James Ray Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 31 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

JAMES RAY CO.
James Ray Company, Inc. and Glaziers Local No.
558, affiliated with Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators and Paperhangers of America,
AFL-CIO and United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, Local Union
No. 201, Party to Contract
James Ray Company, Inc. and Thomas Hallacy.
Cases 17-CA-3573 and 17-CA-3608
May 21, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On December 9, 1968, Trial Examiner Sidney J.
Barban issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommended that the
complaint be dismissed as to those allegations.
Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and briefs in support thereof. The Respondent, in
addition, filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in 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, briefs, and
answering brief of the Respondent, and the entire
record in this case , and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.'
'The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility resolutions made by
the Trial Examiner . It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule a
Trial Examiner 's resolutions as to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are
incorrect . Such a conclusion is not warranted here . Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3).
The Respondent contends that since Mr . and Mrs. Ray were on vacation
away from the plant between May 8 and 22, they did not learn of Beltz'
interim activities on behalf of the Glaziers until May 25, 2 days after Beltz
was discharged . Like the Trial Examiner , who discredited the Respondent's
denials of knowledge with respect to Beltz ' union activities , we find no
merit in this contention . Rather we note that the Trial Examiner 's findings
in this regard are buttressed by Ray's admission that, although absent
from the plant , "We called the office periodically to keep abreast of what
was going on." Ray's testimony was corroborated both by Mrs. Ray and
by James Ray, Jr.
ORDER
31
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, as
modified below, and hereby orders that " the
Respondent, James Ray Company, Inc., Wichita,
Kansas , its officers, agents , successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein
modified:
Add the following as the last indented paragraph
of the notice:
WE WILL notify the above-named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of his right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting in part:
In my view, Ray discharged Hallacy for asserting
protected rights under the operative contract and
not for the reasons claimed by the Respondent.' I
would find, therefore, that Hallacy's discharge
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
'Cf. Thor Power Tool Company, 148 NLRB 1379 (1 dissented on other
grounds).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These matters were heard before Trial Examiner Sidney
J. Barban at Wichita, Kansas, on August 28 and 29, 1968,
upon a consolidated complaint issued on July 25, 1968,
based upon charges filed on May 27, and July 8, 1968,
alleging that the above-named Respondent had violated
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
Respondent's answer to the complaint, as amended,
admitted allegations in the complaint sufficient to justify
the assertion of jurisdiction under current standards of the
Board, and to support findings that the Charging Party in
Case 17-CA-3573 (herein called the Glaziers), and the
Party to Contract in that case (herein called Carpenters
Local 201 or Local 201) are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act. The answer denies the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record in this case,' from observation
of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs
filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Facts
A. Respondent's Relationships with the Carpenters
The Respondent, located at Wichita, Kansas, fabricates
and installs sliding glass doors, principally as part of the
'Certain errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
176 NRLB No. 2
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
construction industry. It is owned by James Ray (herein
called Ray) and his wife. They are assisted in the
operation of the business by their son, James Ray, Jr.,
(herein called James Ray) and by a shop foreman,
Richard Parsons . In addition , at times material herein,
Respondent employed a small work force , consisting of
two to three full time workmen and one part time worker.
In early 1967, when Respondent's nonsupervisory work
force consisted of Robert Beltz , Thomas Hallacy, and
part-time worker Paul Powers , a business representative
of the Glaziers, Jack Zander, attempted to organize the
employees . Beltz , who is alleged to have been
discriminatorily discharged thereafter, was active in this
effort. After Zander talked to the employees, they spoke
to Ray about this. Ray told them that he did not favor
their affiliation with the Glaziers, because he thought that
this would "take the personal ownership out of his
business and he didn't like anyone running his business."
The employees decided to accede to Ray's wishes and
continue without the Glaziers.
Shortly thereafter, Ray was advised that Respondent
would not be permitted to complete work on a project in
Topeka, Kansas, unless union men were furnished for the
work. Ray thereupon met with a business representative of
Carpenters Local 1445 in Topeka and agreed to sign a
collective-bargaining contract with that union . Though
Respondent thereafter signed the agreement, Ray testified
that the business representative of Local 1445 told him
that it was not necessary to apply the economic terms of
that contract to his employees (assertedly on the basis that
Respondent's current conditions of employment were
equivalent to the contract terms ), and Respondent did not
apply those contract terms to the employees.
After meeting with the business representative of Local
1445, Ray met with Beltz and Hallacy, explained the
necessity of having union workmen on the Topeka job and
advised that he had made arrangements for them to be
sworn in as members of that union. When the two
employees objected to this procedure, Ray pressed them
to accede to his desires, advised that they "would not be
sorry," if they did so, and told them that he would give
them a check in payment of their initiation fees and dues
to take to the union. Both men agreed that they would
join the union as Ray requested.
Thereafter, both Hallacy and Beltz went to the offices
of Local 1445, in Topeka, and delivered Respondent's
check, in the approximate amount of $280, in payment of
their initiation fees and 1 month's dues. They were given
work permits and told to return to be sworn in as union
members . Neither man was sworn in, however, although
they completed the Topeka job.
Beltz and Hallacy were engaged in another job, this
time in Wichita, Kansas, when Hastings , the business
agent of Carpenters Local 201, of Wichita, enquired as to
their union status. When Ray claimed that the men were
members of Carpenters Local 1445, at Topeka, Hastings
ascertained that the two had never been sworn in as
members , and were in arrears in dues . He advised Ray
that if the two men were initiated into membership, and if
their back dues were paid to Local 1445, their
membership could be transferred after 60 days to Local
201, without the necessity of again paying initiation fees
for them. On January 26, 1968, Respondent signed a
collective -bargaining contract with Carpenters Local 201,
although, as in the case of the previous contract with
Carpenters Local 1445, Respondent did not apply its
terms to the employees covered. Ray testified that
Hastings , like the business agent in Topeka, agreed with
Ray that it would not be necessary for him to do so. It
appears that Hastings is deceased . There is no indication
as to the availability of the business representative of
Carpenters Local 1445, who was not called as a witness.
Pursuant to his understanding with Hastings , Ray made
out a check to the order of Carpenters Local 1445, for the
amount of dues required to bring the two, men into good
standing , and gave it to Hastings to be forwarded. Ray
also urged Hallacy and Beltz to become initiated into
membership by Carpenters Local 201. Both of the men
resisted, on the basis that they had received no benefit
from the contract with the Topeka union. Ray asserted
that they should do as he requested for the best interests
of Respondent. It appears that there was a somewhat
acrimonious discussion between Ray and Hallacy as to
whether the latter would receive the benefits of the terms
of the contract with Local 201. However, although it
appears that Ray resisted Hallacy 's request for assurance
that the contract would apply, Hallacy agrees that Ray
advised him , at some point in their conversations , that he
could have the benefit of the terms of the contract, or
could continue under Respondent ' s past policies, as he
chose, but could not have both. Hallacy told Ray that he
would join Local 201, as Ray wished, and would try to get
Beltz to join also. When Hallacy did thereafter "join the
union," Hastings told him that he was covered by the
collective-bargaining contract. Though there is some
dispute as to whether Hallacy ever unequivocally advised
Respondent that he wanted to receive the benefits of the
contract , it is not essential to the decision of the issues
herein that this be determined. In any event, Hallacy was
not paid in accordance with the provisions of the contract
during the period after he joined Carpenters Local 201
until his discharge 3 weeks later.
B. Thomas Hallacy's Discharge
Hallacy, at the time of his discharge, had been
employed by the Respondent for more than 5 years
(except for a brief period in early 1967 when he quit).
Prior to his discharge , Hallacy and Robert Beltz were
engaged principally in the installation of Respondent's
work in various construction projects. There seems to be
no question but that Hallacy was a good workman who
was well liked by the Respondent, although there had
been some previous disagreements between Hallacy and
Ray. In fact, it was testified that Ray had, on several
occasions, advised Hallacy that Ray considered him like a
son, and Mrs. Ray asserted on the witness stand that,
notwithstanding his discharge, she continued to have a
very warm, devoted regard for Hallacy.
After Hallacy "joined the union," it appears that he
made quite a point of advising the other employees of the
contract between Carpenters Local 201 and the
Respondent , and, in particular , those provisions in the
agreement which provide (G. C. Exh. 2, pp. 3 and 8) that
when two men work on a job together, a journeyman shall
be foreman and receive a rate 37 1/2 cents above the
regular rate . Hallacy told the other men that when two of
them were on the same job, he would be the foreman. He
states that he said this would be the case on "union jobs,"
and further that the subject was the cause of considerable
joking among the men. I find this credible. Although it
appears that these remarks to employees who were with
him on jobs during this period , which were nonunion, it
does not appear that Hallacy was claiming the
prerogatives of a foreman on those jobs.
JAMES RAY CO. 33
Hallacy ' s comments to the other employees were
quickly brought to Ray's attention by foreman Parsons
and others. Ray states that he confirmed the reports by
calling in employee Bell. Though Bell did not recall this,
he testified to another occasion, 2 or 3 days before
Hallacy's discharge, when Ray called Bell into the office
and advised him that there were going to be some changes
made; that Bell should not be concerned about them; and
that Bell was doing a good job, which Respondent
appreciated.
During the morning of January 29, 1968, Ray called
the employees together in the shop. According to Bell's
testimony, which is credited, Ray "said he wanted to
straighten a few things out, that he was the boss of the
organization and that we did not have people over people
out on the job. As long as he owned the company and
maintained the company, he was going to be the boss and
he turned around and went back into the office ." It seems
clear that on this occasion, Ray did not mention any
names , or refer to wage rates , or to the reports which he
had heard.
According to Ray, after his meeting with the
employees, the following occurred:
And I turned around and went into the office. And a
couple of minutes later Tom [Hallacy] came in and
said , "I think we have a few things to discuss." And I
said, "No, Tom, we don't have anything to discuss."
And he says, "I think we have." And I said , "No, we
don't." And he said, "Well," he said, "We have to get
some things straightened out." He said, "I am the boss
on the job when anybody works with me." And I said,
"No, you are not either." And he says, "Well, I
better," he said, "I have the book here." And I said, "I
know what is in the book."'
He said when anybody worked with him, because he
was the union man, that he was the boss , and I said,
"Well, you are not the boss and you are not going to
be the boss over any man." And I said, "I know what I
am talking about." And one word led to another, and
he told me that I couldn't fire him. Up to that time I
had no intention [of firing Hallacyl until he became
defiant and when he told me that I couldn't fire him, I
said, "I can fire you and you are fired right now."'
Ray states that both were angry and had further words
after this. In effect, Ray claims that Hallacy resisted
Ray's demands that he leave Respondent's shop, and that
Ray threatened finally to call the police before Hallacy
departed.
Hallacy's version of the incident is somewhat different:
He states that following Ray's meeting with the
employees, "After a few minutes I went into the office to
discuss this matter because I felt it was directed at me...
. I asked Mr. Ray if he would like to discuss the matter.
He said no, he knew what I was trying to do with him
'Ray agreed that this had reference to the "Constitution and by-laws of
the union," "the wage scale and so on ." However , Ray thereafter testified
that he was not familiar with "the by-laws and working rules of the
union," and specifically denied that he told Hallacy that "I knew what was
in that book ," adding , "I know about who was supposed to be the boss,
and so forth, because that had been previously discussed with Mr . Hastings
about who was to be the foreman on the job."
'At another point, Ray described the incident briefly : "He came in and
was real belligerent when he came in and that was the reason I said I had
nothing to talk about because I didn't want to get involved with it. I
wanted him to understand what the situation was and as far as I was
concerned that was the end. He made the statement that I couldn't fire
him, that he had his union rights and when he told me I couldn ' t fire him,
I said, 'You are fired right now."'
and he was through with me. . . . I was in the office. I
asked Mr. Ray if he would like to discuss this matter. He
said that no, he didn't want to discuss it, that I was
through. . . . I told Mr. Ray that he couldn't fire me
under these conditions. He said, `Well, we will show you,'
and then he ordered me out of the office and the shop...."
Hallacy agreed that he was reluctant to leave, stating
that he was attempting to reason with Ray about the
matter. Hallacy also confirmed that Ray threatened to
call the police before he left. He also asserts that he did
not raise his voice to Ray in this conversation. General
Counsel's witness Bell, however, agreed that both men
appeared visibly upset after they came out of Ray's office
and that "the voices were pretty high."
Hastings protested the discharge to Ray, and,
accompanied by Hallacy, met with Ray, his wife and son
that afternoon to discuss the matter. Only Ray and
Hallacy testified in this proceeding with respect to the
discussion. On the basis of their testimony it is clear that
Ray claimed that he had fired Hallacy for
insubordination, asserting that Hallacy had said Ray
could not fire him. Ray also asserted previous difficulties
with Hallacy. According to Ray, Hastings confirmed that
he had previously agreed, because of the Respondent's
small size, that Ray should be considered the foreman on
the job under the contract, though Hallacy had not been
told of this.
Ray further indicated in his testimony that Hastings
finally approved of his action in discharging Hallacy and
only reluctantly said a hearing would be necessary.'
Hallacy, however, testified that, while Hastings agreed
that Ray would have been justified in discharging Hallacy
if the latter had denied Ray's authority to fire him,
Hastings did not agree that Hallacy had done so, or that
Ray's action was valid. Hallacy's testimony in this respect
is credited. While I have certain doubts concerning the
reliability of both witnesses, in this instance Hallacy's
account not only appears more straightforward, but more
probable in the circumstances. Ray's version, on the other
hand, asserting that Hastings had approved of his action
in discharging Hallacy, is clearly an interpretative, rather
self-serving conclusion as to Hasting 's position. I further
credit Hallacy's testimony that Hastings eventually
persuaded him to drop the matter by advising Hallacy
that he could get the latter better employment.
C. Robert Beltz' Discharge
Beltz was employed by the Respondent for a number of
years almost exclusively as an outside installer of doors
fabricated by Respondent, and was considered an excellent
workman. According to Beltz' uncontradicted testimony,
Ray told Beltz that he was the best installer Respondent
ever had, and could work for Respondent as long as he
wanted . James Ray referred to Beltz as "an excellent
performer, an outstanding workman." Beltz is hard of
hearing (he wore a hearing aid at the hearing), and there
seems to be no question but that Beltz had had a series of
conflicts with others in Respondent's organization. Beltz
admitted that he had not spoken to part-time employee
Powers for a period in the latter part of 1967, but had
thereafter resumed talking to him after Ray told him that
'In relevant part, Ray's testimony was as follows : "Q. Did Mr. Hastings
ever agree with you finally as to whether or not you should have fired Mr.
Hallacy? A. Yes. He told Tom that he could be fired for insubordination
and upheld my right to fire him, and Tom didn't quite agree with it and
Mr. Hastings said that it could be tried before a Board."
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this was not a proper way to act. Beltz also admitted that
in the period 4 to 6 weeks before his discharge , he had a
dispute with Foreman Parsons in which he had promised
to give Parsons a beating.
Beltz , however , credibly denied that he had given
employee Sponsel , rehired by Respondent to replace
Hallacy in 1968 , "the silent treatment ," or had any
particular controversy with him. Sponsel's testimony to
the contrary is not credited . I am satisfied from Hallacy's
credited testimony that Sponsel harbored a preexisting
dislike for Beltz . About a week after Sponsel was rehired,
he did go to the Rays' home to complain about Bell and
Beltz,' during the course of which Sponsel reported what
he had heard of the union activities of Beltz and Hallacy.
It is also clear that , several weeks before his discharge,
Mrs. Ray thought that Beltz was refusing to speak to her,
and complained about this to Ray , who cautioned Beltz
concerning this . Beltz , on his part , denies that he
deliberately avoided speaking to Mrs. Ray.
Finally, Shop Foreman Parsons asserted that Beltz had
given him considerable difficulty with respect to
assignments of work , and that he (Parsons ) had on a
number of occasions recommended to Ray that Beltz be
discharged . Beltz admitted that Ray had reprimanded him
a number of times about various problems he was having.
As has been noted above, Beltz had been active in the
abortive attempt of the Glaziers to organize Respondent's
employees in early 1967. On June 14, 1967, a Wednesday,
Beltz, upset over a report that Powers was being paid a
higher rate than he and disturbed because he felt that
Parsons would not properly advise him in respect to a job
assignment, quit his job without notice or explanation. At
his wife' s insistence , he returned to the plant to give Ray
an explanation for his conduct.
During this conversation , one of the Rays told Beltz
that he seemed to think he had them "over a barrel"
because of the then current Topeka job. Mrs. Ray said
that this was "just a conspiracy with the union ." Beltz
replied that this was "silly," that the men could have
voted the union in if they had wanted, and offered to go
back to Topeka and finish the job there without cost to
Respondent, to show that he did not have them "over a
barrel." Ray told Beltz to forget it, that he would
continue on the payroll , and should return to work. It
would appear that Mrs. Ray thereafter continued to have
some resentment over the manner of Beltz ' return to
work, but, in Beltz ' words, "Mr. Ray cooled this off,"
and he continued in Respondent ' s employ.
About this time , also, according to Beltz'
uncontradicted testimony, Mrs. Ray told the men in the
shop that "there will never be a union in this shop. I'll
lock the door and throw away the keys, we'll sell it."
In February 1968, Beltz was admitted into the hospital
for minor surgery , which was expected to keep him from
work for only one day. Because of complications, Beltz
did not return until 10 calendar days later. This extended
'The record gives evidence that there was substantial resentment among
the men with respect to Parsons and Powers , and, in particular, in regard
to a supposed personal friendship between them. There is also evidence
that in the past there had been complaints that Parsons had favored Boltz
over Hallacy, and vice versa , in making assignments of work.
'The content of this complaint is not clear . Ray stated that Sponsel said
Bell and Boltz wouldn 't talk to him . Though on cross examination Sponsel
agreed with this, on direct examination and in answer to a query of the
Trial Examiner , he made no mention of it . He also admitted that Boltz
talked to him about a union during this period . Bell admitted that he did
not talk to Sponsel at this time.
absence apparently was the cause of some resentment on
the part of the Rays. Though Respondent had an
established practice of paying employees for the days lost
at work , according to the testimony of Ray, on this
occasion , Mrs. Ray argued , in what Ray described as
"heated discussions," that Beltz should not be paid
because he was "resting" in the hospital . It was decided
that he should be paid, nevertheless. Shortly thereafter,
however, when Beltz was given another day to go to the
hospital for treatment , after further discussion with Mrs.
Ray, Ray determined that Beltz should be docked for the
day. When Beltz heard of this, he told the office girl, in
rather sharp language , that he would expect to be paid for
his overtime , if he was to be docked for his absence.
When Ray heard of this, he called Beltz into his office
and reprimanded him for bringing his overtime complaint
to the office girl, and admonished him that if he continued
with such statements (which Ray interpreted as
threatening ), Ray would " let [him] go."
Shortly after his extended stay in the hospital, in
February, Beltz made a claim under hospitalization
insurance carried by Respondent for its employees. After
this claim was paid , Beltz had occasion to talk to the
insurance agent , during which conversation , he complained
about the inadequacy of the insurance payments in
covering his expenses . The agent advised Beltz to file a
claim under another policy carried by Respondent for its
employees which paid for loss of time after 7 calendar
days, and, in fact , left a claim form at Respondent 's office
for Beltz.' Beltz filled out the form and left it in
Respondent' s office in early May. James Ray, according
to his testimony, took the form in to his father 2 or 3
days later, at the first "convenient opportunity," and
directed his attention to "what Bob has done." Ray's
testimony, on the other hand, indicates that it was he who
brought the matter to the attention of his son. According
to the testimony of Ray and his son, the two of them
agreed that this was a "fraudulent claim" (because
Respondent had paid Beltz for the time he was in the
hospital), and Ray instructed that during the Rays'
forthcoming vacation , James Ray should seek a
replacement for Beltz , so that he could be discharged
upon Ray's return. James Ray also asserted that he had
previously recommended Beltz ' discharge.
While Mr. and Mrs . Ray were absent, Beltz was again
in contact with Zander , the business representative of the
Glaziers . Both Beltz and employee Bell met with Zander
and signed authorization cards for the Glaziers . Beltz also
spoke to Foreman Parsons about affiliating with the
Glaziers, advising him that both Beltz and Bell had signed
cards favoring that union , and sought to have him meet
with Zander. Beltz told Bell of this conversation , stating
that Parsons had agreed to meet with Zander. Thereafter,
a few days before Beltz ' discharge , according to Bell, he
had the following conversation with Parsons : "Well, I
believe I was packing a door, shipping a door out and he
was rescreening it, and he said , ` I hear you are a union
man.' I said, 'No, not really,' and he said, `Well, I heard
you were.' [ I said ] I went down and talked to him and he
said something about the benefits . I said , `Yes, they have
pretty good benefits , retirement , hospitalization and
vacations .' I said what I was interested in was the
retirement and this was about the extent of it."
Parsons , who testified that he finally decided that he
'Indeed the insurance company, on the form which accompanied Boltz'
check in payment of his original claim (see G.C. Exh. 3) specifically
advised that such claim for loss of time benefits be made.
JAMES RAY CO.
"didn't want any part" of the Union, did not meet with
Zander, as Beltz had urged.
Mr. and Mrs. Ray returned from their vacation earlier
than originally expected. The night they returned, and
after talking to his parents, James Ray visited Cletus
Miller, whom employee Sponsel recommended, and
interviewed him for employment. James Ray testified that
he had made unsuccessful earlier attempts to secure a
replacement for Beltz. Miller, however, apparently agreed
that he would be willing to come to work for Respondent
after giving his present employer 2 weeks notice.
The next day, Thursday, May 23, 1968, Ray called
Beltz into his office and discharged him for filing a
"fraudulent" insurance claim. Beltz protested against this
accusation, and insisted that he had been instructed by the
insurance agent to file the claim, that he had not done so
on his own initiative.' During the course of the
conversation, Beltz asked for his check and was told to
have his wife come in on Monday for it. Ray also refused
to give Beltz a letter stating the reason for his discharge.
Both men were obviously upset. As Beltz left, according
to Beltz ' testimony, he told Ray, "You think you are
some kind of a god, but this is one time you are not
fooling with some kind of a kid." Beltz then took his
personal effects and went home.
Beltz' wife, who impressed the Trial Examiner at the
hearing as a sincere , composed, and rather level-headed
individual, was disturbed at his story, and immediately
called Respondent. Mrs. Ray confirmed that Beltz had
been fired for presenting a "fraudulent" insurance claim,
and that Mrs. Beltz should come in for his check.
The following day, Friday, May 24, 1968, Mrs. Beltz
went in to see Ray and his wife.' During the course of the
conversation, the Rays spoke to Mrs. Beltz of problems
and difficulties they had with with her husband in the
shop, and the fact that he had been reprimanded on a
number of occasions. It appears that there was also some
mention of difficulties which Mrs. Beltz, herself, had had
with her husband.1° Mrs. Beltz indicated that she thought
that her husband's attitude had improved over the past
year. The Rays told her that it had not, but had gotten
'Ray admitted, with an appearance of reluctance and some evasiveness,
that after Boltz was discharged , Ray contacted the insurance agent, who
confirmed that he had told Boltz to file the claim for loss of time benefits.
Ray also agreed that at the insistence of the insurance company , he finally
sent Boltz' claim in to be processed , and that it was finally paid in the sum
of $11.43.
'Inasmuch as the timing of this meeting is of some importance and the
evidence appears somewhat confusing , the matter has been considered with
care . Although Heitz was originally told to have his wife come in on
Monday to pick up his check, it is clear that Friday was the normal
payday. Though Mrs. Boltz first stated she went to Respondent 's shop on
Monday, she immediately corrected herself to state that the visit was on
Friday, "on the following day" after her husband's discharge . The record
shows that this was the understanding of counsel for the Respondent (tr. p.
100), the General Counsel (tr. p. 101) and the Trial Examiner (tr. p. 102).
No evidence to the contrary was adduced.
"Mrs. Boltz was also asked on cross examination if she had had
personal talks with her husband about difficulties with other employees at
work. It was ruled that this inquiry was subject to the marital privilege,
and that she had not waived the privilege by taking the witness stand.
Since the General Counsel acts in the public interest and not in the interest
of private persons or groups in the prosecution of these cases, see
Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co., 309 U.S.
261,262, 262, 265, it would tend to seriously impede the administration of
the act if witnesses , by cooperation with the government , were to lose
personal privileges thereby . In any event , Respondent established through
other testimony of. Mrs . Boltz and other witnesses that conflicts between
Heitz and other employees had in fact occurred , and were known to the
Respondent.
35
steadily worse. Mrs. Ray also made mention of her
complaint that Beltz had avoided speaking to her in the
plant.
After some discussion about her husband's paycheck,
Mrs. Beltz stated, "I was going to leave it at this and
leave, but [Mrs. Ray] immediately stopped me and asked
what I knew about how much trouble Bob was going to
cause them. I said I didn't know, I didn't know what she
was referring to and, of course, the conversation went on
to other things, an employer can fire an employee for any
reason he choses, or he lost his rights, or words to this
effect, and that they should have let Bob go when they let
Tom Hallacy go. I answered, `What ground would you let
him go?' She said, `Insubordination; each time he gets
with Jack Zander" there is trouble."' On cross
examination Mrs. Beltz repeated that Mrs. Ray, in their
conversation, had stated "that every time he was in the
company of Zander there was a problem and this was
when it was brought up."':
Concerning this conversation, Mrs. Ray testified that
Mrs. Beltz was told that Respondent had "put up with an
awful lot with Bob;" that the day Hallacy was discharged,
Beltz twice failed to answer her greeting of "good
morning ;" that the Rays spoke "of several incidents of
this that had gone on in the past, and we had just about
had it, really had it;" and that she reminded Mrs. Beltz of
the latter's call in June of the previous year, "when she
called and told me of meeting this Mr. Zander and Mr.
Beltz." According to Mrs. Ray this was the only
statement involving Zander's name during the
conversation. In response to a specific question, she
testified that during this conversation she "never
mentioned recent activity with Zander."" Mr. Ray was
not questioned concerning this conversation. However, the
testimony of Ray, his wife, and James Ray was to the
effect that at this time they did not know of Beltz' most
recent involvement with the Glaziers. The credibility issues
involved in these matters will be considered hereinafter.
On Thursday and Friday, after Beltz ' discharge,
employee Bell testified he felt an atmosphere of depression
and hostility toward himself, and on Friday evening he
sought permission to talk with the Rays at their home the
next day. Bell visited the Rays about lunch time on
Saturday. His account of the conversation, which is
undenied, reveals that he told the Rays that he wanted to
confess that he had talked to the "union man" and had
signed a card; that he would give 2 weeks notice, if they
"The transcript incorrectly reads "Jack Bell," and General Counsel has
requested that this be corrected. No opposition to this request has been
received. In addition, cross examination of Mrs. Heitz, as well as Mrs.
Ray's testimony, establishes that the person discussed was Zander, not
Bell.
"At the time of this conversation, Mrs. Heitz was aware of her
husband's contacts with Zander in 1967, as well as those in 1968, shortly
before his discharge, and, in fact, Mrs. Heitz had previously talked with
Mrs. Ray, in 1967, about Boltz' earlier contact with Zander, apparently
during a call she made to Respondent when Heitz quit in June of that year.
"Mrs. Ray, who tended to wander in her testimony, also interspersed
matters apparently not actually involved in her conversation with Mrs.
Heitz. By reason of this, and through some leading questions, Mrs. Ray
seemed to assert that during this conversation she also informed Mrs. Heitz
that Respondent had previously reinstated Boltz in 1967, even though they
knew of his involvement with Zander "because we felt that maybe he had
been swayed, and when he made the offer to go to Topeka, we had paid
our money;" and also "that he wasn't in the Carpenters Union, that we
thought he was." Although these matters were quite probably on Mrs.
Ray's mind, based on the manner in which they were adduced, the Trial
Examiner doubts that they were actually stated. Mrs. Heitz was not asked
about them.
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
desired , or that Respondent could terminate him, or take
whatever action the Rays desired. At this point, Bell
states, "Mrs. Ray said, `I think you had better leave.' I
said , 'O.K.' Then we went ahead talking about Mr. Ray
talking about his experiences in the union , and we talked
about Bob's termination , we talked about his relation with
the employees where the man didn't have to give him a
reason for his termination . I told him that I was sorry and
I wanted to get this off of my conscience, that I felt bad
about it , that I wasn ' t going to be a union man." During
this conversation, Bell testified that Mrs. Ray stated that
"Before a union comes in this place, I have the keys and I
will lock it up and we will go back operating out of the
station wagon ," and further that "if Mr. Zander ever
came around again she would take a piece of glass and
cut his guts ." Bell further stated that "they said. . .no
union was going to run their business."
Also during this conversation, Bell complained that
after Hallacy had been terminated, Sponsel had been
employed as an installer, without giving Bell an
opportunity to become an installer . In answer , the Rays
explained to Bell that he had originally been hired to
replace Beltz (when Beltz had quit the previous June) and
was not considered a replacement for Hallacy. This
apparently mollified Bell for reasons which do not appear
in the record , though it would seem indicated that Bell
understood that now that Beltz was terminated, he would
indeed be used as an installer , as the record indicates has
since occurred.
Conclusions
1. Alleged violations of Section 8 (a)(1) and (2) of the
Act
It is clear that Mrs. Ray ' s threatening comments to
Bell at her home on May 25 , 1968, violated Section
8(a)(l) of the Act. Though similar comments had been
made earlier by Mrs . Ray in the shop, as stated by Beltz,
these may have occurred more than 6 months prior to the
filing of the charges in this matter and thus would be
barred under the Act as unfair labor practices. Because of
the similarity of these earlier actions to the later conduct,
already found violative of the Act, it is unnecessary to
consider this further.
It is also quite clear that Foreman Parsons did not, as
alleged in the complaint , unlawfully interrogate Bell with
respect to his union activities , on the occasion he spoke to
Bell prior to Beltz ' discharge. Bell was quite aware that
Parsons had been informed by Beltz of Bell's involvement
with the Glaziers , and I find nothing improper in the
conversation related by Bell. It will be recommended that
this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
The General Counsel further contends that Respondent
unlawfully aided and assisted Carpenters Local 201, in
violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (2 ) of the Act , by entering
into a collective-bargaining contract with Local 201, which
recognizes that organization "as the sole
collective-bargaining agency" of employees engaged in
work covered by the agreement (see G. C. Exh. 2, art. I
and II ), at a time when Local 201 was not the designated
representative of a majority of Respondent 's employees
covered by such agreement, and by other acts and
conduct, including the payment "of back dues" to Local
201.14
"Although only the execution of the agreement and the payment of
"back dues" are alleged in the complaint as illegal assistance to Local 201,
Respondent contends that there is no evidence that it
rendered aid or assistance to Local 201 in violation of the
Act, pointing out that the money which it paid out was
for transmittal to Carpenters Local 1445 in Topeka, not
to Local 201, in Wichita . Respondent further argues that
in the absence of any evidence of illegal aid or assistance
to Local 201 , it was justified under the provisions of
Section 8 (f) of the Act in entering into an agreement with
Local 201, even in the absence of an antecedent majority
status among the Respondent ' s regular employees.'s
However, the facts do not leave any doubt that the
Respondent in this matter , in order to further its own
business interests at the time , intended to and did by its
actions aid, assist and support Local 201 in a manner
prohibited by the Act . Though the actual payment was
made to the order of Local 1445, Respondent ' s purpose
was to encourage , aid and assist its employees to become
members in good standing of Local 201 , for Respondent's
benefit , at a time when the employees had not only not
designated Local 201 as their representative , but were
resisting such designation . In addition , Respondent further
urged and encouraged the employees to forego their
reluctance and accept membership in Local 201 . By these
acts and conduct , under the Board ' s consistent prior
decisions , it must be held that Respondent rendered illegal
aid and assistance to Local 201 , in violation of Sections
8(a)(l) and (2) of the Act . See Schurr & Finlay, Inc., 149
NLRB 272; Disney Roofing or Material Co., 145 NLRB
88; Bear Creek Construction Co., 135 NLRB 1285; cf.
Loney Davenport , Contractor , 173 NLRB No. 39. In
these circumstances, it is also found , as stated by the
Board in Schurr & Finlay, Inc., supra at 273 , fn. 1, that
the Respondent "further violated Section 8 (a)(2) and (1)
by recognizing and entering into an agreement with [Local
201 on January 26, 1968 ,] and that , in view of the
Respondent [' s] unlawful assistance to [Local 2011 Section
8(f) affords no protection to such conduct by the
Respondent."
2. The discharge of Thomas Hallacy
General Counsel contends that Hallacy was discharged
in violation of the Act because of his "attempts to assert
his contractual rights," assertedly "protected by Section
7" of the Act. (G. C. br., p. 5). Respondent contends that
Hallacy was discharged for asserted insubordinate conduct
in telling Ray that the latter could not fire him.
It is quite clear, under the circumstances, that Ray had
no intention of discharging Hallacy for his prior
statements before Hallacy approached Ray in his office on
February 29, following Ray's statement to the employees
that there would be no foreman on the job but himself. I
am satisfied that if Ray had intended to release Hallacy,
he would have called him in and done so directly. For this
reason , it is difficult for me to believe that Ray summarily
the General Counsel also argues the effect of other facts set forth in
Section A of this decision hereinabove . These facts were mainly adduced
from the testimony of Ray on this point, and are largely undisputed.
"In pertinent part, Sec. 8(f) of the Act reads as follows:
It shall not be an unfair labor practice . for an employer engaged
primarily in the building and construction industry to make an
agreement covering employees engaged . in the building and
construction industry with a labor organization of which building and
construction employees are members (not established, maintained, or
assisted by any action defined in Section 8 (a) of this Act as an unfair
labor practice ) because ( 1) the majority status of such labor organization
has not been established under the provisions of Section 9 of this Act
prior to the making of such agreement ....
JAMES RAY CO.
terminated Hallacy for this reason, almost immediately
upon the latter's coming into the office, as Hallacy's
account of the occasion indicates. In fact, by Hallacy's
own testimony, the conversation in the office took up to 5
minutes, which hardly conforms with his summary
account. On the other hand, Ray's more detailed account
not only conforms with the circumstances of the record
otherwise, but is supported in part by the testimony of
James Ray. Therefore, to the extent that the two accounts
differ, Ray's account is credited as the more accurate
version. Indeed, it may well be that Hallacy mistakenly
considered Ray's intemperate exasperation with further
discussion of The foreman issue as meaning that he was
being dismissed . But, I am convinced that Ray, in fact,
did not intend to terminate Hallacy's employment until
the latter angered Ray by telling him that Ray could not
fire Hallacy. I do not pass upon whether firing Hallacy
was a sound or temperate decision , or an exercise of good
judgment. It is found, however, that Hallacy's discharge,
under these circumstances, was not a violation of the Act,
and it will be recommended that this allegation of the
complaint be dismissed.
The resolution of this issue is a matter of some
difficulty. The Respondent is clearly opposed to
unionization by its employees, and very strongly so.
Respondent ' s actions in signing two collective -bargaining
contracts with Carpenter Locals are not to the contrary,
for these were obviously considered temporary business
expedients , not intended to govern the working conditions
of Respondent's regular employees.
Respondent was also obviously aware of Beltz'
activities on behalf of the Glaziers in April and May 1968,
at the time of Beltz ' discharge . Respondent ' s denials are
not credited. Indeed, it would be astounding if this
information had not speedily come to the attention of the
Rays. The record shows that activities of this sort
previously known to Foreman Parsons and others in
Respondent's small work force were quickly made known
to the owners. Thus, Parsons and others very quickly
apprised management of Hallacy ' s activities in regard to
the Carpenter's Union; Sponsel, within a week of his
employment, informed the Rays at their home of what he
had learned of the union activities of Beltz and Hallacy;
Bell, also, in his trip to the home of the Rays and his
confession of complicity seems to have traveled a well
worn pattern . Moreover , Parsons , who was aware of
Beltz' activities, was not sympathetic to the Glaziers, and
there appears no reason that he should have kept his
knowledge from management , as he claims , or that he
considered the matter confidential. In fact, his casual and
apparently open conversation about the matter with Bell
would indicate the contrary. Finally, Mrs. Beltz' version
of her conversation with Mrs. Ray, which is credited, is
convincing that the Rays were aware of Beltz' recent
union activities prior to being informed by Bell, from
whom they claim to have first learned of them.16
"From observation of the two witnesses and analysis of their testimony,
the account of Mrs . Boltz of her conversation with Mrs. Ray is considered
the more credible . It is more detailed and more coherent than that of Mrs.
Ray, who tended to wander and was much assisted by suggestive and
leading questions . In fact, Mrs. Ray appears to contradict Mrs. Boltz on
only one major point , i.e., whether , when Mrs. Ray brought up Boltz'
association with Zander , she was referring only to an occasion in early
1967, or to the 1968 events as well . However , in the absence of any
apparent reason why Mrs. Ray should have brought up this remote
association of Boltz with the union in the course of her explanation of the
reasons for his termination , it would seem most probable that the reference
37
Respondent, however , asserts that the decision to
discharge Beltz was made before his union activities in
1968, and thus was not influenced by those activities.
There was, of course, no contradiction of this testimony
with respect to the Rays' asserted prior decision to
terminate Beltz, although the petty nature of the asserted
offense, the failure to discuss it with Beltz, the rather
obvious avoidance of contact with the insurance agent
until after Beltz' discharge (though on other occasions
Ray admittedly discussed questionable claims with the
agent), the long delay in taking any action about the
matter followed by precipitate action after Beltz' union
activities were known, as well as other matters reflecting
on the credibility of the witnesses involved, raise serious
questions as to this testimony.
However, assuming (without deciding) that such a
previous determination had been made, conditional upon
hiring a replacement for Beltz, the record is still
convincing that Beltz ' intervening union activities became
an essential factor in the final decision to terminate Beltz,
and its effectuation on May 23.
Though James Ray assertedly had been instructed prior
to May 8 to find a replacement for Beltz, he states that he
did not find anyone who was available until the very
evening his parents returned home on May 22. After
talking with them, James Ray visited the home of Cletus
Miller, who had been recommended by employee Sponsel
at some previous time , and determined that Miller was
willing to come to work."
However , it is clear that at the time Beltz was
discharged , on Thursday morning , contrary to the
implications of Respondent's argument, Miller had not
been actually hired since it was only after a final interview
on Thursday afternoon, that Ray, himself, employed
Miller. Further, the record shows that Miller actually was
not available for work until the first part of the following
week, and even then apparently not on a full- time basis
since he was working out a 2-week notice to his then
employer.
In this situation , it is almost incomprehensible that
Respondent should have so precipitately dismissed Beltz
prior to the end of the pay period, which was the next
day, at a time when Respondent knew Beltz had a
committment to do a special job for a customer that same
evening (which had been arranged at James Ray's request
and in his presence ), and when his replacement was not
actually available, particularly in view of Respondent's
prior considerable delay in effectuating his termination for
filing an asserted fraudulent insurance claim . I do not
credit the explanation that this abrupt and hasty action
was only the result of a predetermined, set decision that
the event was to take place on the day of the Ray's return
to the office, and no later. I am convinced that it was
precipitated by the information received as to Beltz'
Union activities. This is confirmed by the statements
made to Mrs. Beltz the next day. Indeed, the intensity and
range of the reasons given for discharging Beltz, as well as
the felt necessity to assert that Respondent really needed
no reason at all to terminate him (which was substantially
repeated to Bell the next day), indicate the Ray's lack of
genuine conviction in the asserted reason for Beltz'
was impelled by agitation over knowledge that the former activity was
being repeated, and that Boltz was again going to cause Respondent
"trouble."
"James Ray testified that he had contacted two self-employed persons
who declined to come with Respondent, and unsuccessfully attempted to
contact a third person assertedly suggested by one of them.
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
termination.
Indeed , it is difficult to believe that Respondent, at
least after Beltz ' explanation , continued to hold a sincere
belief that he had made a willfully fraudulent claim. It
seems inconceivable that Ray should have waited until
after Beltz was discharged and out of the plant to confirm
with the insurance agent the fact that the latter had
advised Beltz to file the claim in question , particularly
since it was shown that Ray was accustomed to checking
out claims with the insurance agent which Ray thought
questionable.
Further , notwithstanding Respondent' s asserted
previous difficulties with Beltz, the Rays not only had
taken no action to terminate him, but when he quit
without notice and in defiance of Foreman Parsons in
1967, took Beltz back , even though his replacement had
been hired and was on the job ." Ray's refusal to consider
his further employment , in the face of knowledge that
Beltz was not at fault in filing the alleged fraudulent
insurance claim , on this latter occasion must be
attributable to some other compelling motivation. The
only other intervening factor shown is Beltz' union
activities , a matter which could be expected to arouse the
Rays' strong antagonism . In the circumstances , it is found
that Ray's refusal to accept Beltz ' explanation on this
occasion, and continue him in employment , was due to
Beltz ' union activities on behalf of the Glaziers.
On the basis of the considerations set out above, and on
the record as a whole , it is found that Respondent, by its
discharge of Robert Beltz, intended to and did discourage
membership in and activities on behalf of a labor
organization in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce , primarily in the building and construction
industry , within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7)
and 8(f) of the Act.
2. The Glaziers, Carpenters Local 201 and Carpenters
Local 1445 are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the acts and conduct herein found violative of the
Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections
8(axl), (2), and (3) of the Act.
4. The Respondent did not violate the Act by the
discharge of Thomas Hallacy.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l),
(2), and (3 ) of the Act, it will be recommended that
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Since it has been found that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by various acts
and conduct giving aid, assistance and support to
carpenters Local 201, it will be recommended that the
Respondent withdraw and withhold all recognition from
"Respondent suggest that this shows a lack of hostility toward Beltz'
Union activity . However, as Mrs . Ray's testimony indicates , Respondent
was not at that time concerned with his "misguided" activities on behalf of
the Glaziers which was not then active.
Carpenters Local 201 as the collective-bargaining
representative of any of Respondent ' s employees, and
cease giving effect to any collective -bargaining contract
with Carpenters Local 201, or to any modifications,
extensions , supplements , or renewals of such contracts,
unless and until Carpenters Local 201 shall have been
certified as the collective-bargaining representative
pursuant to a Board -conducted election among
Respondent ' s employees in a unit or units appropriate for
the purpose of collective bargaining . Nothing in the
Recommended Order set forth hereunder , however, shall
be construed to require the Respondent to vary or
abandon any wage , hour , seniority , or other substantive
feature of the relationship between the Respondent and its
employees which may have been established during the
terms of, or pursuant to any such contract , or to prejudice
the assertion by the employees of any rights they may
have under such contract or any established practice in
regard to wages, hours of employment , or conditions of
employment.
It will further be recommended that Respondent offer
Robert Beltz immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position , without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him to the
date of reinstatement , less interim earnings , and in a
manner consistent with Board policy set out in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Crossett
Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, to which shall be added
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as prescribed
by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716.
In order to make effective for the employees of the
Respondent the guarantee of rights contained in Section 7
of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent
cease and desist from , in any manner, infringing upon the
rights guaranteed in that Section.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and
conclusions of law , and upon the entire record in this case,
it is recommended that Respondent James Ray Company,
Inc., Wichita, Kansas, its officers, agents , successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees in order to discourage membership in and
support of Glaziers Local 558, affiliated with Brotherhood
of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(b) Threatening or warning employees with harm or
reprisals if they join or assist a labor organization, or
select a representative for collective bargaining.
(c) Recognizing or contracting with Local 201 as the
representative of its employees , or giving effect to,
performing , or in any way enforcing in favor of Local 201
any collective -bargaining contract , unless and until Local
JAMES RAY CO.
201 shall have been certified as representative of such
employees by the Board , as provided in the section
entitled "The Remedy," hereinabove.
(d) Contributing financial or other aid or assistance to
any labor organization, except as may be permitted by
Section 302 of the Labor Management Act, 1947, as
amended.
(e) Coercively urging , soliciting , or directing employees
to support a labor organization or participate in its
activities.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer Robert Reitz immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position and
make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, in
accordance with the provisions of the section entitled "The
Remedy," above.
(b) Notify Robert Beltz if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of his right to 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.
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agent, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate
the compution of backpay.
(d) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local
201 as the collective- bargaining representative of its
employees unless and until Local 201 shall have been
certified by the Board.
(e) Post at its plant at Wichita, Kansas, copies of the
attached notice marked `Appendix."19 Copies of said
notice on forms to be provided by the Regional Director
for Region 17, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall
be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places , including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith. 20
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed as to any alleged violation not found herein.
"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 the Regional Director for
Region 17 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
39
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 NOT discharge you, or in any other manner
cause you harm, because you join or help Glaziers
Local No. 558, affiliated with Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators and Paperhangers of America , AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with any sort of harm to
discourage you from joining or helping a labor union,
or selecting a labor union as your representative.
WE WILL NOT recognize or deal with Carpenters,
Local 201 , of Wichita , as your representative in respect
to your conditions of employment , or have a contract
with Local 201 covering your working conditions,
unless the National Labor Relations Board certifies
that it is proper to do so.
WE WILL NOT give financial assistance to Local 201,
except as strictly permitted by law.
WE WILL NOT by coercive means try to get you to
join or help Local 201, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other way interfere with your
right to -
Organize yourselves , or form , join or help unions.
Bargain for working conditions through a
representative freely chosen by a majority of the
eligible workers in our operations.
Act together for mutual aid or protection of your
working conditions.
Refuse to do any or all of these things.
WE WILL offer Robert Beltz immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position without loss of seniority or other rights and
privileges , and WE WILL make him whole for any loss
of pay because he was discharged , with interest.
JAMES RAY COMPANY,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 610 Federal
Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri
64106, Telephone 816-374-5282.