McElrath Poultry Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 354 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McElrath Poultry Company, Inc.' and Amalgamated
Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO, Local 405. Case 10-CA-9822
October 11, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On May 14, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Abra-
ham H. Mailer issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
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 brief
and has decided to affirm with modifications the rul-
ings, findings ,2 and conclusions of the Administrative
Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
While we agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that the employees involved in the unfair labor prac-
tices are not "agricultural laborcrs" within the intend-
ment of Congress, and thus not removed from the
protection of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, we do so based on the following analysis of
the nature of the employing enterprise and the job
functions of the affected employees.
Respondent, a wholly owned subsidiary of Corbitt
Poultry Products, Inc., at all times pertinent herein
1 The name of Respondent appears as corrected at the hearing.
2 In agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge that employees John H.
Collins, Jerry White, and Lewis Hatley were discriminatorily terminated on
September 22, 1972, we do not adopt the Adminsitrative Law Judge' s finding
that on September 21 employee Doyal reported to Supervisor McCamy that
Collins solicited Doyal's support for the Union , as the record does not
support such inference . We rely on the other direct evidence, contained in the
Brooks, White, Collins conversation on September 21 that Respondent was
aware of the union sympathies of Collins and White prior to their discharges.
Although there is no direct evidence that Respondent had any knowledge
of Hatley's union activities prior to his discharge , we are satisfied that knowl-
edge of Hatley 's antecedent union sympathies can reasonably be imputed to
Respondent since Hatley had signed a union card 3 days before his discharge
and was discharged the same day as were the other discriminatees and under
similar circumstances , i.e., his discharge was precipitate and based on pretex-
tual reasons . The Cotton Lumber Company, 185 NLRB 602, In. 2.
We are of the view that it was Respondent 's predischarge union animus
that triggered the discharges of Collins, White, and Halley . This animus may
be inferred from the repeated interrogations of White by Supervisor Brooks,
the precipitate discharges the same day for other pretextual reasons, and
Respondent 's knowledge or suspicion of the three employees' union and
Respondent's knowledge or suspicion of the three employees' union sympa-
thies . In these circumstances , we find that the postdischarge 8(a)(1) threats
by Respondent to Rogers tend to corroborate this preexisting animus. See
Majestic Molded Products, Inc., 143 NLRB 71, enfd. 330 F.2d 603 (C.A. 2).
In the absence of exceptions , we adopt, pro forma, the Administrative Law
Judge's dismissal of allegations of coercive interrogation.
was essentially engaged in the business of operating a
feed mill, a fleet of trucks, and a hatchery. This was
for the purpose of assuring Colonial Poultry Products
Division of Corbitt a supply of grown chickens for
processing for market. In this undertaking Respon-
dent contracted with independent farmers to raise the
chicks which it owned to maturity.
The job functions of Respondent's above employ-
ees are as follows. Hatley, a truckdriver, transported
feed from Respondent's and another feed mill to the
chicken houses on the farms. Collins, a tractor-trailer
driver, transported corn from independently owned
farms to Respondent's feed mill. White was a truck
mechanic engaged in servicing and maintaining
Respondent's trucks. Rogers was a miller in
Respondent's feed mill.
Respondent's basic contention is that it is engaged
in a farming operation of hatching and raising chick-
ens and thus all of its employees are engaged in farm-
ing, and therefore exempt from the Act. We do not so
construe the following applicable statutory provi-
sions . Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, provides:
(3) The term "employee" ... shall not in-
clude any individual employed as an agricultural
laborer... .
Since 1946 the appropriation acts for the Board have
regularly carried a rider which provides that the term
"agricultural laborer" shall be defined in accordance
with section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29
U.S.C. §203) which reads as follows:
"Agriculture" includes farming in all its
branches and ... includes ... the raising of
... poultry, and any practices . . . performed
by a farmer or on a farm (emphasis supplied) as
an incident to or in conjunction with such farm-
ing operations... .
The Supreme Court stated with respect to the FLSA
provision in Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. Mc-
Comb, 337 U.S. 755, 762-763, that:
[T]his definition has two distinct branches. First,
there is the primary meaning. Agriculture in-
cludes farming in all its branches.... Second,
there is the broader meaning.... It includes
any practices . . . which are performed either by
a farmer or on a farm (emphasis supplied), inci-
dently to or in conjunction with "such" farming
operations.
The Administrative Law Judge viewed only the
hatchery operations of Respondent as "farming" and
concluded that the remainder of its operations were
nonfarming. We agree. However, we also conclude
that Respondent is but a part of Corbitt's integrated
nonfarming business. We do not regard Corbitt's
206 NLRB No. 94
McELRATH POULTRY CO.
business as being the traditional farming to which
Congress and the Supreme Court addressed them-
selves, supra,; Indeed, the Department of Labor's re-
gulations implementing the FLSA, which the
Supreme Court validated in Farmers Reservoir & Irri-
gation, supra, are in accord with our conclusion.4
We next address ourselves to Respondent's conten-
tion that Hatley's and Collins' duties are incidental to
or in conjunction with the chicken farmers' farming.
The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree,
that their duties are rather a part of Respondent's feed
mill and trucking operations. The record does not
support Respondent's assertion that they are other-
wise.
As Respondent's operations involved herein are
nonfarming and as the duties-of its employees do not
involve any work on a farm,' we conclude that the
employees are within our statutory jurisdiction.6
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that Respondent, McElrath
Poultry Company, Inc., Albertville, Alabama, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
3 To hold that the nonfarming operations of Corbitt and Respondent are
to be deemed agricultural because Respondent also engages in farming by
operating a hatchery would be an unwarranted departure from congressional
intent to exclude only traditional farming operations from the Fair Labor
Standards Act and hence the National Labor Relations Act.
4 These regulations (29 CFR 780.135) provide as follows:
Feed dealers and processors sometimes enter into contractual ar-
rangements with farmers under which the latter agree to raise to mar-
ketable size baby chicks supplied by the former who also undertake to
furnish all the required feed and possibly additional items. Typically, the
feed dealer or processor retains title to the chickens until they are sold.
Under such an arrangement, the activities of the farmers and their
employees (emphasis supplied) in raising the poultry are clearly exempt.
The activities of the feed dealer or processor on the other hand, are not
"raising of poultry" and employees engaged in them cannot be exempt
on that ground.
5 See Maneja v. WaialuaAgricultural Co., 349 U.S. 254,264-270. In making
these findings we shall construe the exemption of "agricultural laborers"
from the NLRA narrowly in accord with accepted statutory construction.
Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 3d ed., 1973 Supp., p. 203. The Supreme
Court has similarly construed exemptions from regulatory statutes by hold-
mg that the party who relies on an exemption has the burden of proof that
he falls within the exemption (see, e.g., Federal Trade Commission v. Morton
Salt Co, 334 U S. 37, 44-45 ; Securities Exchange Commission v. Ralston
Purina Co., 346 U.S. 119, 126) and has narrowly construed the NLRA's
8(a6(3) proviso. N.L.R.B. v General Motors, 373 U S. 734.
N.LR.B. v, Samuel B. Gass, et at, 377 F.2d 438 (C.A. 1). Cf. N.LR.B.
v. Victor Ryckebosch, 471 F.2d 20 (C.A. 9) We note that the court in N L R B.
v. Strain Poultry Farms, Inc., 405 F.2d 1025, 1032 (CA. 5), did not disagree
with the court 's conclusion in Gass that "the delivery of poultry feed was
analogous to the delivery of electricity or water to the farmers found to be
nonagricultural in Farmers Irrigation, supra."
DECISION
355
ABRAHAM H. MALLER, Administrative Law Judge: On Oc-
tober 12, 1972, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 405, herein
called the Union, filed a charge against McElrath Poultry
Company, Inc.,' herein called the Respondent. Upon said
charge, the Regional Director for Region 10 of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on Decem-
ber 18, 1972, issued on behalf of the General Counsel a
complaint against Respondent. Briefly, the complaint al-
leged that the Respondent had interrogated its employees
concerning their union membership, activities , and desires
and the union membership, activities, and desires of other
employees; threatened its employees that their organiza-
tional efforts on behalf of the Union were futile by telling
them that they were never going to have a union ; threatened
employees with loss of benefits because of their activities on
behalf of the Union; and discharged three named employ-
ees because they engaged in concerted activity with other
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, (29 U.S.C. §151, et seq.) herein called the Act. In
its duly filed answer, the Respondent specifically denied
that the Board has jurisdiction of this matter because Re-
spondent is engaged in agriculture within the meaning of
Section 2(3) of the Act, and denied any violations of the Act.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before me at Al-
bertville, Alabama, on March 8 and 9, 1973. All parties
mere represented at the hearing and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to
present oral argument and to file briefs with me. Briefs were
filed by the General Counsel and by the Respondent on
April 16, 1973. Upon consideration of the entire record, the
briefs, and upon my observation of each of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Corbitt Poul-
try Products, Inc., and owns egg hatcheries from which it
obtains newborn chickens. The chickens are then placed by
Respondent on various farms throughout the State of Ala-
bama pursuant to lease agreements with the land owners.
Title to the chickens remains in the Respondent throughout
the time they are raised to marketable size. The Respondent
specifies the type of chicken houses the farmers must have
in order to raise Respondent's chickens, periodically makes
inspection of the facilities, and gives specific instructions to
the farmers on the care and maintenance of the birds. Addi-
tionally, Respondent furnishes all the feed for the chickens
either from its own feed mill or from the Ralston Purina
feed mill in the area. The feed is delivered to the various
farms by trucks owned by the Respondent. The truckdrivers
i The complaint was amended at the hearing to reflect the correct name
of the Respondent.
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
place the feed in large storage bins where it is subsequently
dispensed to the chickens by the farmers. It is the responsi-
bility of the truckdrivers to pick up the right kind of feed
and get it to the right farm at the right time. From time-to-
time, particularly at the end of each crop of chickens, the
hen houses are sanitized by being sprayed by the
Respondent's employees.2 The only other things that the
drivers did in addition to hauling feed was to keep their eyes
open for any conditions on the farms which might adversely
affect the raising of the chickens or the driver's ability to get
into the farms. If such conditions were noted, the drivers
would normally report them to the Respondent for proper
corrective action.
Respondent does not own any growing facilities. Nor
does the Respondent have any control over the real estate
upon which the chickens are grown, other than its right of
entry to oversee the growing of the chickens to make sure
that they are being grown in accordance with Respondent's
specifications.
Chickens which are designated to be broilers are raised by
the contract grower for 8 weeks, after which they are picked
up by Respondent's truckdrivers and brought to Colonial
Poultry Company, an unincorporated division of Corbitt
Poultry Products in Albertville, where they are slaughtered
and processed for the market. Chickens which are raised for
egg laying purposes are called pullets and are kept on leased
farms, where, when they mature, they produce eggs that are
picked up by Respondent's truckdrivers and brought to
Respondent's premises in Albertville. When the hens com-
plete their egg laying cycle, they are slaughtered and sold to
concerns manufacturing soup and pot pies.
To handle the transportation of the chickens, the eggs,
and the feed, Respondent owns a number of trucks, and
during the period involved herein employed 15 truckdrivers.
Respondent maintains a garage where it services and repairs
its trucks and other rolling equipment. Until November
1972, Respondent also operated a feed mill, but that opera-
tion has ceased in view of the scarcity of certain ingredients.
During the calendar year preceding the filing of the com-
plaint herein, which period is representative of all times
material herein, Respondent sold and shipped goods valued
in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside
the State of Alabama. Respondent admits that it is engaged
in commerce, but denies that the Board has jurisdiction of
the matter because Respondent is engaged in agriculture.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO, Local 405, is now, and has been
at all times material herein , a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act:
III. THE ISSUES
1. Whether the alleged discnminatees are "employees"
within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act.
s Although President McElrath testified that such spraying was done by
Respondent's truckdrivers, it appears that none of the alleged discnmmatees
performed sanitation spraying on the hen houses.
2. Whether the Respondent interrogated its employees
concerning their union membership, activities, and desires
and the union membership, activities, and desires of other
employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. Whether the Respondent threatened its employees
that their organizational efforts on behalf of the Union were
futile by telling them that they were never going to have a
union, and that working conditions would be changed if
they selected the Union as their collecitve-bargaining repre-
sentative, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Whether the Respondent discharged Jerry White,
John H. Collins, and Lewis Hatley because of their sympa-
thy for and/or activities on behalf of the Union, in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
1V. STATUS OF THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATEES
AS "EMPLOYEES" OR "AGRICULTURAL
LABORERS"
Collins and Hatley were truckdrivers. Collins' duties con-
sisted of driving a trailer-truck from Albertville to Gunters-
ville, where he picked up corn in bulk and delivered it to
Respondent's feed mill in Albertville. Hatley delivered feed
from Respondent's feed mill to various chicken farms.
White was a mechanic whose duties consisted of servicing
and repairing Respondent's trucks. As indicated above, Re-
spondent contends that it is engaged in agriculture and that
all of its employees, including each of the alleged discrimi-
natees, are agricultural laborers and not employees within
the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act. That section of the
Act, provides at the term "employee" ... "shall not include
any individual employed as an agricultural laborer."
The issue is not novel. It has been before the Board and
the courts on numerous occasions. In view of the exhaustive
and scholarly review of the authorities by my brother
Comeman in Victor Ryckebosch, Inc., 189 NLRB 40, en-
forcement denied 471 F.2d 20 (C.A. 9, 1972), it is unneces-
sary to discuss the authorities in detail here. Suffice it to
point out that in its most recent pronouncement on this
subject, the Board in Imco Poultry, Division of International
Multifoods Corporation, 202 NLRB No. 44, said:
The Board has consistently held that when an employer
contracts with independent growers for the care and
feeding of the employer's chicks, the employer's status
as a farmer engaged in raising poultry ends with respect
to those chucks. See Strain Poultry Farms, Inc., 160
NLRB 236; 163 NLRB 972, reversed 405 F.2d 1025
(C.A. 5); Victor Ryckebosch, Inc., 189 NLRB 40, and
cases cited therein, reversed 471 F.2d 20, 69 LC para.
13, 223- (C.A. 9).3
In Imco, the persons held to be employees, rather than
agricultural laborers, spent approximately 75 percent of
their time in` pullet transportation, 25 percent of their time
in loading "spent" hens, and 1 to 2 percent of their time in
transporting rice hulls which were delivered to the contract
growers. In Ryckebosch, the persons found to be "employ-
ees" were engaged in hauling coops of chickens from the
3 The Board in that case noted its respectiful disagreement with the fifth
and ninth Circuits on this matter, and adhered to its views as expressed in
Victor Ryckebosch, Inc., and Strain, supra.
McELRATH POULTRY CO.
contract growers. In Strain, the "employees" were also driv-
ers who hauled coops to and from the contract growers. In
Samuel B. Gass, 154 NLRB 728, enfd. 377 F.2d 438 (C.A.
1, 1967), the "employees" delivered ingredients to the
employer's feed mill and feed from the mill to the farms
where the chickens were raised.
The operations of the Respondent in the instant case and
the work of its truckdrivers bear a marked resemblance to
those involved in the above cases, and are governed by those
decisions. The work of White, a mechanic who repaired and
serviced Respondent's trucks, is even further removed from
the concept of agricultural laborers.
Respondent relies upon McAnally Enterprise, Inc., 152
NLRB 527, which is distinguishable in that the employer
was engaged in egg processing and owned its own ranches
from which it obtained the eggs. The Board also noted that
"although the employees here are separately supervised, it
appears that permanent transfers are made between the
ranches and the processing plants, and the record indicates
temporary transfers are sometimes made." (Id at 530.)
Also distinguishable is Arkansas Valley Industries, Inc.,
167 NLRB 391, relied upon by the Respondent. There, the
Board noted:
Of the 39 employees sought, all worked solely in the
hatcheries, except 5 who also operate six 1 -to-2-ton
hatchery pickup and delivery trucks. These five em-
ployees transport the eggs from the breeder farms to
the hatcheries and the chicks from the hatcheries to the
broiler farms. These duties are in addition to work
performed at the hatcheries proper, which in no way
differs from that work performed by the other hatchery
employees.
As to the five employees who, in addition to perform-
ing work at the hatcheries, engage in pickup and deliv-
ery operations, it is clear that their work in the hatchery
is agricultural in nature. Moreover, although hauling
itself is a nonfarming'activity, 5 it is also clear that the
Employer in operating the chicken hatcheries, is en-
gaged in the exempt activity of raising poultry, and that
the employees in making pickups and deliveries, in the
circumstances presented here, are engaged in exempt
activities. 6
We therefore find these five employees are also
agricultural laborers.
Respondent also relies upon Mitchell v. Georgia Broiler
Supply Inc., 186 F.Supp. 341 (D.C.Ga.). However, the
soundness of"that decision was questioned by the Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit in enforcing Samuel B. Gass,
377 F.2d supra at 444 (fn. 12).
In view of all the foregoing, I find and conclude that the
discriminatees were "employees" within the meaning of
Section 2(3) of the Act.
5 Norton & McElroy Produce, Inc, 133 NLRB 104.
6 See Strain Poultry Farms, Inc., 160 NLRB 236, at fn. 4, McAnally Enter-
prise, Inc., 152 NLRB 527.
V THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
357
A. Sequence of Events
Shortly before September 22, 1972, the Union began to
organize Respondent's truckdrivers and mechanics. Among
those who signed cards were Collins, White, and Hatley. All
three were terminated on September 22. In addition, Re-
spondent terminated truckdrivers Galloway and Morris on
the same day. The specific circumstances surrounding the
termination of the three alleged discriminatees are more
fully discussed separately infra.
B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
White testified that over a period of 7 months, the last
approximately a month before his discharge, his brother-in-
law, Foreman James Brooks, admittedly a supervisor, had
asked him seven or eight times whether he had heard any-
thing about a union. These conversations took place at the
shop, on service calls, and around White's home when they
were working around the house. On each occasion White
answered in the negative. Foreman Brooks' inquiries did
not go beyond that.
The General Counsel contends that by Foreman Brooks'
conduct as aforesaid Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, but cites no decisions in support of his contention.
I do not agree. The interrogation was void of any context
of coercion and restraint and appeared to be "instances of
interrogation which can be properly regarded as isolated,
casual, and too inconsequential in their impact to constitute
a violation of the Act or to warrant a Board remedy" (Blue
Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591, 597 (dissenting opin-
ion)). Cf. Solo Cup Company, 144 NLRB 1481, 1488; Unit
Manager, Citronelle Unit, 149 NLRB 614, 615-616; York
Manufacturing, Co., 171 NLRB 754, fn. 1.
Employee Russell Rogers testified that on or about Octo-
ber 11, at approximately 11 a.m., he was approached by
President Wayne McElrath at the feed mill. President Mc-
Elrath told Rogers that Rogers' brother was leading him,
down,the wrong road (Rogers' brother is a union steward
at Colonial Poultry Products, the processing plant, which is
unionized). According to Rogers, President McElrath said,
"He wasn't going to have no union, wasn't going to have no
third party telling him what to do" President McElrath said
further that if they did go union, the employees would have
to wear steel-toed shoes and steel helmets and would be
allowed only 30 minutes for lunch. He pointed out further
that Rogers' brother was making less per-hour than Rogers
and would never, receive another raise.
President McElrath denied ever having had any conver-
sation with Rogers concerning his union activities . He pre-
sented an alibi for the entire day of October 11, explaining
that he was busily engaged in preparing for a staff visit from
Don Corbitt, the president of Respondent' s patent compa-
ny. In this respect, his testimony was corroborated-by Vice
President L. Warren Milner who testified that he was with
President McElrath the entire morning of October 11 and-
had lunch with him that day.
The complaint alleged that the foregoing conversation
occurred "on or about" October 11; and Rogers was not'
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
positive that the conversation occurred precisely on October
11. Patently, it could have occurred a day or two before or
after the date mentioned, and in that event, President Mc-
Elrath's alibi would be ineffective. Although President Mc-
Elrath denied generally having had any such conversation
with Rogers, I credit Rogers' testimony. Rogers testified in
a straightforward, honest manner and I consider him to be
a credible witness. Conversely, I have not credited President
McElrath's testimony on other aspects of this case. (See
infra, the discussion concerning the Respondent's alleged
reason for the discharge of Hatley where President Mc-
Elrath's testimony was contradicted by that of Dispatcher
McCamy, a witness for Respondent; and the discussion
concerning President McElrath's awareness that White was
related to Foreman Brooks when President McElrath au-
thorized Brooks to hire White.) President McElrath's state-
ments to Rogers constituted interference , restraint, and
coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and I so
find.
C. The Terminations of the Alleged
Discriminatees
1. John H. Collins
Collins was a truckdriver for the Respondent, whose du-
ties consisted of driving a trailer-truck from Albertville to
Guntersville, where he got corn in bulk and took the corn
to Respondent's feed mill in Albertville. He was terminated
on September 22.
Collins had signed a union card approximately a week
before his termination. The day before his discharge, Col-
lins had a conversation with truckdrivers Jones, Bohannon,
and Knott at the garage. They asked him to talk to Frank
Doyal, another employee, about the Union, since he and
Doyal were good friends. Doyal was working on a truck at
the time, and Collins told him that the drivers were desirous
of organizing a union and wanted to know if he would go
with them. Doyal replied that he would not stand in a picket
line, but if everybody joined, he would go along with them.
Shortly thereafter, Doyal related the incident to Dispatcher
McCamy, admittedly a supervisor.
Later that day, Collins, Jerry White, and Foreman
Brooks, White's brother-in-law and admittedly a supervisor,
were having lunch. Collins said, "Jerry, they're going to
organize a union looks like down there . . . Well what do
you think about it?" White answered, "Well it looks like the
best thing that could happen for the working man, you
know." At this point Collins said to Foreman Brooks,
"You'd make a good union steward." To this White replied,
"Oh, no. He's a salaried man, he can't do that." During the
conversation, Collins indicated that he would go along with
the Union 100 percent if everybody did .4
While employed by the Respondent, Collins was repri-
manded on three occasions. On one occasion, he had driven
the trailer-truck to Allied Mills and accidentally backed the
trailer over a barricade, causing damage to the equipment.
On another occasion, he and another driver, Jones, had
° Collins' testimony regarding the foregoing conversation was corroborat-
ed by White. Brooks did not testify.
been directed to drive the truck to a place where he was to
pick up the trailer. Although Jones was not employed by the
Respondent as a truck-trailer driver, Collins permitted
Jones to drive the truck to the trailer and in the process of
doing so Jones ruptured the tank on the truck.5 On the third
occasion, approximately 2 weeks before his termination,
Collins got into an argument with another employee, Mel-
vin Wilson, and drew a knife. On none of these occasion,
however, was Collins threatened with discharge.
About a week or 10 days before his termination, Collins
was told by Vice President Herman McElrath that the Re-
spondent was going to change its operation by using the
trailer-truck on a run between Shelbyville, Tennessee, and
Albertville, picking up a load of offal from a mill in Shelby-
ville and bringing it to the feed mill in Albertville for pro-
cessing into feed. Vice President McElrath told Collins that
the run between Shelbyville and Albertville would be han-
dled by a driver who lived in Shelbyville, and that Collins
would be assigned to drive an ordinary truck .6 According to
Collins, he "beefed" to Dispatcher McCamy, and told him
"Ronnie, they're going to take my truck. The other one's not
too good, I'd like to keep this one." Dispatcher McCamy
replied, "Well you ain't no better to drive an old one than
the other boys." Collins then said, "That's true but I can get
me another job." To this, Dispatcher McCamy said, "Well
whatever you think." Collins replied, "Okay." According to
McCamy, whom I credit, he reported the conversation to
President McElrath who instructed McCamy not to encour-
age Collins to stay on.
When Collins reported to work on the morning of Sep-
tember 22, Dispatcher McCamy told him, "You told me the
other day you'd get another job if you had to drive an old
truck. Now we're going to discharge you and let you go
ahead and get it." Collins replied, "All this sudden?" Mc-
Camy siad, "That's right." Collins then asked to talk to Vice
President Herman McElrath. He found him in the garage
and asked him, "Herman, did you tell McCamy to discharge
me?" Herman McElrath replied that he did. Collins asked
why, and Herman replied, "We're sending your truck over
to Shelbyville and we don't have one for you to drive right
now." Collins asked if seniority counted for anything, and
Herman replied, "Not in this case ." Herman McElrath also
told Collins that his work had been satisfactory and that he
would give him a recommendation for another job. Vice
President Herman McElrath was not presented as a witness,
and Collins' testimony stands uncontradicted and is cred-
ited.
2. Lewis Hatley
Hatley was a truckdriver who had been employed by the
Respondent since May 1972, and as previously indicated
was discharged on September 22. His duties consisted of
delivering feed to the chicken farms. Approximately 3 to 5
days before his discharge he signed a union card. Hatley
had also spoken with several fellow employees, indicating
his support for the Union.
5 Although Jones was employed by the Respondent as a truckdriver, he
had not driven a trailer-truck for the Respondent.
6 This change in Collins' assignment is not alleged to be a violation of the
Act.
McELRATH POULTRY CO. 359
On September 22, Hatley returned to Albertville after
delivering feed. He called Dispatcher McCamy who told
him that they did not have any feed made up to load up with
and that he would call hum back in a few minutes. Dispatch-
er McCamy phoned Hatley, 5 minutes later, and asked him
to come to his office. When Hatley did so, Dispatcher Mc-
Camy told him that Vice President Herman McElrath want-
ed to talk with him. Vice President McElrath came to
McCamy's office and handed Hatley his pay envelope and
told him that they could not use him any more, "that they
were cutting back due to the hours dropping, the men's
hours dropping, not getting in enough time." Hatley asked
whether he was being laid off, and Vice President McElrath
replied in the affirmative. Hatley then said, "Well I guess
my brother was right then." Vice President McElrath said,
"What do you mean, who's your brother, I don't know
him." Hatley told McElrath that his brother worked for the
Alabama State Department of Health in Dekalb County.
McElrath replied "Oh, we was having trouble up at that gut
plant before we hired you." I Hatley then asked McElrath
if seniority didn't count, pointing out that Jim Kilpatrick
was hired after he was. McElrath replied, "No, not in this
case it don't." Hatley then left the plant .8
3. Jerry White
White was hired as a mechanic by the Respodent in Feb-
ruary. He signed a union card approximately 1 or 2 weeks
before his discharge on September 22.
White had secured his job with the assistance of his broth-
er-in-law, James Brooks, the garage foreman. At the time
that they discussed the possibility of White's going to work
for the Respondent, White wondered whether his relation-
ship to Brooks might have some effect upon his chances for
employment.9 Brooks said he would mention the matter to
President Wayne McElrath and see what he said. According
to White's credited testimony, Foreman Brooks later told
him that President McElrath said that as long as the job was
done, it would not matter that they were related. White also
testified that when he personally spoke with President
Wayne McElrath concerning his employment, to the best of
his recollection, President McElrath stated that as long as
the job was maintained, it was immaterial that Brooks was
his brother-in-law.
As previously noted, on September 21, White indicated to
Foreman Brooks his sympathy for the union at a lunch with
Brooks and Collins.
When White reported for work on September 22, he
learned that Collins had been discharged, and later, that
Hatley had also been discharged. At noon, White joined his
brother-in-law, Foreman Brooks, for lunch, and when they
got into the truck to ride to the restaurant, White asked
Brooks why Hatley had been fired. Brooks replied that he
7 The gut plant referred to was a byproduct plant that the Respondent
operates at Geraldine, Alabama.
The foregoing is based upon the credited and uncontradicted testimony
of Hatley. As previously noted, Vice-President Herman McElrath did not
testify.
9 White raised the issue because Ralston Purina, from whom the Respon-
dent had purchased the facility, had a policy of not hiring relatives of employ-
ees.
didn't know how to tell White, this: But that President
Wayne McElrath had told him to let White go, also. White
asked him why, and Brooks replied that it was "because
you're my brother-in-law." White then stated, "Well, I don't
believe that's the reason. Its either because of the raise I
asked him for or because of the Union." Brooks replied, "I
know." 10
Later White approached President Wayne McElrath and
asked why he had been fired. Wayne McElrath replied it
was because he found out that Brooks was his brother-in-
law. White told him that he did not believe that was the
reason. President McElrath just grinned and said that that
was the only reason he needed.
President Wayne McElrath admitted that when White
was fired, the Respondent needed a mechanic, and on Octo-
ber 5, placed an advertisement in a local newspaper for a
diesel mechanic." Subsequently, Respondent hired a me-
chanic.
4. Reasons advanced by the Respondent
for the terminations
Respondent contends that Hatley was laid off for busi-
ness reasons, viz, that the demand for broilers is seasonal
and diminishes in winter; and, because of the 8-week grow-
ing period for broilers, in September Respondent reduced
the number of chicks placed on farms for broilers. Hence,
the need for feed was also reduced, thereby cutting down
the number of drivers needed. Also, President Wayne Mc-
Elrath testified that the Respondent was attempting to bal-
ance the hours of the truckdrivers involved in hauling feed
at about 50 per week, and because the cutback of the num-
ber of chickens to be fed, it would be necessary to reduce
the number of drivers in order to maintain the desired aver-
age number of hours per week for the drivers. As a result,
he chose three drivers to be laid off: Galloway, Hatley, and
Collins.12 No charge was filed concerning the layoff of Gal-
loway.
President McElrath testified that he selected Hatley for
layoff because Hatley had been in a serious accident a few
years earlier and had complained to his supervisor that he
was unable to unload ingredients at the mill. Although Hat-
ley was senior to Kilpatrick by 3 days, under the circum-
stances, President McElrath preferred to retain Kilpatrick.
With regard to Collins, the Respondent maintained at the
hearing that Collins was not, in fact, discharged, but had
resigned. To substantiate this, President McElrath testified'
that on September 21, after he had returned to Albertville
from a trip to Hartford, Connecticut, Dispatcher McCamy
informed him of Collins' threatened resignation, and hz
instructed McCamy to accept it. On brief, however, Re-
spondent concedes that there is a difference of opinion as
to whether Collins resigned or was laid off, but argues that
this is immaterial because the result was that his employ-
ment was terminated at a time when there was a general
reduction in force, and Collins was included in the number
10 The foregoing is based upon the credited and uncontradicted testimony
of White As previously noted, Foreman Brooks did not testify.
11 White, while a mechanic, was not a diesel mechanic.
12 According to Respondent, driver Morris was discharged for other rea-
sons
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of drivers to be laid off. Respondent now argues that Collins
was chosen for layoff because he had caused problems over
the several months preceding the layoffs. Consequently,
when President McElrath had to choose a, truckdriver to be
laid off, he selected Collins who had been a problem em-
ployee with a bad attitude.
Respondent contends that White was selected for dis-
charge because President McElrath discovered that he was
Brooks' brother-in-law, and McElrath had received a com-
plaint from a fellow employee that White was hiding under
Brooks' coat tails.
5. Concluding findings as to the
terminations
Respondent had notice of the union sympathies of Col-
lins and White. This was disclosed to Foreman Brooks,
admittedly a supervisor, on September 21 when they had
lunch together. Also, Dispatcher McCamy, admittedly a
supervisor, was aware of Collins' sympathy for the Union,
when Doyal reported to McCamy that Collins had solicited
his support for the Union on the morning of September 21.
Respondent is chargeable with the knowledge of its supervi-
sors.
As the Respondent correctly argues, there is no direct
evidence that the Respondent was aware of Hatley's sympa-
thy for the Union. However, it is well settled that direct
knowledge of an employee's sympathy for a union is not a
sine qua non for finding that he has been discharged because
of his sympathy for the Union. "On the contrary, there is
well established Board and court procedent that such
knowledge may be inferred from the record as a whole"
(Wiese Plow Welding Co., Inc., 123 NLRB 616, 618). See also
Lapeer Metal Products Co., 134 NLRB 1518, 1520-21; N.L.
R.B. v. Long Island Airport Limousine Service Corp., 468
F.2d 292 (C.A. 2, 1973). Such an inference should and must
be drawn in the instant case because: (1) the small number
of truckdrivers (15); (2) the fact that Hatley had spoken in
favor of the Union to other employees; (3) the timing of
discharge which occurred on the same day that two other
known union sympathizers were discharged; and (4) the fact
that when Hatley inquired of Vice President Herman Mc-
Elrath whether seniority counted, McElrath gave him the
same answer as he gave Colling: "No, not in this case, it
don't."
Respondent's argument that the discharges of the truck-
drivers was occasioned by a reduction in the number of
broilers placed on farms in fall is not a defense when it
appears that the drivers selected for termination were select-
ed because of their sympathy for the Union. Furthermore,
the defense is partially negated by the fact that shortly after
the discharge of Collins and Harley, the Respondent rehired
Steadam, a former employee.
As for the reasons advanced by the Respondent for se-
lecting Collins and Hatley for termination, I find them to
be pretextual. With regard to Collins, although it does not
appear that he was a model employee, having been repri-
manded on three occasions, it is apparent that the Respon-
dent did not consider his derelictions sufficiently serious to
warrant his discharge when they occurred, or even in the
aggregate, as the last incident occurred approximately 2
weeks before his discharge. Indeed, Collins was not even
threatened with discharge on those occasions. It is well set-
tled that a discharge cannot be justified for reasons which
"were not thought of sufficient importance to warrant a
discharge at the time they occurred" (N.L.R.B. v. Greens-
boro Coca Cola Bottling Company, 180 F.2d 840, 843 (C.A.
4). See also G & W Electric Specialty Company, 154 NLRB
1136, 1145, enforcement denied on other grounds 360 F.2d
873 (C.A. 7, 1963); Volkswagen South Atlantic Distributor,
Inc. 202 NLRB No. 87.
The contention that Collins had offered his resignation
and President McElrath had instructed Dispatcher Mc-
Camy to accept it, is without merit. It appears from Dis-
patcher McCamy's testimony which I credit that he had
informed President McElrath of Collins' threatened resig-
nation when Collins indicated that he was unhappy at being
directed to drive a different truck. Yet President McElrath
did not at that time instruct McCamy to accept Collins'
resignation. It was only after Supervisors Brooks and Mc-
Camy learned of Collins' union sympathy and activity, that
President McElrath instructed McCamy to accept Collins'
resignation. And this occurred on the very next day after
Respondent's supervisors learned of Collins' sympathy and
activity for the Union.
President McElrath's reason for selecting Hatley over
Kilpatrick for discharge, even though Hatley was senior to
Kilpatrick, likewise will not withstand scrutiny. President
McElrath testified that he selected Harley for layoff because
of his physical condition, feeling that employee Kilpatrick
was in better physical shape to unload ingredients at the
feed mill.13 President McElrath testified further that Hatley
had complained to his supervisor that he was not able to
unload ingredients at the mill. However, Dispatcher Mc-
Camy, Hatley's supervisor, called as a witness on behalf of
the Respondent, contradicted President McElrath, stating
that he did not recall ever having heard any complaints
from Harley about doing his work. McCamy testified fur-
ther that he did not observe any incidents wherein Hatley
could not unload the bags of ingredients at the feed mill. In
the light of the foregoing, I am compelled to conclude that
Respondent's reasons for selecting Hatley for discharge
were purely pretextual. The circumstances detailed above
indicating Respondent's knowledge of Hatley's union sym-
pathies fully support the conclusion that he was selected for
discharge because of his sympathy for the Union.
I do not credit President McElrath's testimony that he did
not know until a week before White's discharge that White
was Brooks' brother-in-law. White testified credibly that it
was he who raised with Brooks the question whether his
relationship to Brooks might be an impediment to his secur-
ing a job with Respondent and that Brooks assured him
after discussing the matter with President McElrath that the
latter did not consider the relationship to be an impediment.
If Brooks had not in fact discussed the matter with President
McElrath, presumably the Respondent would have called
Brooks to so testify. Yet Brooks was not called as a witness.
Furthermore, the garage is a relatively small shop and in a
13 Approximately 2-1/2 years before Hatley's discharge, he had been in-
vo"lved,m an accident in which he had fractured a leg, ankle, aran, and collar
bone
McELRATH POULTRY CO. 361
relatively small town where matters of relationship are gen-
erally well known among the populace, and more especially
among employers and employees. In the case of White, too,
the timing and circumstances of his discharge compel the
conclusion that the reason assigned by the Respondent was
purely pretextual and that White was discharged for his
union sympathy. First, it does not appear that the Respon-
dent had a policy against employing relatives of other em-
ployees. To the contrary, the record shows that other related
employees worked for the Respondent and continue to be
so employed. Second, White was discharged immediately
after Brooks learned of White's union sympathy-(Appar-
ently Brooks' loyalty to his employer was greater than his
loyalty to his brother-in-law.) Third, when White told
Brooks that he did not believe that his relationship to
Brooks was the reason for his discharge, but that the reason
was either that he had asked for a raise or because of the
Union, Brooks cryptically replied, "I know." Fourth, when
White told President McElrath that he did not believe that
his relationship to Brooks had anything to do with his dis-
charge, President McElrath replied that that was all the
reason that he needed.
A review of the foregoing reveals a common thread run-
ning through the discharges: All three were union sympath-
izers and were abruptly discharged on the same day. Both
Collins and White were discharged the day after they had
disclosed their sympathy for the union. All three were re-
buffed when they sought to question their discharges. Thus,
when Collins and Hatley raised the issue of their seniority,
they were each told by Vice President Herman McElrath
that seniority did not count "in this case." Similarly, when
White told President McElrath that he did not believe that
his relationship to Brooks was the real reason for his dis-
charge, President McElrath grinned and said that was all
the reason he needed. As the Court of Appeals for the tenth
Circuit said in- Betts Baking Company v. N.L.RB., 380 F.2d
199 (1967), at 204,
Rarely, if ever, does an employer admit that an em-
ployee has been discharged for participation in union
activities. Discrimination must, therefore, usually be
proved by circumstantial evidence, and properly so.
See also N.L.R.B. v. Glenn Berry Manufacturers, Inc., 422
F.2d 748 (CA. 10, 1970); McGraw-Edison Company v. N.L.
R.B., 419 F.2d 67 (C.A. 8, 1969).
Respondent argues that there is no evidence of union
animus on the part of the Respondent prior to the dis-
charges.14 To the contrary, Respondent points out that
when it took over Colonial Poultry Company, in which the
Union already represented the employees, it not only agreed
to recognize the Union immediately, but agreed to accept
the collective-bargaining contract in its entirety without
question or negotiations. These are indeed circumstances to
14 In the circumstances of this case it is unnecessary to rely upon evidence
of post-discharge union animus , i.e President McElrath's threats to employ-
ee Rogers, made within a month after the discharges , as supporting the
finding that the discharges were discrimmatonly motivated It should be
noted , however, that such evidence may be considered in this context Majes-
tic Molded Products, Inc, 143 NLRB 71, 72, enfd. 330 F.2d 603 (C.A. 2, 1964).
be considered, and I have taken them into account to arriv-
ing at my conclusion. However, these considerations cannot
prevail against the host of other circumstances detailed
above which demonstrate that the only reasonable explana-
tion for the discharges is Respondent's hostility to the
Union. Murray Golub, d/b/a Golub Bros. Concessions, 140
NLRB 120, 129. Although the Respondent may have had a
good relationship with the Union in its processing plant
(Colonial Poultry Products), its drivers and mechanics were
unorganized, and apparently the Respondent preferred that
it remain so. Cf. Willard Bronze Company, 148 NLRB 1686,
1691.
Respondent also points to the fact that other employees,
particularly drivers Knott and Bohannon, who were sympa-
thetic to the union were not discharged. The short answer
is that this "does not exculpate . . . [Respondent] from the
charge of discrimination as to those discharged" (N.L.R.B.
v. W. C. Nabors Co., 196 F.2d 272, 276 (C.A. 5)). See also
Golub Bros. Concessions, supra.
Under all the circumstances, I find and conclude that the
Respondent discharged Collins, Hatley, and White in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
VI. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section V,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent set forth in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
VIL THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and-desist there-
from and that it take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged John H. Collins, Lewis Hatley, and Jerry White, I
shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to offer
them immediate reinstatement to their former jobs, dis-
charging, if necessary, any employees hired to fill such jobs,
or if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights,
and make them whole for any loss of earnings each may
have suffered by reason of such discharges, with interest to
be computed in the customary manner.ts
I shall further recommend that the Respondent be or-
dered to preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate
the computation of the backpay due and the right to em-
ployment.
As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respon-
dent are of a character striking at the root of the employees'
15 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rights safeguarded by the act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist from infringing in any manner on rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 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. John H. Collins, Lewis Hatley, and Jerry White were
employees within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act,
when they were employed by the Respondent.
4. By threatening employee Rogers, the Respondent has
engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By discriminatorily discharging John H. Collins, Lewis
Hatley, and Jerry White, the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing finding of fact, and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 16
Respondent, McElrath Poultry Company, Inc., its offi-
cers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening its employees with changes in working
conditions if they select Amalgamated Meat Cutters &
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local
405, as their collective-bargaining representative.
(b) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Meat
Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
Local 405, or in any other labor organization of its employ-
ees, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating
against employees in regard to hire and tenure of employ-
ment or any type of working conditions of employment.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activity for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to John H. Collins, Lewis Hatley, and Jerry
White immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs, discharging, if necessary, any employees hired to fill
such jobs, or if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights, and make them whole for any loss of earnings
each may have suffered by reason of such discharges in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying all records
necessary for the determination of the amount of backpay
due and the right to reinstatement.
(c) Post at its plant in Albertville, Alabama, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 17 Copies of the notice
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of
the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
16 In 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 recommendations, 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.
17 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading, "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with changes in
working conditions if they select Amalgamated Meat
Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
CIO, Local 405 as their collective-bargaining represen-
tative.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Amalgamat-
ed Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO, Local 405, or in any other labor
organization of our employees, by discharging or in
any other manner discriminating against employees in
regard to hire and tenure of employment or any type
of working conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any
labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer to John H. Collins, Lewis Hatley, and
Jerry White immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs, discharging, if necessary, any employees
McELRATH POULTRY CO.
hired to fill such jobs , or if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights , and make them whole
for any loss of earnings each may have suffered by
reason of such discharges.
All of our employees are free to become and remain
members of the above-named Union or any other labor
organization , or to refrain from doing so.
MCELRATH POULTRY COMPANY,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
363
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, Peachtree Building , Room 701, 730
Peachtree Street , N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone
404-526-5760.