Diamond International Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 828 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Diamond International Corporation and Western
States Regional Council No. 3, Local 3-10, IWA,
AFL-CIO. Case 19-CA-6144
October 31, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On June 11, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Stan-
ley Gilbert issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed
a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Diamond International
Corporation, Newport, Washington, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
Decision
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT, Administrative Law Judge: Based upon
a charge filed on November 22, 1972, by Western States
Regional Council No. 3, Local 3-10, IWA, AFL-CIO, here-
inafter referred to as the Union , the complaint herein was
issued on January 16, 1973. The complaint alleges that Dia-
mond International Corporation, hereinafter referred to as
the Company or Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act. By its answer Respondent denies that it
committed the unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Newport, Wash-
ington, on March 15 and 16, 1973, before the duly designat-
ed Administrative Law Judge. Appearances were entered
on behalf of all of the parties. Briefs were received from the
General Counsel on April 15, 1973, and memoranda were
received from the Charging Party on April 16 and Respon-
dent on April 17, 1973.
Upon the entire record I in this proceeding and my obser-
vation of the witnesses as they testified , I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged in log-
ging and road construction with several plants . The one
involved in this proceeding is at Albeni Falls, Idaho. It
appears that , while the Respondent operated a mill at Albe-
ni Falls, the only operations of Respondent involved in this
proceeding are its logging operations out of the aforesaid
location . During the year preceding the issuance of the com-
plaint , which period is representative of Respondent 's oper-
ations generally , Respondent's direct sales and performance
of services to customers outside the State of Idaho as well
as its purchases from firms outside such state exceeded
$50,000.
As is admitted by Respondent , it is, and has been at all
times material herein , an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As is admitted by Respondent, the Union is, and has been
at all times material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Allegations in the Complaint 2
The complaint alleges that Respondent, in September
1972, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawful interro-
gation of employees and by threats of economic reprisal for
joining the Union through the conduct of its admitted su-
pervisor, James Lake. A further violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act constituting a threat of economic reprisal was
also alleged to have been committed on or about October
14, 1972, by an admitted supervisor, Eddie Perin. Also, the
1 Motions were received from General Counsel and Respondent to correct
the transcript of the proceedings and an order granting said motions and the
motions themselves are incorporated in the record as ALJ's Exh. 1.
2 At the start of the hearing Respondent moved to dismiss paragraphs 6
and 7 of the complaint which contain allegations of independent violations
of Section 8(aXI) of the Act. Counsel for the Respondent argued that the
only specific allegation in the charge upon which the complaint was based
is the allegation that Olson was unlawfully discharged, and the charge , there-
fore , is not sufficient to support the aforesaid Section 8 (a)(1) allegations in
the complaint . This motion was denied on the ground that the said 8(a)(1)
allegations appear to be sufficiently related to the charge. However, the
parties were invited to cite authorities with respect to the issue raised by the
motion and I stated that I would reverse the ruling if I found that it was
incorrect after examining the authorities cited. After reviewing the authori-
ties cited to me , I remain convinced that the motion is without merit. It is
noted that in Hotel Conquistador, 159 NLRB 1220, 1223, 1224, the identical
issue was raised and the Board affirmed the ruling that the motion to dismiss
was without merit.
206 NLRB No. 119
DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL CORP.
complaint alleges that on or about October 25, 1972, Re-
spondent issued a written reprimand and suspended Ernest
Olson for 5 days because of his activities on behalf of the
Union and further terminated him because of his said activ-
ities in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The
Respondent does not dispute that the reprimand and sus-
pension were given to Olson or that he was terminated, but
denies that such actions were unlawfully motivated.
Background Information
In July of 1972, the Union started organizing the employ-
ees involved in the logging operations of the Alberti Falls
plant. At the time it had a contract with the Respondent
covering the employees of the mill at said plant but had not
represented the logging employees for a good number of
years. It is noted that there are frequent references in the
transcript to Respondent's plant at Coeur d'Alene, Idaho,
which apparently is where Respondent's "home office" is
located. It appears from the credited testimony of Olson
that he was the leader of the employees in the organizational
drive of the Union. During the organizational drive and up
to about October 20, 1972, the logging operations were at
the "Lime Creek" jobsite and thereafter the logging opera-
tions were moved to the "Goose-Independence Creek" job-
site . Two shuttle truckdrivers were employed at the Lime
Creek site and they were Olson and Arthur Leigh Fairchild.
It appears that shuttle trucks were not employed at the
Goose-Independence, Creek site.
Conduct of Lake in September of 1972
A number of General Counsel' s witnesses testified to con-
versations'they had with Lake in September of 1972 upon
which the allegations in paragraph 6 of the complaint are
based. For the most part Lake denied the testimony which
would support said allegations. However, Lake was a very
unconvincing witness. This conclusion is based upon his
demeanor, the evasive manner in which he testified, and a
crucial contradiction with respect to his knowledge of union
activity.' Therefore, those portions of his testimony which
are contradicted by General Counsel's witnesses, including
his denials of their testimony, are not credited. Following
are findings of fact based upon the credited testimony of
various witnesses called by General Counsel.
Clyde Hoekema, one of the truckdrivers, testified as fol-
lows to a conversation he had with Lake in late August or
early September 1972:
A. Well, to start with he asked me if I got my card.
I said, "What card?" He said he understood the union
was passing out cards for the employees to sign to have
the union represent. I told him I hadn't received mine,
yet, but I heard they were being passed out and then
we more or less hashed over the pros and cons of the
3 He testified to- a conversation he had with Olson and Fairchild in mid-
September 1972 which is set forth hereinbelow At one point in his testimony
he admitted to having been told, prior to said conversation, by Ivan Rock,
Respondent's logging superintendent, of the union activities of Olson and
Fairchild, and then later in his testunony he denied that he bad any knowl-
edge of union activity prior to said conversation with Olson and Fairchild.
829
union. On that we probably talked for a half hour.
Hoekema further testified that Lake asked who was passing
out the cards and he told him that "Ernie Olson was in-
volved."
Based upon the above-credited testimony, it is concluded
that Respondent by Lake's conduct engaged in unlawful
interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Hoekema also testified to a second incident which oc-
curred some 2 weeks later. According to his lestimony, he
was working in the shop with another employee, Richard
Hamacher, and overheard Rock and Lake talking outside
the door of the shop. His testimony is as follows:
A. I just overheard Rock say to fire them both.
There were no names mentioned. Then a little bit later
Jim came in the shop and talked to Dick and I for a
minute and said that he was to go up {ostensibly to the
Lime Creek jobsite] and fire Leigh and Ernie but-
JUDGE GILBERT (interrupting): Who is Leigh?
THE WITNESS Leigh Fairchild.
A. (Continuing)-that he wouldn't fire them. He
would just lay it on th e line about the union activities
and if they didn't like it they could just get their stuff
out of the truck and get into the pick-up and he would
bring them to town.
Although Rock and Lake denied making the statements
attributed to them and Hamacher corroborated their testi-
mony, nevertheless Hoekema's testimony is credited. He
was a more convincing witness than were Rock, Lake, and
Hamacher.
Based upon the above-credited testimony of Hoekema, it
is concluded that Respondent was guilty of a threat of eco-
nomic reprisal for engaging in union activity in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In mid-September 1972, Lake admittedly had a conversa-
tion with Fairchild and Olson at the Lime-Creek site. Fair-
child testified that Lake came up to him and initiated the
conversation by asking him what he "thought of this union
coming in." Fairchild's testimony 4 as to the rest of the
conversation is as follows:
A. Then I said I was all for it and he asked me why.
I told him it was mostly because of the insurance and
the seniority that we had there and we discussed the
insurance and he asked me why I wasn't satisfied with
the insurance. I told him because the last baby my wife
had came $700 short of covering it. Mr. Olson came
then. Mr. Olson was setting up his truck to be reloaded.
He came up. I don't recall what his first words to Ernie
were at the time, but he asked -Ernie what he wanted.
JUDGE GILBERT He asked what?
THE WITNEss He asked Mr. Olson what he wanted
out of the union, why he wanted the union in. One of
the reasons was he wasn't able to get any insurance, he
wanted the health insurance, better retirement and sen-
iority.
Q. (By Mr. Janowitz) Continue.
A. Then he asked him about the differential be-
tween the chip truck drivers and the logging truckdriv-
ers pay scale. Mr. Lake explained why we weren't
4 Olson also testified to that part of the conversation in which he partici-
pated and, while there are some variations in his testimony from that of
Fairchild, in substance it corroborates that of Fairchild
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
allowed the extra amount of money. Then Mr. Lake
said if the union did get in that the trucks would be
taken down to Coeur d'Alene and put behind the fence
and we could just stand there and look at them.
*
A. Well, we talked about it for a few more minutes.
Mr. Lake then indicated although he wouldn't take the
trucks in, that our hours would be cut down to eight
hours a day and we would have to drive them back and
forth on our time. If we had a breakdown, we would
have to sit down and wait for a mechanic to come fix
it on our own time.
Q. Up to that point, about how many hours had you
been working a day as a shuttle truck driver?
A. I suppose an average would have been 15. I
worked as few as 12 and as many as 17.
Based upon the above-credited testimony, it is concluded
that Respondent through the conduct of Lake engaged in
unlawful interrogation and in threats of economic reprisal
for union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Truckdriver James Shepphard testified to a conversation
he had with Lake at the Lime Creek site in mid -September.
His credited testimony with respect - thereto is as follows:
A. Well, I had just gotten my preload on and had
started down the hill. As I came to the curve, Jim's
pickup was sitting there . He got out and flagged me
down, stepped up on the running board. I stopped and
he stepped up on the running board. He says, "What
do you think about this bull shit?" I said, "What are
you referring to?" He says, "There is talk and rumors
of this union up here and that is going on ." I said, "I
don't know : I am not 100 per cent union , but I am not
against it. I belonged to 370 of the Operating Engineers
and I wouldn 't buck a union coming in."
He asked me what I was concerned of and things like
this and I said I felt we should have better insurance
and things of this nature or a pension. I said some of
the men had talked of the price differential between the
chip truck and the logging truck scale.
JUDGE Gn.BERT: Anything else? Is that the extent of
the conversation?
THE WrrNESs• That is the extent of the conversation
as I recall it:
Q. (By Mr. Janowitz) Do you recall him mentioning
Mr. Favor's name?
A. Well, he did state the fact if the union did come
in that they would take the trucks and park them inside
the fence at Coeur d'Alene and button them up there
or send the trucks to Superior and tell us our jobs were
there whether we liked it or not. He also remarked that
"Big" Olson and Fairchild were the ones that were
complaining the most about this union deal, to get the
union in, and they was getting the most hours of any-
body. They could cut the trucks back to eight hours
and run two shifts and run the loader operator straight
through and put two more drivers on and knock it off
at eight hours for each one of them fellows along with
two other fellows.
Q. You are or he was referring to Olson and Fair-
child being shuttle truck drivers, is that correct?
A. Right, shuttling logs to where we picked them up.
Q. And the statement where you referred to other
trucks working the same hours, would you explain
what you meant by that?
A. Well, two other truck drivers would have been
shuttle truck operators to break down this 16 hours and
17 hours that Ernie and Fairchild were getting. They
would break it down into two shorter shifts and make
it a shorter shift apiece for four drivers . Four men
would work rather than two.
He asked me how I thought these guys would like,
that and I said I didn't know.
Based upon the above-credited testimony of Shepphard,
it is concluded that the Respondent through the conduct of
Lake engaged in' unlawful interrogation and in threats of
economic reprisal for engaging in union activity in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Lawrence Brisboy, a truckdriver, testified to a conversa-
tion he had with Lake at the Lime Creek site apparently
immediately after Lake's conversation with Shepphard. Ac-
cording to Brisboy's testimony, Lake asked him how he felt
about the Union; he said he was "all for it"; and Lake stated
to him that "if the union did go in that the job would be shut
down or if this job wasn't shut down that all our overtime
would be taken off and it would be strictly eight hours."
Based upon the above-credited testimony of Brisboy, it is
concluded that Respondent by the conduct of Lake engaged
in unlawful interrogation and threats of economic reprisal
for union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Truckdriver William Westover testified to a conversation
he had with Lake in mid-September in front of the truck
shop at Albeni Falls. His testimony as to their conversation
is as follows:
A. Well, I drove my truck up to the shop and I got
out and Mr. Lake came up to me and asked me how
I stood on this union kick that was going around. I told
him I wasn't against organized labor and never had
been. He said, "That isn't what I asked you. I asked you
how you stood on this union?"
A. He told me if this union went in that they would
take them trucks over to Coeur d'Alene, park them
inside the fence or they could possibly sell them. I told
him that they could do what they wanted with the
trucks. They were their trucks. That was about the
extent of the conversation.
Q. Do you recall him making any reference to shut-
tle truck drivers?
A. Yes, he told me he could take the shuttle truck
drivers and cut them to eight hours a day and put two
more drivers on and make two shifts out of it.
Based upon the above -credited testimony of Westover it
is concluded that the Respondent through the conduct of
Lake engaged in unlawful interrogation and threats of eco-
nomic reprisal for union activity in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL CORP. 831
Truckdriver Edwin Young testified to two conversations
he had with Lake about the Union, the first in the second
week of September and the second about the middle of
September. Based upon Young's credited testimony, it is
found that in the first conversation Lake asked him what his
opinion was of the Union and in the second conversation
Lake stated that if the Union came in there would be no
need for any trucks, that they would be "parked inside the
fence."
Based upon the above-credited testimony of Young, it is
concluded that Respondent through the conduct of Lake
engaged in unlawful interrogation and threatened economic
reprisal for union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
Conduct of Perin
Brisboy and Eddie Perin, a supervisor, testified to a brief
conversation they had at midnight on or about October 14,
1972, in a hotel bar. It appears from their testimony that an
employee by the name of Gary Altmaier was present. Bris-
boy testified to their conversation as follows:
What I can mainly recall is Ed Perin was standing there
and he said that the job would be shut down if the
union came in, this job would be shut down and they
would take our hours away from us and have no over-
time. It would be strictly eight hours if they didn't shut
the job down. It was more or less things like that.
In his testimony Perin denied making the statements which
Brisboy attributed to him. None of the parties called Alt-
maier as a witness. It appears that both Brisboy and Perin
had been drinking during the course of the evening and I
am of the opinion that in the circumstances the recollection
of neither of them can be considered to be reliable. There-
fore, it is impossible to ascertain what was or was not said
by Perin.
Consequently, it is concluded that General Counsel has
failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 7 of the com-
plaint by a preponderance of the evidence. Editorial "El
Impartial", Inc., 131 NLRB 223, fn 1.5
Olson's Termination
As stated hereinabove the Albeni Falls logging operations
moved to the Goose-Independence Creek site on or about
October 20, 1972. Olson's work with respect to that jobsite
was that of transporting logs from the jobsite to the Alberti
Falls plant. Olson testified that on the night of October 24,
he discovered when he arrived at the plant at 9 p.m., that
he had a flat tire on the inside right rear driver wheel (there
being dual wheels on the truck); that he had not been aware
of the tire's condition prior thereto. He unloaded his truck,
drove it to the shop, and changed the tire. He further testi-
fied that he checked his load and tires at various times on
the route from the logging site and that the last check,was
made approximately 40 miles from the plant when he en-
tered upon that stretch of the road which had a hard-top.
It appears that the checking of loads and tires was left up
to the discretion of the individual driver.
Lake testified that during the following day, October 25,
he discovered that Olson had had a flat tire the previous
night; that he broke down the tire and noticed that the tube
was shredded; that he then called the supervisor, Rock, at
the Coeur d'Alene plant; that Rock was in the office of
Frank Favor, Timber Lands manager for Respondent's
northwest division, and Rock suggested to him that he talk
to the "boss" after he had told Rock that he had had a tire
run flat and the condition it was in. Lake further testified
that he told Favor that a tire "had been run excessive miles
flat" and of the condition of the tire and recommended that
"we should do something"; that Favor told him to issue a
written reprimand to the driver; that he asked Favor what
he should do if the driver would not sign the written repri-
mand; that Favor told him to suspend the driver for 5 days;
that he then asked Favor what to do if he would not accept
the 5 day suspension and Favor told him to terminate the
driver. Both Lake and Favor testified that Lake did not
mention the name of the driver.
Lake then went to the milling plant and obtained a book
of "pink slips" which were used for reprimands at the mill,
but which had not been previously used, for the logging
operations. Lake wrote on the warning notice as follows
with respect to the nature of the violations: "Run tire flat
untill [sic] tube was Shredded truck was on Goose Indapen-
dence [sic] Haul to Albeni falls". Lake further testified that
he met Olson at the plant after Olson's last run of the day
on October 25, presented him with the pink slip, and told
him to sign it; that Olson refused to do so and that he then
told Olson that he would be suspended for 5 days; that
Olson said he would not take the suspension and he then
told Olson that he was fired.6
The main thrust of Respondent's argument that Olson's
discharge was not discriminatorily motivated appears to be
that Lake was convinced that Olson had deliberately driven
his truck with a flat tire; that he consulted his superiors as
to what he should do about it; and that Olson had "talked
himself" into being discharged because he refused to accept
the written reprimand.
Considerable testimony was introduced into the record as
to whether or not Olson should have detected his flat tire
before he arrived at the plant. Respondent's counsel made
a particular point of introducing evidence that the inner
right rear tire can be observed while driving, even at night.
It appears that there is a light which is fixed on the rear. of
the cab about 8 feet above the ground. It faces toward the
trailer and is apparently primarily employed to aid in link-
ing the trailer to the truck. However, the light is not turned
on while the driver is enroute and, therefore, it would be of
no aid in detecting whether there was a flat unless there was
some reason to suspect that a flat existed., Olson credibly
testified that due to the peculiarities of the truck's vibrations
and the condition of the road he did not suspect that he had
a flat tire. It appears from the record that it is quite common
for drivers to arrive at the plant and discover that they had
6 Olson testified, which testimony is credited, that when Lake handed him
s It is noted that, even if it were to be found that the allegation had been the pink slip Lake told him he was suspended for 5 days for the flat tire and
sustained, it would add nothing to the remedy which will be recommended that when he refused to accept the suspension Lake told him he was terminat-
in this proceeding. ed.
832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been driving with a flat tire.
Lake's testimony as to why he was certain that Olson had
been deliberately driving on a flat tire was unconvincing. It
is noted that, although the tube was shredded, the tire was
reusable. Also, Lake's testimony as to why he consulted his
superiors as to what he should do about the flat tire was
likewise unconvincing. It appears that flat tires were very
common and that, while some drivers were orally repri-
manded for driving on flat tires, there is no credible evi-
dence that Lake ever consulted his superiors as to what he
should do in such cases. The testimony of Favor and Lake
that when Lake reported a flat tire no mention was made
of the name of the driver is not credited. Olson was an
experienced truckdriver and had worked for Respondent
for well over a year without any complaints or reprimands,
and it is deemed implausible that management personnel in
considering what disciplinary action should be taken
against an employee would give no consideration to the
identity of the employee or his past performance.
It is noted that Lake made no effort to obtain an explana-
tion from Olson why the tube was shredded. It is also noted
that the replacement value of the tube only amounted to
$12. In these and attendant circumstances, it is concluded
that Lake was moved to consult his superiors about Olson's
flat tire because he knew they were disturbed about Olson's
activities on behalf of the Union; that the disciplinary ac-
tion that Favor decided to take against Olson was in reprisal
for his union activity and that the flat tire was only a pretext
for invoking such action. It appears that management antic-
ipated that Olson would rebel against the disciplinary action
of a written reprimand and suspension and would afford
them the opportunity of invoking the greater disciplinary
action of termination. As noted hereinabove, a written rep-
rimand had not been utilized previously in the logging oper-
ations and the disciplinary action of suspension was most
unusual and apparently had never been employed against
a driver for having had a flat tire.
Thus, in view of all the circumstances in this proceeding,
including Respondent's evident union animus and its belief
that Olson was one of the leaders, if not the leader, of the
employees in organizing for the Union,' it is concluded that
the written reprimand, suspension and the subsequent ter-
mination of Olson were motivated primarily by his union
activity and, therefore, violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act. State Stove & Mfg. Co., Inc., 164 NLRD 84.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent set forth in
section III, above, occurring in connection with its opera-
tions set forth 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 burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
7 According to Lake's testimony, Rock told him (apparently in September
1972) that "the shuttle truckers was pushing it [the Union]" and, as noted
hereinabove, Olson was one of the two shuttle truckdrivers.
V. THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor prac-
tices found herein and take certain affirmative action, as
provided in the recommended Order below, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Ernest Olson, it will be recommended that Re-
spondent be ordered to offer him immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job, or, if his job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges. It will be further
recommended that Respondent be ordered to reimburse
him for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of
his discriminatory discharge in the manner set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-293, togeth-
er with 6 percent interest thereon in accordance with Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Diamond International Corporation is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by issuing a written reprimand to Ernest Olson on October
25, 1972, and suspending him for 5 days.
4. Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by discharging Ernest Olson on October 25, 1972.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the
following conduct:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating Clyde Hoekema in late Au-
gust or early September 1972.
(b) Threatening economic reprisal for union activity in
the presence of employees Hoekema and Richard Hamach-
er in mid-September 1972.
(c) Unlawfully interrogating Arthur Leigh Fairchild and
Olson in mid-September 1972 and threatening economic
reprisal for union activity.
(d) Unlawfully interrogating James Shepphard in mid-
September 1972 and threatening economic reprisal for en-
gaging in union activity.
(e) Unlawfully interrogating Lawrence Brisboy in mid-
September 1972 and threatening economic reprisal for
union activity.
(f) Unlawfully interrogating William Westover in mid-
September 1972 and threatening economic reprisal for
union activity.
(g) Unlawfully interrogating Edwin Young in early Sep-
tember 1972 and threatening economic reprisal in mid-Sep-
tember 1972 for union activity.
6. General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponder-
ance of the evidence the allegation in paragraph 7 of the
complaint that the Respondent engaged in conduct viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on or about October 14,
1972, through the conduct of Supervisor Eddie Perin.
DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL CORP.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:8
ORDER
Respondent, Diamond International Corporation , its of-
ficers, agents , successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Western States Region-
al Council No . 3, Local 3-10, IWA, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization , by discriminating against its employees
in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
(b) Unlawfully interrogating employees with respect to
their activities , or the activities of their fellow employees, on
behalf of the aforesaid Union or on behalf of any other
labor organization.
(c) Threatening employees with economic reprisal for en-
gaging in such activities.
(d) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights under Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Ernest Olson immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job, or, if his job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privilieges.
(b) Make Olson whole for any loss of pay suffered by him
by reason of his discriminatory discharge in the manner set
forth in the section hereinabove entitled "The Remedy."
(e) Upon request , make available to the Board or its
agents for examination and copying all payroll and other
records containing information concerning its backpay
obligation under this recommended Order.
(d) Post at its office in Albeni Falls, Idaho , copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix ."9 Copies of said notice,
on forms furnished by the Regional Director for Region 19,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of
Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all, places where notices to employees engaged in the
logging operations at Albeni Falls, Idaho , are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
8In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
9 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of The
National Labor Relations Board."
833
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any'other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Paragraph 7 of the complaint which has been found not
to have been sustained should be, and is hereby, dismissed.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Western
States Regional Council No. 3, Local 3-10, IWA,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discri-
minating against our employees in regard to hire and
tenure of employment or any other term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees with
respect to their activities, or activities of their fellow
employees, on behalf of the aforesaid Union or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT' threaten our employees with economic
reprisal for engaging in such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights
under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Ernest Olson immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job, or, if his job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges
and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by
him as a result of his discriminatory discharge.
DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL COR-
PORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is aii official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the, date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 10th Floor, Republic Building,
1511 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington,'98101, Telephone
206-442-7472.