Midland Glass Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 547 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

MIDLAND GLASS COMPANY 547
Midland Glass Company and Mike R. Kelly. Case 10-
CA-10510 (formerly 12-CA-6194)
September 25, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
examine, propose findings and conclusions, argue orally,
and file briefs, which were received on April 8, 1974.
The ultimate issue presented is whether Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging its
employee Mike R. Kelly on or about July 31, 1973, and
thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate him.
Upon the entire record and my observations of the testi-
monial demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
On April 30, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Stan-
ley N. Ohlbaum 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 the rulings,' findings, and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Midland Glass Compa-
ny, Warner Robins, Georgia, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
said recommended Order.
' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule
an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings
2 The Respondent has requested oral argument This request is hereby
denied , because, in our opinion , the record , exceptions , and brief adequately
present the positions of the parties
DECISION
STANLEY N. OHLBAUM, Administrative Law Judge: Based
upon a charge filed on November 23, 1973, resulting in a
complaint issued on January 17, 1974, by the Board's Re-
gional Director for Region 10, this proceeding under the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §
151, et seq. ("Act"), came on for hearing before me in Ma-
con, Georgia, on February 20 and March 6, 1974, with all
parties participating throughout and afforded full opportu-
nity to adduce testimonial and documentary proof, cross-
' Where year references are omitted herein, they are 1973.
I PARTIES, JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent Midland Glass Compa-
ny has been and is a Delaware corporation, with an office
and place of business in Warner Robins, Georgia, where it
has been and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of glass
bottles. In the course and conduct of that business during
the representative year immediately preceding issuance of
the complaint, Respondent sold and shipped finished prod-
ucts valued in excess of $50,000 directly in interstate com-
merce to customers located outside of the State of Georgia.
As detailed below, the Charging Party, Mike R. Kelly, was
an employee of Respondent at its Warner Robins facility.
I find that at all material times Respondent has been and
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
11 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Facts as Found
Respondent concedes that it discharged Mike R. Kelly
from its employ on or about July 31, 1973, and that it has
since then failed and refused to reinstate him. The question
here is whether that discharge was for a reason violative of
the Act. The complaint alleges that the reason was Kelly's
union membership and protected concerted activities. Re-
spondent, however, asserts that Kelly was never employed
by it "as a production worker," that he "never came under
the union contract" to which it was a party, and that the
reason he was fired was that "his attitude had greatly de-
clined" and had become "antagonistic." 2
Much conflicting testimony was presented at the hearing
concerning the circumstances of Kelly's advent into
Respondent's new glassmaking plant at Warner Robins,
Georgia, but for reasons to be shown it does not appear that
those particular circumstances have decisive significance
here.
According to Kelly, he was definitely promised a glass-
maker job before he uprooted his family from the West
(Colorado, where he had steady employment in another
glassmaker job) and came East to Respondent's new glass-
making plant in Warner Robins, Georgia. Kelly insists he
came East only upon firm job assurances from
Respondent's Warner Robins plant manager, Mason Ash-
by. According to Ashby, however, Kelly was given no assur-
ances or encouragement of any kind, but simply came East
on his own and put in a surprise appearance at Warner
2 Answer, pars 5 and 3
548
Robins in search of work.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Employee's version
Kelly's testimony indicates that he is a journeyman glass
machine operator qualified by training and experience to
operate as well as maintain glass bottlemaking machinery,
holding both a journeyman glass machine operator's and
also a master's maintenance and upkeep qualification card
issued by the Glass Bottle Blowers Union. He was employed
for about 5 years in glassmaking at the Minnesota plant of
American Can Company and, upon acquisition of that
plant by Midland Glass Company (Respondent herein), by
the latter (for about 4 years of the foregoing 5). Subsequent-
ly, he was employed, also as a glass machine operator, by
Columbine Glass Company in Colorado, for about 2-1/2
years, until March 1973 and his return, under circumstances
to be described, to the employment of Midland Glass Com-
pany (Respondent) at its new glass bottlemaking plant in
Warner Robins, Georgia.
According to Kelly-who impressed me as a candid and
honest witness-as a result of job solicitations on his part
by long-distance telephone from Colorado (where he was
then employed by Columbine Glass Company) around Feb-
ruary 1973, seeking employment at Respondent's new plant
under construction in Warner Robins, Georgia, he moved
his family to Warner Robins on assurances from
Respondent's plant manager there, Mason Ashby, that he
would have a job there in his usual line as a glassmaker.
When he arrived in Warner Robins in March, Ashby in-
formed him that since the plant was not yet totally complet-
ed he could meanwhile be gainfully employed in the
completion of the plant construction then in process. Ac-
cordingly, pending what he with seeming justification took
for granted would be his entry upon his usual work as a
journeyman glass bottlemaker when the Warner Robins
plant was ready to go into production-for which he had
given up his job in Colorado and moved his family East-
Kelly, by assignment and arrangement of Respondent's
Plant Manager Ashby, commenced working for the `glass
plant's contractor or subcontractor (Bortman Constructiori
Company) on the glass plant batchliouse, until early June.
At that time (early June), Plant Manager Ashby assigned
Kelly to a job as a carpenter's helper-work at which Kelly
had experience and skill-at the new plant itself pending its,
actual opening, again assuring Kelly of a journeyman glass-
worker job as soon as the plant opened. Accordingly, in
June (1973) Kelly began doing , carpentry work at
Respondent's nearly completed plant, on a 7-day-per-week
and 10-hour-per-day schedule, on Respondent's own pay-
roll. At the time when Kelly thus came into the direct em-
ploy of Respondent 'at its nearly completed plant,
temporarily doing carpenter's helper work (June)-at which
Kelly was experienced-Respondent had only three em-
ployees 3 on its payroll there, but two more were added soon
thereafter, bringing ,the total to five (including Kelly), all
glassworkers and all five of whom were assigned to jobs of the
3I.e, aside from Plant Manager Ashby and possibly other managerial,
executive, supervisory, and clerical personnel at or due to report to Warner
Robins by transfer or assignment from elsewhere
same kind as Kelly's, assisting with completion of the plant
construction. At the time Kelly was thus transferred from
plant contractor Bortman's payroll in June and placed on
Respondent's direct payroll, Kelly received a substantial
pay increase.4
On July 31, 1973, 1 day before the Warner Robins plant
was scheduled formally to open and its union contract to go
into effect, Kelly was without forewarning summarily dis-
charged, under circumstances to be described. He swears
there had never been any criticism of his work or job perfor-
mance.
In mid-1973 Kelly in company with some fellow employ-
ees-all glassworkers and all still engaged in the same kind
of temporary construction work as Kelly-attended a union
organizational meeting held under auspices of the Glass
Bottle Blowers Union, whose representative notified the
employees that Respondent's Plant Manager had already
extended recognition to that Union-without an election.5
The union representative further informed the employees at
the meeting that he had assigned the number "234" to be
the Local number for the plant Union, and the employee,
informally designated employee Charles Hudson as care-
taker or temporary president pending an election. Subse-
quently Hudson received by mail from the union
representative a copy of the contract executed between the
union representative and Respondent, as well as some union
literature and an official seal. There is no indication of
further organizational activity until the event to be de-
scribed; i.e., Kelly's discharge.
At the end of his shift at 5 p.m. on July 31,.1973 6 -he
had already punched out-Kelly was leaving the plant
when, , in the company - parking lot he encountered
Respondent's "Hot End" 7 Superintendent Harold Manley,
who remarked to him that he "might have ah opening for
an upkeep"-i.e., glass machine niaintenanceman, a skill
for which Kelly held a qualification card and' which paid a
higher salary than the journeyman glass machine operator
job which Kelly was about to move into. Indicating he was
interested, Kelly briefly reviewed his prior experience in
"upkeep." Manley then asked Kelly where he was going and
invited him for a beer. Kelly replied that he was bound for
Hudson's home in order to pick up some 'union materials
since he (Kelly) was taking over as temporary president of
the Union, but that he would meet Manley shortly, thereaf-
ter and discuss the "upkeep" job further.
When Kelly joined Manley shortly thereafter for the beer,
however, Manley tersely informed Kelly that "We want to
talk to you out at the plant." Returning thereupon to the
plant at almost 7 p.m., long past Kelly's workday, Kelly
joined Manley in the personnel office (then in a temporary
trailer), where, Respondent's Personnel Manager Ghedine
° , I e ; from $3 50 to $3 77 per hour, resulting in a substantial weekly pay
increase When Respondent subsequently recognized the Union, Kelly re-
ceived another increase to union scale, $4 66 '
5 A letter from Respondent's Plant Manager Ashby recognizing the Union
effective August 1 is dated July 17, 1973 'el
6 It will be recalled that the plant was scheduled to open the next day,
August 1, 1973; at which time the contract with the Union was also supposed
to go into effect However , according to Plant Manager Ashby, it was not
until September 8 that the first actual bottle was turned out at Warner
Robins
i Le., glass fabrication
MIDLAND GLASS COMPANY 549
announced to Kelly that he was being discharged in view of
"reports that [your] attitude [is] bad." Kelly was incredu-
lous, stating he could not believe it and that it was not so.
Reminding Ghedine that he had moved his family and all
of his possessions from Colorado, Kelly pleaded that he
could not now "afford to be fired"; and he pointed out,
among other things, that he had been working steadfastly
10-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, and that if there was any
substance to such charges somebody would at least have
mentioned it to him. Ghedine, however, did not choose to
amplify his remarks, supply any further information, or
indicate any source of the alleged "reports." Kelly there-
upon requested to speak to Plant Manager Ashby. Ghedine
left the trailer and returned with Ashby, who also merely
stated to Kelly that he was being discharged because of
"reports that we've gotten." Although Kelly pleaded for
reconsideration, Ashby remained adamant. When Kelly in-
quired why this had not been mentioned to him before,
Ashby's only reply was, "It's too late for that." When Kelly
thereupon asked Ghedine about having a union representa-
tive present, Ghedine's response was that Kelly had no such
right before midnight, when the union contract was sched-
uled to go into effect (although it had been previously
signed), and that "that's the reason I'm firing you now."
When Kelly then requested a recommendation so that he
could get another job, he was told by Ashby that "It would
be best if you just didn't put on [your] application that you
ever worked here." Kelly thereupon left the plant. Subse-
quent efforts on his part to obtain redress through the
Union proved unavailing, the union representative taking
the same position as Respondent, that the union contract
had not yet technically taken effect.
As has already been indicated, no Board-conducted elec-
tion had taken place prior to Respondent' s recognition of
the Union as the exclusive collective- bargaining representa-
tive of the plant employees, nor prior to agreement as to the
contract between the Union and Respondent in mid-July
effective on August 1.
After waiting a few days for help from the Union, to no
avail, Kelly moved his wife and three children from Warner
Robins, Georgia, to Jacksonville, Florida, to seek employ-
ment there. He eventually landed a job in Jacksonville,
starting as a sweeper or porter, with Anchor Hocking Glass
Corporation, another leading glass manufacturer . However,
after about 3 weeks he was summarily discharged from that
job by Personnel Manager Collins there for failing to in-
clude on his employment application form the fact that he
had been previously employed at Warner Robins by Re-
spondent Midland Glass Company. At the time of Kelly's
discharge from Anchor Hocking, Collins told Kelly that he
(Collins) had been informed on the telephone by
Respondent's Personnel Manager Ghedine that Kelly had
been fired "for union activities, and stirring up quite a bit
of trouble . . . getting the guys stirred up." Although Kelly
insisted to Collins that this was "not what they told me,"
Kelly stayed fired. It was only after this discharge from
Anchor Hocking under these circumstances that Kelly filed
the charge against Respondent Midland Glass resulting in
the complaint herein. Kelly traveled from Jacksonville,
Florida, to Macon, Georgia, to testify against Respondent
at this hearing.
Kelly was insistent in his testimony that he would not
have given up his glassmaker's job in Colorado to move
himself, his wife, and three children and their belongings to
Warner Robins, Georgia, without a definite job assurance
in his regular work as a glassmaker . He was equally insistent
that at no time during his employment at Warner Robins
had he received any complaint or adverse comment con-
cerning his work performance, and no forewarning whatso-
ever prior to his precipitate discharge on the heels of his
remarking to Manley that he was moving into the position
of active leadership of the Union. Kelly's testimony further
establishes that in his previous 4 years of employment with
Respondent at its Minnesota glassmaking plant, he had
received only one warning and that for parking in the vis-
itors' lot, but had received a commendatory letter for his
production ; and that likewise in his most recent employ-
ment at Columbine Glass Company in Colorado he had
received a letter of recommendation when he left there for
the purpose of transferring to Respondent's employ in War-
ner Robins, Georgia.
2. Employer's version
While conceding that he had several long-distance tele-
phone conversations with Kelly in Colorado in February on
the subject of a glassmaker's job in Warner Robins,
Respondent's Plant Manager Ashby disputes that he gave
Kelly anything like a job assurance . Ashby instead insists
that he was astounded when Kelly presented himself in
Warner Robins in March; and that, when Kelly on that
occasion pleaded for Ashby's "help to get [me] a job," Ash-
by, feeling sorry for Kelly because he was a family man,
obtained a common laborer's job for Kelly by interceding
with a subcontractor. Further according to Ashby, however,
when this phase of Respondent's Warner Robins plant con-
struction was completed, in early June he (Ashby) transfer-
red Kelly as well as four other glassmakers who were also
doing similar laboring work on the construction, to
Respondent's payroll; all of these employees of Respondent
Midland (including Kelly) thereupon being detailed to as-
sisting with construction work on or involving Respondent's
glass furnaces.
At the trial, Ashby attempted to distinguish the other four
glassworkers (Hudson, McGee, Vangelder, and
Marsh)-none of whom was called by Respondent as a
witness-from Kelly by testifying that unlike Kelly (alone)
he (Ashby) had given them definite "assurance" of "guaran-
teed" jobs as "glassworkers." Ashby concedes , however,
that all five (including Kelly) were in fact glassworkers by
trade, that all without distinction were placed on
Respondent's payroll, that all without distinction tempo-
rarily assisted in construction work pending completion of
the plant , and that all were so employed and engaged on
July 31 when Kelly was discharged.
This testimony of Plant Manager Ashby appears to be at
some variance with the rather sweeping testimonial asser-
tions, elsewhere recounted , of Respondent 's new industrial
relations director at Warner Robins, Fred Ghedine, that
Ashby hired "nobody." Perhaps in an attempt to seek a
semantical middle ground, Ashby later claimed he did not
"hire" but merely "committed" himself to the other four,
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unlike Kelly; but still later Ashby attempted to squirm away
from this position also by claiming that he does not "com-
mit" himself but merely adopts recommendations of his
subordinates. For reasons to be indicated, I have discredited
Ghedine in large part; and, not crediting Ashby's denials,
if such they are, of authority on his part to employ-contra-
dicted even by Ghedine-I find that Ashby did in fact have
and exercise authority to hire and did in fact hire Kelly, at
one point or another, to be a glassworker at Respondent's
Warner Robins plant, or give assurances that Kelly would,
like the other glassworkers who were also temporarily as-
signed to assisting on the construction work, have a
glassworker's job upon completion of the plant construc-
tion.
While disputing that he had given Kelly a firm job assur-
ance at Warner Robins before Kelly presented himself there
to work, Ashby on cross-examination appeared to assert
and maintain a perhaps ambiguous qualification as to any
such denial of assurance on his part to Kelly after Kelly's
arrival at Warner Robins and being placed on Respondent's
actual payroll there (in and after June, as aforestated). As
to the latter, Ashby would not make a flat denial, even when
invited to do so, cautiously asserting that only to his
"knowledge" ("that's the best I can do for you") he had not
given Kelly that assurance. And Ashby conceded that he
had "no problem as far as his [Kelly's].. . . workmanship
itself is concerned," claiming only that Kelly's precipitate
discharge-for which, according to Ashby, it was Manley
who made the "determinative recommendation"-was
predicated only upon Kelly's "incompatib[ility] with a good
smooth running operation" and "abrasive attitude." It will
be recalled that it was Manley who had offered Kelly a
higher-payingjob and (as Manley admits, infra) invited Kel-
ly to join him in beer, just before Kelly remarked that he
would meet him later since he was on his way to pick up
some material in conjunction with taking over the presiden-
cy of the Union. It seems odd that Manley would have made
a "determinative recommendation" to precipitately dis-
charge a man to whom he hadjust offered a better job and
invited to join him for a beer. Ashby conceded that if Kelly
had continued working at the plant after July 31 it would have
been as a glassworker in the glass production operations. On
cross-examination, Ashby acknowledged that he was aware
that Kelly was primed or prepared to become president of
the Union, claiming that he (Ashby) had learned this 2 or
3 days prior to Kelly's discharge.
With regard to Kelly's actual discharge on the evening of
July 31, Ashby's version is not substantially different from
that of Kelly, except that Ashby claims that he had heard
for a week or two, or perhaps three (but "not before"), that
Kelly's "attitude" was "bad" and that he was "bossy" and
"abrasive," but that he (Ashby) neither did anything about
it nor so much as mentioned it to Kelly or told any subordi-
nate to mention it to Kelly.' Ashby also added (at the trial)
8
This testimony appears to contrast with the allegation in Respondent's
answer-subscribed by Respondent's Industrial Relations Director Ghe-
dine-that "Kelly was counseled and told that in the immediate 4 months
prior to his termination his attitude had greatly declined " No explanation
is suggested as to why such an employee-also characterized as "antagonis-
tic"-would have been kept on for 4 months, especially without admonition
or warning
that at the July 31 discharge episode Kelly offered, in order
to save his job, to "drop out of the Union, I [Kelly] won't
have any activity for two years."
Respondent's "Hot End" production manager and super-
visor, Harold Manley, testified that he was hired by Re-
spondent 9 on April27 and did not arrive at Warner Robins
until July 5. He claims that in the interim he hired or partici-
pated in the hiring of production employees for the Warner
Robins plant-usually over the telephone. Although he first
testified that when he was first hired, Plant Manager Ashby
informed him he (Ashby) had not yet hired anybody for a
"permanent" job, on further questioning Manley appeared
to equivocate concerning this.10 In this connection, it is
further noted that although in Respondent's posthearing
brief it is stated that Respondent's Industrial Relations Di-
rector Ghedine testified (as he did) that "16 operators were
needed" (Resp. brief, p. 4) in the plant, it is elsewhere point-
ed out in the same brief that Manley testified (as indeed he
did) that he only hired "12 operators" (id., p. 5) prior to July
5 (It would seem that the remaining four could have been
Kelly and the other glassworkers who were, as shown above,
assigned by Ashby to assist temporarily in construction
work )
Manley-who, according to Plant Manager Ashby, made
the "determinative recommendation" resulting in Kelly's
discharge on the evening of July 31-swore that he first met
Kelly around July 25, after observing when he (Manley)
arrived at Warner Robins (July 5) that Kelly was one of a
number of glassworkers assisting in the construction work.
According to Manley-whose demeanor left much to be
desired, in part because of a demonstrated proclivity to
exaggerate and an ill-concealed tendency to bend facts in
Respondent's direction, also creating the impression that he
was fashioning details while in the process of testifying-he
attended a meeting on July 30, the day before Kelly's dis-
charge, with Plant Manager Ashby and others,' I at which he
heard that Kelly might be working for him (Manley) "after
the plant was in full production if he had ajob with Midland
Glass" 12 -a seemingly most unlikely form of hypothetical
expression-but that Kelly had a bad "attitude." According
to Manley, this was the first time Kelly's name had come
up.13 Accordingly, still as Manley claims-he instructed
9 By Plant Manager Ashby, it is noted-contrary to Ghedine's sweeping
generalization that Ashby hired "nobody "
10 Also, when asked the direct question whether Plant Manager Ashby ever
hired any employee, Manley stated he did not know, and that "he never hired
anybody that was going to work for me " (Obviously, this is consistent with
Ashby's having hired Kelly, since, in view of Kelly's discharge on July 31
before stepping into a "hot end" glassworker's job, Kelly never actually
"worked for" Manley )
11 including Ghedine, Stevenson, and Floyd It is to be noted that neither
Plant Manager Ashby nor Ghedine nor Floyd so much as mentioned any
such meeting in their testimony I find it difficult to believe that if such a
meeting had been held, (1) Ashby and Ghedine would not have referred to
it in their testimony, and even relied on it heavily, (2) Kelly would not have
been discharged the following day (if at all), instead of being offered a better
job at the end of that day, invited for a beer (by Manley), and then later-
after disclosing his intention to assume leadership of the Union-suddenly
directed to return to the plant around 7 p in for no purpose other than to
beiprecipitately discharged
This, in turn, appears to contrast with Respondent 's insistence through
Ashby that there was no question but that Kelly neither had nor was destined
for such a job
17 This again contrasts with Ashby's and other witnesses ' testimony-as
MIDLAND GLASS COMPANY 551
hot-end supervisors-shift foremen Shultz and Dave Kelly to
observe Kelly and report back to him; by the next afternoon
(July 31), these two 14 allegedly reported to him (Manley)
that they would not like to have Kelly working for them
because they had been told that he had a "snotty attitude,"
was "cocky," 15 and "was usually standing around doing
nothing or standing around talking to somebody else keep-
ing them from working." Taking the alleged "report" at face
value, nevertheless thereupon, according to Manley, Man-
ley, chancing to see Kelly leaving the jobsite at the close of
the afternoon of July 31, told him it was a pretty hot day
and invited him to join him later for beer. Although Manley
insisted this was the entire conversation, on further ques-
tioning he reluctantly conceded that an "upkeep" job also
figured in the discussion and that Kelly indicated he was
experienced in that kind of work, and also that Manley was
aware that Kelly held the journeyman's card. Manley fur-
ther conceded, likewise on cross-examination for the first
time , that also in this conversation Kelly indicated he had
to go somewhere else before he could join Manley for the
beer; according to Manley, Kelly merely said he wanted to
go home to dress or clean up, and Manley denied "knowl-
edge" that Kelly mentioned the name of his fellow-employ-
ee Hudson where Kelly was going to pick up the union
paraphernalia. Based on comparative demeanor observa-
tions, within the frame of reference of the record as a whole,
I unhesitatingly prefer and credit Kelly's straightforward
and unshaken version of the described incident.
Continuing with Manley's account at the trial, it is
Manley's further testimony that after he had invited Kelly,
in the described conversation at the shift close of July 31,
to join him for beer, Manley met Ashby and Ghedine (be-
fore going to keep his appointment to have beer with Kelly)
and remarked to them that "with this guy's [i.e., Kelly's]
attitude I think we'd be better off to let him go because it'll
probably rub off on somebody else and I don't need the guy
and I would just as soon let him go," as a result of which
it was then and there decided to discharge him, and Manley
said he would tell this to Kelly since he was meeting him for
a drink. 16 While Manley's description of the July 31 dis-
charge episode does not diffir essentially from the others,
Manley did add the perhaps telling detail that when Ghe-
dine informed Kelly he was being discharged he (Ghedine)
also told Kelly that he was being discharged because Re-
spondent feared or thought he would get "a lot of other
people thinking the same way . . . or everybody's the
boss." 17
Respondent's new Industrial Relations Director Frederic
or Fred Ghedme also testified as its witness. Although Ghe-
well as with the aforequoted allegations-that Respondent's dissatisfaction
with Kelly had been of longstanding It seems hardly likely that, if this were
true, Manley as Respondent's production manager would not at least have
heard about it
14 Neither (nor any of their alleged informants ) was called to testify at the
trial, nor was any explanation offered as to why not
15 Added on cross-examination
16 Aside from the incongruity of this story, it is difficult to perceive why,
under these circumstances, Manley would have asked Kelly to return to the
plant with him that night
17 1 do not credit Manley's evasive denial of awareness that Kelly was
assuming leadership of the Union
dine was apparently hired on April 1, he did not come on
the scene at Warner Robins-"officially ... moved perma-
nent," as he testified in his characteristically slippery style 18
-until May 30 (at which time Kelly had been long there).
Ghedine conceded that his first contact with Kelly was on
July 31, on the occasion of his discharge. Ghedine appeared
to be trying to make much of the fact that he himself never
interviewed Kelly about a job-a wholly irrelevant circum-
stance.19 But Ghedine conceded that Plant Manager Ashby
does indeed have the authority to hire employees, and that
he (Ghedine) did not know what Kelly's job was when
Ghedine started at the plant on May 30. Ghedine-an un-
prepossessingly aggressive witness who made no attempt to
conceal his hostility toward Kelly and his strong partiality
toward Respondent-would have it that he precipitately
discharged Kelly on the night of July 31 because a number
of foremen (none produced here, with the possible excep-
tion of Floyd, whose testimony is recounted below) had
previously "complained" to him that Kelly's "attitude had
greatly declined," that he had undesirable "working habits"
such as "disappearing on thejob," and that these "stood out
like a sore thumb"-although he concedes that he did not
mention most of this to Kelly even on the occasion of his
discharge, much less any of it prior to then. Since these
alleged "complaints" are wholly unsubstantiated, alleged
original sources being without explanation unproduced at
the trial, are to a degree at variance with testimony of
Respondent's own other witnesses, and must be evaluated
within the frame of reference of my unfavorable demeanor
observations of this witness, I do not accept them as having
been made or received as indicated, and in no event to the
extent that they played a role in Kelly's precipitate dis-
charge under the suspicious circumstances described and
still remaining to be further described.
Respondent's remaining witness was Robert Floyd, one
of its packing department supervisors since July 1(also long
after Kelly arrived), when according to his testimony he also
was hired over the telephone (from another glass plant in
California). Although a glassworker, on arrival at
Respondent's Warner Robins plant from the California
glass plant Floyd was (like Kelly) assigned to assist with the
construction work then in progress at Warner Robins. Sub-
sequently, according to Floyd, Kelly was detailed under
Floyd for about 2 weeks doing carpentry work. Floyd testi-
fied vaguely and with some apparent straining that during
this period he received "complaints" from "some of the
18 Thus, for example, Ghedine laboriously attempted to portray Kelly as
wholly alien to an employment relationship with Respondent at any time, on
the theory that no actual bottle came off the production line at Warner
Robins until September 8, by which time Kelly had been discharged After
first attempting , seemingly deceptively, to insist Kelly was merely a construc-
tion laborer on a non-Respondent -related "construction payroll," the admis-
sions were grudgingly wrested from Ghedine that this "construction payroll"
was entitled " Midland Construction ," which was not a separate company but
Respondent Midland Glass Company itself (It will also be recalled that at least
four other glassworkers , dust like Kelly , initially assisted in the very same
construction work ) Ghedine also persisted in attempting to supply hortatory
amplifications rather than direct factual responses to questions , and it was
only grudgingly and with visible ill grace that he desisted therefrom
1 In view of my finding that Plant Manager Ashby hired Kelly, and
Ghedine's own testimony that it was Manley and not he (Ghedme) who
interviewed other operators
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
people" 20 that Kelly "bossed them around too much."
Floyd's further testimony on this matter, including his al-
leged mentioning the matter to Kelly, was similarly vague
or nonpersuasive, and his befuddlement not merely as to
dates but relative periods of time as well as his demeanor
while testifying to all of this was so unconvincing that I find
it impossible to credit it. Floyd concedes that it is not assert-
ed that Kelly ever so much as raised his voice at or toward
anybody, fellow-employee or other; but that, while Kelly
was indeed doing at least the carpentry work he was sup-
posed to be doing, he may not have been cleaning up af-
terward,21 although Floyd admitted he could not say Kelly
was "goofing off." 22 Still, Floyd claims he told Assistant
Plant Manager Stevenson around July 27-29 that he was
having a "behavior" problem with Kelly involving the
latter's "attitude toward other people." 23 Nevertheless,
Floyd conceded under cross-examination that at this time it
was contemplated that Kelly would be working at the "hot end"
of the plant under Manley when it went into production Ac-
cording to Floyd, when Ghedme in the latter part of July
routinely asked him if Kelly (had) worked for him, Floyd,
who had had no particular problems with Kelly and "didn't
have any complaints," merely indicated that he was "a little
bit overbearing sometimes to his coworkers." Viewed as a
whole, Floyd's testimony left me with the clear impression
that at no time did Floyd have any real problem with Kelly.
3. Evidence from three disinterested witnesses
Three seemingly disinterested witnesses provided solidly
persuasive testimony of substantial value in resolving credi-
bility and ultimate issues herein. Each testified adversely to
Respondent Two of these witnesses are subpenaed witness-
es still in Respondent's employ-a factor properly to be
accorded weight in assessing their testimony since given at
potential risk to their jobs.24
Charles Hudson, currently employed by Respondent as a
glassmaking machine repairman (a regular production job)
under Production Manager Manley, and testifying under
subpena, swore that following an interview by Plant Manag-
er Ashby (with Ghedine) in New Jersey, he was hired as a
machine repairman for the Warner Robins plant. Arriving
at Warner Robins around June 1, while the plant was still
under construction, he was put to work as a carpenter's
helper-the same as Kelly.25 Although Hudson, who
20 Again without explanation , none was called to testify Jordan, whose
testimony , as General Counsel's witness , is recounted below , was one of
them, according to Floyd
21 During redirect testimony, however, Floyd testified that when he in-
structed Kelly, the same as other employees, to clean up, Kelly did so
22 In connection with these alleged "complaints" concerning Kelly's "bos-
siness" while on carpentry work, it is to be noted that, as expressly conceded
by Floyd on cross-examination , Kelly had more expertise at carpentry work
than the other glassworkers who like Kelly had been detailed thereto, and
that Floyd himself readily furnished assistants to Kelly at that work upon
Kelly's request
23 Once again unexplamedly , Stevenson was not called to testify It is
furthermore noted that even according to Floyd's own previous as well as
subsequent testimony , Kelly was not then and had not for about 2 weeks prior
to then been under Floyd's supervision
24 See, e g, Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304, 1305, In 2, enfd as modi-
fied 308 F 2d 89 (C A 5, 1962), Wirtz v B A C Steel Products, Inc, 312 F 2d
14, 16 (CA 4)
25 Hudson's first paychecks were from the construction contractor, and his
worked with Kelly up to about a month before Kelly's
discharge, characterized Kelly as "sort of bossy" in his car-
pentry role-in which Hudson regarded Kelly as experi-
enced and knowledgeable, unlike Hudson and the
others-this, according to Hudson, caused no problems
with Hudson or any of the other employees. No problem or
difficulty between Kelly and any other employee or man-
agement was ever observed by Hudson. It was from Hudson
that Kelly was taking over the Union presidency, after Hud-
son announced he (Hudson) was "going to give it up."
Al Lummus, still employed by Respondent at Warner
Robins as a maintenance electrician (a regular, full-time
job), also testifying under subpena, swore that he first came
on the jobsite as an employee of a construction company,
until its work was completed in June 1973, when
Respondent's Plant Manager Ashby got him a job with
Southeastern Electric Company (another jobsite subcon-
tractor), subsequent to which he was hired into
Respondent's employ by Ashby, to whom he had applied for
a job in April or May (on Mike Kelly's suggestion), when
Ashby assured him of a job with Respondent On the same
occasion, Lummus swore, he heard Ashby say to Kelly that he
"thought he could find a place for Mike [Kelly] when the plant
opened up . [at] the hot end." Lummus-a most impres-
sive witness-further swore that in the latter part of May,
when he thanked Ashby for getting him the job with South-
eastern Electric Company and told Ashby he thought he
(Lummus) could also get Kelly a job there as an electrician's
helper, Asyby stated that "he [Ashby] had a job for Mike
[Kelly] with more money . [at] Midland Glass "Although
Ashby was present in the courtroom when Lummus testified to
the foregoing, Ashby was not recalled to the stand to contradict
Lummus' testimony.
Finally, General Counsel subpenaed Thomas G. Collins
from Jacksonville, Florida, to testify. Collins is the person-
nel and safety supervisor of Anchor Hocking Corporation.
the glass manufacturing company for which Kelly went to
work after he was discharged by Respondent. Collins hired
Kelly as a sweeper-porter on November 2, but discharged
him less than 3 weeks later, on November 19, even though
Kelly had proved to be a "good worker," because he had
ascertained that Kelly had failed to disclose in his employ-
ment application that he had worked at Respondent's War-
ner Robins plant.26 The circumstances, which follow, are
highly illuminating in regard to resolution of the basic issue
in this case, since Collins' testimony, both because of its
quality and content, in the frame of reference of its wholly
disinterested nature, is impossible for me to discredit and is
utterly persuasive
After Collins was apprised, by persons whose identity he
did not reveal, that Kelly had been discharged by Respon-
dent, Collins telephoned Respondent and confirmed this.
Collins then wrote to Respondent for more information.
When he received no reply he telephoned again, and was
informed by the personnel department,27 after Kelly's re-
supervisor was Stevenson , later (and now ) Respondent 's assistant plant man-
ager
26 Collins had, however, received a favorable reference on Kelly from
Columbine Glass Company of Colorado, "saying he was a good employee,
which is the reason I [Collins] hired him "
27 The identity of Collins' informant is otherwise convincingly established,
MIDLAND GLASS COMPANY 553
cords were pulled from the files, that Kelly had been "termi-
nated because of his poor attitude." Collins further swore
that when he indicated this did not mean very much and
pressed for more information, he was thereupon told that
Kelly was terminated before he ever even started to work
for Midland because the Union had already been "orga-
nized, the officers had been elected, and that it was all set
to go" but that Kelly had the day before told somebody that
he was taking over as Union President and that it was for
this reason that he was terminated, rather than employed
with Midland Glass, and have a conflict within the union
sort of thing . . . that the union had already elected, or had
their officers chosen . . . The union was all set to go the
next day" when Kelly indicated to one of the company
people that he was "taking over as president." Although
Collins subsequently told Kelly about this conversation, he
discharged him just the same.28
Respondent's Plant Manager Ashby testified subsequent to
Collins' testimony. At the conclusion of Ashby's testimony he
conceded that Respondent's Personnel Manager Ghedine had
informed him that Collins had called him (Ghedine) concerning
Respondent's discharge of Kelly. Nevertheless, notwithstanding
Collins' testimony (and Kelly's corroboration thereof, linking
Ghedine thereto) and Ashby's testimony tying Ghedine thereto,
without explanation Ghedine (who was also in court through-
out) was not called to dispute or explain any of the foregoing
B. Resolution and Rationale
Mike Kelly is a glassmaker by trade. For reasons best
known to him, he left a steadyjob as a glassmaker in Minne-
sota to come East, transporting his family and belongings
to Warner Robins, Georgia, for employment in his trade at
Respondent's new plant under construction there. Kelly
through the testimony of Respondent's Plant Manager Ashby, to have been
Respondent 's Personnel Manager Ghedine, who was not called to dispute
this in any way Prior to Ashby's said testimony, I had admitted Collins'
testimony concerning this telephone conversation in view of the circum-
stances under which it occurred , under well-established rules applicable to
situations involving a telephone call to a listed business establishment where
the otherwise unidentified voice at the called end responds with clear knowl-
edge of the business being discussed and could not otherwise reasonably be
assumed to have knowledge of such business details See Rules of Evidence
for United States Court and Magistrates (Amendments to Fed R Civ P),
effective July 1, 1973, rule 901(a) and (b)(6) and Advisory Committee's Note
to Example (6), Berger, Article IX Authentication and Identification, 33 Fed
B J 79, 82-83 (1974), 7 Wigmore, Evidence § 2155 (3d ed 1940), Richardson,
Evidence § 384, pp 351-352 (8th ed 1955)
In its posthearing brief , Respondent nevertheless urges strenuously that
Collins' testimony about his telephone conversation concerning Kelly's dis-
charge should have been excluded under Georgia law While it well may be
that even under Georgia law it was admissible, in view of the circumstances
including Respondent 's corporate admission through its Plant Manager Ash-
by that it did indeed occur with Ghedme (who in no way disputed it), in any
event Respondent 's reliance on Georgia law is misplaced , since-although
conceding the applicability of Sec 10(b) of the Act requiring Federal eviden-
tiary rules to be applied here-Respondent overlooks Rule 43(a), of Fed R
Civ P which, in case of conflict between State and Federal evidentiary
requirements mandates that the more liberal of those requirements , favoring
the reception of the evidence in question , shall govern That such evidence
even in the absence of Ashby's admissions , is federally admissible, is, as
shown above, clear
28 Collins also testified that during the week before the trial of the instant
case, he received a telephone call from Midland inquiring what he had told
the NLRB investigator at Jacksonville about this case , and that he had told
him
insists he was promised a job there before he uprooted
himself and his family to go there; Respondent denies it.
It is unessential to resolve the thorny issue of whether
Kelly had binding job assurances from Respondent before
he came East, since-as I find-he at any rate had definite
assurances of a glassmaker's job with Respondent at War-
ner Robins at some time after he came East and before
full-scale commencement of Respondent's glassmaking op-
erations there. Together with four or five other glassmakers
in the same category and in precisely the same way, he had
been assigned temporarily to assist with the plant construc-
tion work; and, in precisely the same way, he was in fact
placed upon Respondent's payroll as its employee He there-
after continued, until his discharge, to remain upon
Respondent's payroll as its employee.
When Kelly agreed to assume temporary leadership of
the Union at Respondent's plant, he had every right to do
so under Section 7 of the Act-whether or not it pleased
Respondent or accorded with Respondent's convenience or
preference. If he was discharged for that reason, it was a
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The facts and circumstances of Kelly's discharge per-
suade me, and I accordingly find, that Kelly was indeed
discharged for exercising that right. Contrary to
Respondent's unconvincing attempt, largely if not entirely
through hearsay, to portray Kelly as a substandard or unsat-
isfactory employee with an unacceptable personality prob-
lem, I find that this was and is not so. He had held long-term
employment elsewhere and carried excellent work creden-
tials-including even a long and satisfactory penod of pre-
vious employment with Respondent itself at one of its other
plants. He was hired and taken into Respondent's direct
employ at Warner Robins in June after months of observa-
tion over him there. At no time did he receive even so much
as the suggestion of an admonition, much less a censure or
reprimand. It boggles my belief and conscience to accept
the notion that at 5 p m. of one day a supervisor would offer
him a better job than he was slated for and invite him for
beer, and at 7 p.m. call him back to the plant to be precipi-
tately fired for allegedly longstanding complaints
(Respondent's answer, par. "3," says "four months") that
his "attitude had greatly declined" and that he was "anta-
gonistic" (id.). Since the only circumstance intervening be-
tween the 5 o'clock better job offer coupled with beer
invitation and the 7 o'clock discharge was Kelly's blurting
out to the supervisor that he (Kelly) was assuming leader-
ship of the Union (which had been recognized by Respon-
dent, and its temporary head designated, without any
election by the unit employees), I accept that circumstance
as the more likely and indeed the only reason why Kelly was
precipitately dismissed from his job. That this was indeed
the true reason is firmly clinched by the utterly persuasive
testimony of a totally disinterested witness, Thomas G. Col-
lins, the personnel-safety supervisor of the Anchor Hocking
Corporation at Jacksonville, Florida, to which location Kel-
ly after his precipitate discharge by Respondent again
moved his family and where he had obtained a job. The
admission made to Collins by Respondent's Industrial Re-
lations Director Ghedine that Kelly's imminent advent into
union leadership was indeed the reason Kelly was dis-
charged clearly establishes that to be the fact, in a direct
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
way that is perhaps seldom encountered in cases of this
type. And Collins' testimony is in no way disputed upon this
record, by Ghedine or otherwise. While it is true that Hudson
(and other union members) were retained in Respondent's
employ, it is also to be observed that Hudson (as well as
others) resigned from the Union's temporary presidency;
and it was apparent that Kelly-even as observed by me on
the witness stand, in contradistinction to Hudson-would
be a man of different mettle , of whom Respondent was
apprehensive, as indicated by its statement to Collins, as a
potentially more aggressive union leader.29
I accordingly find that Mike Kelly was indeed, as alleged
in the complaint, discharged by Respondent on July 31,
1973, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, because of
his having engaged in activities protected under Section
7 of the Act; namely, activities relating to his assuming
leadership of the Union at Respondent's Warner Robins
plant30,3t Inasmuch as Respondent's precipitate and un-
lawful discharge of Kelly for that reason, under the cir-
cumstances described, may justifiably be considered to be
calculated to have a chilling effect on and to discourage
other employees' similar organizational activism and there-
by to discriminate against them by reason thereof, since
the Act guarantees not merely employees' rights to belong
to a union but also to take an active part therein, it is also
found and concluded that Section 8(a)(3) has been violated
thereby.
Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, I state
the following:
REMEDY
Having been found to have violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act in respect to its dismissal of Mike R. Kelly
and its failure to reinstate or reemploy him, Respondent
should be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to offer
him reinstatement to his job and expected and normal job
progression in glassmaking work,32 if necessary dismissing
anybody hired to take his place or instead of him; together
with backpay as appropriate, less applicable interim earn-
ings if any, plus interest, computed as delineated in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1963), making necessary
records available for computation purposes. Under the cir-
cumstances shown, Kelly's transportation and reasonable
relocation costs of himself and his dependents from Warner
Robins, Georgia, to Jacksonville, Florida, and (in the event
Kelly desires reinstatement) back to Warner Robins, Geor-
gia, should be offset against his interim earnings, without
prejudice to recoupment on his part of any balance which
may be due. Respondent's records should also be corrected
to eliminate any entry that Kelly's discharge on July 31,
1973, was due to any shortcoming or fault on his part.
Respondent should further be required to post the usual
notice to the effect that it will repair such violation, and
desist from interference with its employees' rights under the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, there is hereby issued the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Jurisdiction is properly asserted in this proceeding.
2. By its conduct set forth and found in section II, supra,
consisting of its discharge of its employee Mike R. Kelly
from its employment on July 31, 1973, under the circum-
stances described, and its failure and refusal to reinstate or
rehire him since that time, Respondent has engaged in and
is continuing to engage in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act as amended.
3. Said unfair labor practices have affected, affect, and,
unless permanently restrained and enjoined, will continue
to affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of said Act.
29 In view of the absence of any allegation in the complaint or supportive
evidence to sustain the suspicions hinted at by General Counsel concerning
Respondent 's seemingly precipitate recognition of the Union without any
election or request from its employees, no finding is justified or made in this
rep ard.
Respondent's asserted defense that Kelly "never came under the union
contract" between Respondent and the Union-which , while agreed to on
or about July 17, did not by its terms take effect until August 1, a few hours
after Kelly was discharged-is devoid of merit and hardly deserves com-
ment . The lawful exercise of rights by an employee under Section 7 of the
Act, and the unlawful interference with those rights by an employer under
Section S of the Act, are not dependent upon the existence of a union contract
covering the employee.
31 Respondent's motion, at the conclusion of the entire case , to dismiss the
complaint is denied.
32 Attention is again drawn to the testimony of Respondent's Plant Manag-
er Ashby that if Kelly had been kept on in the Warner Robins plant after
July 31 it would have been as a glassmaker in the glass production operations.
ORDER33
It is hereby ordered that Respondent, Midland Glass
Company, Warner Robins, Georgia, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging any employee, or failing and refusing to
Manley testified to the same effect . Lest there be any mistake about it, the
intent of the remedial provision herein is that Kelly be placed into a
glassworker's job (either as a glassmaking machine operator or as a glassmak-
ing machine maintenanceman , at Respondent's option), since , as established,
admitted, and found herein, that is what his job would have been had he not
been unlawfully discharged by Respondent. Although at the moment he was
discharged , Kelly was still (like his fellow glassworkers) in the last throes of
still assisting with carpentry work, it is clear that, as here found, he was
definitely slated for a glassworker 's job just as the others and had in fact been
assured thereof by Plant Manager Ashby; and indeed offered an even better
glassworker 's job (i.e., glassmaking machine maintenance , at higher pay) by
Production Manager Manley. It is entirely clear that Kelly, like his fellow
glassworkers , was only temporarily assisting with the plant carpentry; he was
and is a glassworker, not a carpenter , by trade, was always regarded as such
by Respondent , was assured of a job as much by Respondent , and admittedly
would have had a glassworker's job in glass production the same as his
coworkers had he not been precipitately discharged on July 31 under the
circumstances described. He should therefore be reinstated to a glassworker's
job.
33 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 recommended Order which follows herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102.48 of those 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.
MIDLAND GLASS COMPANY
reinstate or rehire any employee, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, because said employee has engaged in concerted
or union activity protected by and lawful under said Act.
(b) Discriminating against any employee in regard to his
hire, tenure, or terms and conditions of his employment, so
as to discourage membership in, affiliation with, sympathy
for, or lawful activity on behalf of any labor organization.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization.
2 Take the following affirmative actions, necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Mike R. Kelly immediate and full reinstate-
ment, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered
in consequence of his unlawful dismissal on July 31, 1973,
in the manner set forth in the section of the Decision enti-
tled "Remedy" of which this Order forms a part.
(b) Expunge from its personnel and other records all no-
tations, statements, and references to the effect that the
discharge of Mike R Kelly on July 31, 1973, was based on
or related to any misconduct, impropriety, job dereliction or
infraction or shortcoming, or fault on his part or in connec-
tion with his job or work performance.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
determine the amount of backpay and other sums due un-
der and the extent of compliance with the terms of this
Order.
(d) Post at its plant premises in Warner Robins, Georgia,
copies of the Notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 34
Copies of said Notice, on forms provided by the Board's
Regional Director for Region 10 shall, after being signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, be posted in said
premises by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
34 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the Notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to "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
555
After a trial before an Administrative Law Judge, at which
all sides had the opportunity to present evidence and argu-
ments, the decision has been issued that Midland Glass
Company has violated the National Labor Relations Act.
We have therefore been ordered to post this notice and
carry out its terms.
The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as employ-
ees, certain rights, including the right to engage in self-
organization and to be active in a union of your choice.
Accordingly, we assure you that:
WE WILL respect your above-stated rights under the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT, in violation of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, dismiss any employee, or fail or refuse to
reinstate or rehire him or her, because he or she is active
in union leadership or engages in lawful activities on
behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against any employee in
regard to his or her hire, tenure, or terms or conditions
of employment, so as to discourage active leadership or
membership in, affiliation with, sympathy for, or law-
ful activity on behalf of any Union of your choice.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain , or coerce any employees in the exercise of his or
her right to self-organization.
WE WILL offer Mike R. Kelly, whom we have been
found to have discharged on July 31, 1973, because of
his union activism, immediate and full reinstatement,
if necessary dismissing anybody hired to take his place
or instead of him, without prejudice to his seniority and
other rights and privileges; and WE WILL also pay him
backpay, plus interest, for any pay he has lost because
of our dismissal of him, as well as for transportation
and reasonable relocation costs for him and his depen-
dents from Warner Robins, Georgia, to Jacksonville,
Florida, and back to Warner Robins, Georgia.
WE WILL remove from our records any statement or
suggestion that Mike R. Kelly was discharged by us on
July 31, 1973 because of any work shortcoming or fault
on his part.
All of you are free to join or not to join and to be active
or inactive in any labor organization of your choice, as you
see fit, without any interference, restraint, coercion, or dis-
crimination by us in any way, shape, or form.
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MIDLAND GLASS COMPANY This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
(Employer) from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
Dated By this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
(Representative) (Title) ed to the Board's Office , Peachtree Building, Room 701, 730
Peachtree Street , N.E., Atlanta , Georgia 30308, Telephone
404-526-5760.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.