duties while employed in the yard were to
check materials in and to oversee the loading of materials
to assure that they were loaded correctly. He worked with
other employees in the yard but when he observed work
individual possessed of a degree of sophistication in labor relations
matters , would have stated in positive terms that the employees were
quitting their jobs I am convinced that he was conscious of the
significance of their action and would have avoided the resort to and use of
the term "quit "
"Howard McGowan so credibly testified
"The foregoing is based upon the testimony of Robert Scurlock and
Gary Horn I have considered also the testimony of Charles Syar and
Albert Ault with respect to this meeting The testimony of each of the four
witnesses varies with respect to precisely what was said at the meeting but
the foregoing findings reflects the substance of the exchange between
McGowan and the employees
"St'ar ' s testimony reveals that during the 30-day span of his employment
no uniform was issued to him
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that needed to be done and he was otherwise occupied he
requested another employee to perform the work 18
Scurlock had no authority to hire or discharge
employees and he could not independently grant time off
to them " During the term of his employment he made
two recommendations concerning the hire of employees
He recommended his uncle for hire but his uncle did not
seek employment and was not hired He also
recommended the hire of Andy Chapin who was retained
Scurlock made his recommendation of Chapin when
McGowan asked Scurlock if he knew the identity of
anyone desiring employment as a stockboy
During his tenure in the yard, at the request of
McGowan, Scurlock consulted employees concerning their
work schedule and as a result of these consultations the
schedule of hours of work for each employee in the yard
was drawn up
McGowan would dispatch his instructions concerning
work to be performed to and through Scurlock If he had
a question concerning an invoice which pertained to yard
jurisdiction he would speak with Scurlock concerning the
matter Scurlock's daily hours of work were alternately 8
am to 6 p m and 10 a m. to 8 pm These hours
coincided with the hours of other yard men Scurlock
worked with two or three yard men depending upon the
level of employment at any given time Scurlock punched
a timeclock and was compensated on the basis of $120 per
week plus overtime If he was absent from work he would
receive no compensation Employees in the yard were paid
at an hourly rate
At the time of Scurlock's knee operation in June 1968,
McGowan informed him that he had done a good job for
the Company and that he would like to groom him for the
job of assistant manager. Scurlock was never elevated to
this position Scurlock signed a few purchase orders while
serving in the yard and was reprimanded for doing so He
was told that he had no authority to do so. He could not
recall ever signing a purchase order as assistant manager 20
Conclusions
The Supervisory Status of Scurlock
I find upon the evidence of record that Robert Scurlock
did not possess the authority of a supervisor and was at
all times pertinent a rank-and-file employee By virtue of
his superior knowledge of lumber and his greater degree
of experience in working in the lumber trade, Scurlock
was used by Respondent in the capacity of a leadman to
routinely direct the work of employees with whom he
labored and to serve as a conduit of instructions to
employees from McGowan who, by virtue of his frequent
visits to the yard and warehouse as well as by his
continual presence on the plant premises in his nearby
office, exercised effective supervision over the small
complement of yard and warehouse employees. The work
of the yard and warehouse was operationally well defined
"That he had this responsibility and authority is underscored by the
testimony of Albert Ault
"Albert Ault testified that on his behalf Scurlock took up with
McGowan the matter of a few days leave which Ault was granted
"All the foregoing is based principally upon the credited testimony of
Robert Scurlock considered in conjunction with that of Howard
McGowan I have considered the testimony of Howard McGowan and that
of other witnesses to the effect that they considered Scurlock to be the
warehouse foreman I have also considered the testimony of James Clark
who testified that he replaced Scurlock and that he had authority during
his tenure to hire and discharge employees and to schedule truck deliveries
and required the exercise of limited judgment only in
carrying out the established procedures of the yard The
direction which Scurlock might give to fellow employees
in the unloading and stacking of lumber, collecting of
loads for dispatch and delivery and the handling of orders
and invoices in the yard to facilitate such loading and
deliveries required the exercise of only routine judgment
and is not of the nature encompassed by the statute as
constituting an individual a supervisor. As the
recommendations which Scurlock made to McGowan
concerning the prospective employment of personnel were
merely those which any other employee could be expected
to proffer it may not be found that Scurlock possessed the
authority to effectively recommend personnel actions The
record is void of any evidence revealing that Scurlock
possessed any authority to hire or discharge employees or
to grant them time off The change which was made in the
previously established work schedule for yard employees
was not one which Scurlock devised but was merely one
reached by the employees themselves through Scurlock's
leadership which eminated from the directions of
McGowan himself. That employees looked to Scurlock for
guidance in the performance of their routine work tasks is
attributable not to his intrinsic authority but to his greater
experience and knowledge of the tasks being performed.
The bonus which Scurlock received is not alone sufficient
to render him a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,
and on the record before me suggests a remuneration
accorded an experienced employee for services rendered
and is consistent, in this context, with the status of
Scurlock as a leadman As Scurlock was required to use a
timeclock and because he was not compensated for time
not worked, his manner of compensation was, in fact,
essentially an hourly rated one
In light of the foregoing I find that the conversations
which McGowan conducted with Scurlock at pertinent
times were with Scurlock in his capacity as a rank-and-file
employee and that his other activities pertinent to the
issues in this case were taken by him in the same capacity
The Interrogation of Employees
In agreement with the General Counsel I find that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act when, on
the day it received the Union's letter demanding
recognition and bargaining, Respondent, through its agent
Howard McGowan interrogated employees Horn, Veeck,
Scurlock and Ault as to whether they had signed union
authorization cards Additionally, Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act was violated when McGowan questioned Scurlock as
to his knowledge of whether or not employee Chapin had
signed a card and by similarly questioning employees
Conrad and Lewis in the presence of Horn
These pointed querys directed to a substantial segment
of the employee complement were not isolated and were
not specified as inquiry designed to assist in the evaluation
of the Union's claim of majority. Rather the interrogation
involving Veeck, Horn and Scurlock was accomplished
with a manifest display of displeasure, additionally
underscored with respect to Scurlock, by a profane
exclamation To Veeck, Scurlock and Ault the inquiry
was augmented by threats to their employment benefits
and/or status. That the questioning had an inhibiting and
coercive effect in these circumstances is here found,
notwithstanding each employee answered McGowan's
inquiry concerning their card signing in the affirmative 21
21 Garland Corporation , 162 NLRB 1570, 1573-74
Z AND L LUMBER CO.
Thus, in further amplification of the foregoing I further
find that the interview which McGowan conducted with
Scurlock in his office in close time proximity to the card
signing interrogation above found, similarly violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The threat which McGowan
made to Scurlock during this interview that the Company
would close the yard in the face of a successful union
effort to organize and his interrogation of Scurlock as to
why he had not brought up the matter of the Union with
him similarly violates the Act as did McGowan's direct
inquiry of Scurlock during the interview as to whether he
had been the instigator of the Union
Similarly, during the same interview, McGowan also
violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by the threats uttered
to Scurlock concerning his loss of future consideration for
a supervisory position at any of the new facilities planned
by the Company He conveyed to Scurlock that this loss
of consideration was attributable solely to his involvement
in the union effort In like manner McGowan's statement
to Scurlock that he would inform the home office of
Scurlock's status as the union instigator threatened
Scurlock and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
In a related vein McGowan threatened employees
Veeck, Slaby, Scurlock and Ault by statements directed to
them concerning adverse effects upon their employment or
conditions of employment Thus, McGowan's statement to
Scurlock to the effect that the yard would close down if
the Union were successful in its organizational efforts
violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act as did the threat by
McGowan to Veeck that he would lose overtime hours if
the Union came in While the record evidence concerning
the statement of McGowan to Ault to the effect that he
would be assigned to a forklift if the Union came in is not
precisely drawn, and in its pure record context is reliant,
to a degree, upon hearsay testimony, the meaning and
impact of McGowan's statement is given dimension by
observations of Albert Ault which I made at the hearing
as he testified as a witness and which reveal him to be a
man of frail stature and advancing age These factors lead
to the conclusion, which I make, that McGowan's
statement constituted a threat of an assignment to a more
onerous work task conditioned solely upon his position
with respect to union represenation
On the other hand, I do not find that Respondent
violated the Act by gathering employees on nonwork time
for the purpose of a meeting. Although McGowan
conducted the meeting he made no effort to poll or
otherwise ascertain the union sentiments of the employees
in attendance nor did he convey any promises of benefits
to the employees for foregoing union representation. His
stated wish that the employees had come to him rather
than turning to the Union was not accompanied by any
threat for the only comment succeptible of being
construed as such was McGowan's stated opinion that the
employees could not gain more through representation
than they had already received from the Company. This
statement carried no connotation of a rejection of the
collective-bargaining principal and I find no violation of
the Act flowing from the occurrences at this meeting
The Alleged Discriminatory Discharges
James Veeck
I further find that the General Counsel established by
the preponderance of the evidence that the discharge of
81
James Veeck was discriminatory within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The opposition of McGowan to
the unionization of the yard is established rather
conclusively by the evidence of record, and he knew that
Veeck had signed a union card I am convinced by the
evidence adduced that McGowan determined to counter
the employees' effort to unionize by terminating one of
the proponents and selected Veeck because he considered
his work performance to have been sufficiently sullied to
accord a plausible explanation in the event he was called
to account for his actions. That Veeck had earlier
accorded McGowan a valid basis for terminating him is
well memorialized in the record, and if the latest work
episode which preceded his termination had been
convincingly shown to have been the fault of Veeck, that
dereliction added to his prior ones would have insulated
his discharge from the reach of the Act. However, it is not
shown that in obtaining the lumber for which McGowan
assessed fault, Veeck deviated from instructions The
credible evidence of record suggests that he did not and
McGowan in his testimony revealed a certain lack of
clarity in his own mind as to just what Veeck's
instructions had been. In any event, while young Veeck
showed a lack of judgment in signing a blank form for the
merchandise which he received, the record - including
the testimony of Scurlock who was experienced in the
lumber business - reveals that the matter would have
been readily adjusted by a telephone call and that the
purported loss of $900 was a theoretical one not one
actually incurred. I am thus convinced that in taking the
ultimate disciplinary action of discharging Veeck for a
clearly nonegregious lapse of judgment McGowan was
overreaching for an excuse to cloak his true purpose of
eliminating from his work force a union advocate Finding
as I do that his motive in terminating Veeck was a
discriminatory one within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act, there is no incursion here upon the principle
than an employer is free to terminate an employee for any
nondiscriminatory reason Nor does this determination
serve to limit Respondent's freedom to have done so with
respect to Veeck's earlier work errors.
James Slaby
On the other hand, I conclude and find that the
General Counsel did not establish by the requisite
preponderance of the evidence that the termination of
John Slaby was discriminatory. Slaby's identification with
the Union had not been prominent and McGowan had not
questioned him about his card signing. While, on the sales
floor proximate to the office, Slaby had indicated his
union affinity to a member of the sales force, the General
Counsel undertook no showing that this conversation was
communicated to McGowan, and neither the situs of the
discussion, the declared opposition of the nonunit
employee to the Union nor the small plant doctrine, in my
opinion are sufficient to supply the requirement of
knowledge requisite to finding discrimination While at the
employee meeting conducted by McGowan, Slaby
displayed a desire for increased compensation, this was a
common urging on the part of the employees present and
not one which appears to have invoked displeasure on the
part of McGowan Added to these considerations is the
fact, conceded by Slaby, that he had been warned that his
work performance as an employee left something to be
desired, the finding which I have made, adverse to the
General Counsel's evidence, that McGowan had
communicated to Scurlock prior to the Union's
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining demand his intention to terminate Slaby, and
the evidence revealing the inoperative condition of the
marking machine and the related apparent lack of urgent
present need for stockboy services.22
While the timing of the discharge created a suspicious
circumstance demanding careful scrutiny of the record, as
I view the evidence pertaining to the discharge, even in
conjunction with the evidence revealing that Respondent
had no compunction against pursuing discriminatory
coercive action to undermine the Union, I am convinced
that the timing in relationship to the Union's demand was
wholly fortuitous and that, as McGowan testified, he
terminated Slaby with civility for cause at the end of a
workweek at a time when the workload permitted.
Accordingly, I shall recommend that the allegation of the
complaint pertaining to the discharge of James Slaby be
dismissed
The Refusal to Reinstate
While employees Scurlock, Veeck, Ault, Horn and Syar
were, I find, incorrect in their early assessment of the
discharge of Slaby as being discriminatory, the discharge
nonetheless caused them to formulate a course of action
should, as subsequently occurred, Respondent depose one
of their number. The discharge of Veeck firmed up their
resolve to take counteraction and they did so concertedly,
after consultation together, and with an intent to seek
union support or intervention of a nature to them, at that
point, still undefined The employees who together left
their work accurately assessed Veeck's termination as an
unlawful one, and their principal purpose was to protest
this discharge of a fellow employee. Such concerted action
is, of course, protected activity under the Act.S3 The four
employees became, I find, unfair labor practice strikers.
There is little of substance in the record to support
Respondent's contention that the employees quit their
employment. Their exodus transpired soon after the
termination of a known card signer and was participated
in by other known union adherents. No event of
significance, save the precipitous discharge of Veeck, had
transpired which reasonably could have caused McGowan
to speculate as to the motivating reason for the abrupt
departure of employees in mid-shift In any event, in
seeking to return, Scurlock on behalf of the four
employees informed McGowan that their walkout had
related to the terminations of Veeck and Slaby, and in
thus declining to give the employees further employment
McGowan acted with knowledge of the employees'
avowed motives. The sequence of events was such that
McGowan had no illusions as to the nature of the
employees' departure from the plant, and knew that they
had done so in protest and not as quits This latter finding
and the finding here made concerning the protected nature
of the concerted activity of the four employees is negated
neither by the subjective interpretation of Horn concerning
the technical status of the walkout in which he
participated nor the filing of the charge herein by the
Union defining the status of the participating employees
as constructive dischargees. It is clear, as found, that the
"Slaby was not replaced for 2 or 3 weeks
"Cone Mills Corporation 169 NLRB No 59 , Summit Mining Corp.
119 NLRB 1668, 1672-73, enfd. 260 F 2d 894, 897 (C.A 3) As these
decisions reveal, the concerted action of the four employees would have
been similarly protected activity under the Act even though they had been
incorrect in their assessment of Veeck' s termination as being unlawful and
if, contrary to my finding here, Veeck 's discharge had been in fact a lawful
one
employees feared a series of reprisals but it is also clear
that they acted concertedly in protest over the termination
of two employees.
In these circumstances, as Scurlock, Ault, Horn and
Syar had not been replaced and as they made application
for reinstatement the refusal of Respondent to reinstate
them constituted discrimination which was violative of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act 24
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 relation 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
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged
James Veeck, Albert Ault, Gary Horn, Robert Scurlock
and Charles Syar because of their union and concerted
activities, I shall recommend that Respondent offer each
employee immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position of employment,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges and make each of them whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him by payment to him of a sum of money
equivalent to that which he normally would have earned in
Respondent's employ Said sum shall be calculated in the
manner established by the Board in F W Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6
percent per annum as set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Company, 138 NLRB 716 Backpay for James
Veeck shall be calculated from the date of his termination
on February 17 while backpay for Messrs Ault, Horn,
Scurlock and Syar shall be calculated from February 19,
on which date they made an unconditional request for
reinstatement.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions and upon the entire record in this case, I
make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 2783, AFL-CIO , is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3 Respondent discharged James Veeck because he
engaged in union or concerted activities and refused
reinstatement to Albert Ault, Gary Horn, Robert
Scurlock , and Charles Syar because they engaged in
protected concerted and union activity in protest over the
termination of James Veeck and by the aforesaid action
Respondent violated Section 8 ( a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
"N L R B v J I Case Co. 198 F 2d 919 (C A 8), Colonial Fashions.
Inc, 110 NLRB 1197, Hornick Building Block Co, 148 NLRB 1231
Z AND L LUMBER CO.
4. By interrogating employees concerning their union
activity and the union activities of fellow employees and
by threatening reprisals against them for engaging in
union activities Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(I) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6 Respondent did not violate the Act by terminating
James Slaby.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case,
I recommend that Z & L Lumber Company of Columbus,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall.
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Discouraging membership of any employee in
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 2783, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization of their own choosing, by discharging or in
any like or related manner discriminating against any
employee with regard to his hire or tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of employment, except as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union
activities or the activities of fellow employees, or
threatening them with reprisal because of their union
activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the right to
self-organization, to form their own labor organization, to
join or assist the Union, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively with representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or for other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer James Veeck, Albert Ault, Gary Horn,
Robert Scurlock, and Charles Syar reinstatement to their
respective positions of employment which they held at the
time of their discharge, or to substantially equivalent
positions of employment, without prejudice to their rights
and privileges of employment, and make them whole for
any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the
section entitled "The Remedy "
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents all records necessary for the
computation of backpay which may be due them under
this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Columbus, Ohio, place of business and at
all other places of business where notices to employees are
customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."" Copies of the notice to be furnished by the
Regional Director of Region 9, shall, after being duly
signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted
immediately 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 ensure that said notices are not altered,
83
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith 16
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"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 ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order 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 our
employees that.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to
James Veeck, Albert Ault, Gary Horn, Robert
Scurlock, and Charles Syar and make them whole for
any loss of pay they may have suffered because of our
discrimination against them.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local 2783, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization
of our employees, by discharging any of our employees
for their concerted or union activity; or in any like or
related manner discriminate against them in regard to
their hire or tenure, or any term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning
their union activities or the union activities of their
fellow employees
WE WILL NOT threaten to close down the yard,
reduce the working hours of our employees, the
assignment of more difficult work tasks to our
employees or the loss of employment opportunities to
our employees by reason of their activities on behalf of
the Union, or in the event the Union is successful in
organizing our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist the above named labor organization, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL NOT discriminate in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment against any employee because of
membership or activities on behalf of any labor
organization.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining members of the
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
above-named labor organization or any other labor States of their right to full reinstatement upon application
organization in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
Z AND L LUMBER after discharge from the Armed Forces
COMPANY OF COLUMBUS This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
(Employer) from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
Dated By defaced, or covered by any other material.
(Representative) (Title) If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room 2407
Note. We will notify the above-named employees if Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati,
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United Ohio 45202, Telephone 513 684-3663