Northern Petrochemical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 23, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 311 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

NORTHERN PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY 311 Northern Petrochemical Company and Douglas K. Morgan . Case 38-CA-1127 November 23, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On September 20, 1971, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Northern Petrochemical Company, Morris, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. 1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C A. 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings We note, however, that in affirming the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act, we do not rely on the testimony of John Harding, Respondent's industrial relations manager, to the effect that Van Lauwe left his previous position because of a disagreement with his former employer concerning a union organizational drive and subsequent election answer to the complaint, the Respondent, while admitting certain allegations of the complaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, the hearing in this case was held before me at Rock Island, Illinois, on June 22, 1971. All parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. Oral argument was waived. Briefs were filed by counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon consideration of the entire record, including the briefs of the parties, and upon my observation of each of the witnesses as they appeared before me, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Delaware corporation, maintains an office and manufacturing facility at Morris, Illinois, where it is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, and selling polyethylene material and products. During the 12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, a representative period, Respondent sold and shipped from its plant at Morris, Illinois, finished products of a value in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period the Respon- dent purchased and caused to be transferred and delivered directly to its Morris, Illinois, plant goods and materials of a value in excess of $50,000 which were transported to said plant directly from States other than the State of Illinois. It is admitted, and I find, that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted, and I find, that International Chemical Workers Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issue There is but a single issue presented by the pleadings and the contentions of the parties. The issue is: Did the Respondent discriminatorily refuse to hire Douglas K. Morgan because of Morgan's union activities? TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MORTON D. FRIEDMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed on March 8, 1971, by Douglas K. Morgan, an individual, the officer-in-charge for Subregion 38 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a complaint on April 16, 1971, against Northern Petrochemical Company, herein called the Company or the Respondent, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act. In its duly filed B. The Facts As noted above, the Respondent at its Morris, Illinois, facility manufactures or is planning to manufacture polyethylene products. The installation, as of the date of the hearing, had not as yet been completed. However, the plant was completed for the purpose of manufacturing ethylene-oxide and ethylene-glycol. According to James Van Lauwe, an industrial relations representative of the Respondent, the manufacture of ethylene and polyethylene requires the use of highly skilled technicians both in the operations processes and in the maintenance of equipment. The equipment consists largely of vessels, compressors, and 194 NLRB No. 54 312 DECISIONS OF'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD piping which must undergo tremendous pressure reaching some 31,000 pounds per square inch. According to these individuals, the maintenance of this equipment requires individuals who have had experience on such high pressure equipment over a period of some time. According to Van Lauwe, for an individual to qualify for maintenance on the ethylene and polyethylene processing equipment he would have to have had experience working on heavy piping, large valves, pumps, vessels, and also have the ability to do welding and repairing of large turbines. In order to staff its new plant at Morris, Illinois, the Respondent, on December 7, 1970, placed an advertise- ment in the Clinton, Iowa, paper asking for chemical operators for positions to be filled with salaries up to $909 per month. The Respondent's advertisement also called for trainees who would be given 2 months of classroom and then on-the-job training. The advertisement instructed those who were interested to call Van Lauwe at a listed telephone number. Douglas K. Morgan, the Charging Party herein, was and still is a maintenance mechanic working for Hawkeye Chemical, Co., a fertilizer manufacturer, in Clinton, Iowa. Morgan saw the Respondent's advertisement and, thinking that perhaps he would qualify for a maintenance mechan- ic's position with the Respondent at its Morris, Illinois, plant, called Van Lauwe on the telephone. He did this despite the fact that the advertisement did not specifically ask for maintenance people. However, when he called Van Lauwe, Van Lauwe expressed an interest in hiring maintenance people. According to Morgan, when he spoke to Van Lauwe on the telephone, Van Lauwe asked him to come down to a local motel for an interview but Morgan explained that he did not have the time. Van Lauwe took Morgan's name and address and stated that he would send Morgan an employment application. According to Morgan, during that conversation Van Lauwe asked Morgan where the latter worked. Morgan told Van Lauwe-that he worked at Hawkeye Chemical. Van Lauwe told Morgan that the latter had somewhat of the background that the Respon- dent was seeking since he had worked in a chemical plant. Then Van Lauwe asked Morgan for more details of Morgan's work. Morgan told Van Lauwe that he was principally doing millwright work, that he worked in gear boxes, compressors, pumps, and "stuff like that." Van Lauwe asked Morgan if the latter had welded and Morgan answered that he had a bad eye and never welded. After Van Lauwe told Morgan that he would send the latter an employment application, Van Lauwe asked Morgan if the latter belonged to a union at Hawkeye and Morgan answered in the affirmative. Van Lauwe then said "the union hasn't done you too much good out there moneywise, have they." Morgan answered no that the union had not. Then Van Lauwe repeated that he would send Morgan an application and that Morgan should fill the same out and return it to Van Lauwe. That was the end of the conversation. According to Van Lauwe, the conversation was some- what different. Van Lauwe testified that he merely asked Morgan what work Morgan did at Hawkeye and Morgan stated that he was a "B mechanic." Thereafter, Van Lauwe merely told Morgan that he would send the latter an application. Van Lauwe did ask Morgan if the latter would come to the motel for an interview and Morgan told him that he did not have the time. Van Lauwe denied that he asked Morgan if the latter could weld or that Van Lauwe said anything about a union. Van Lauwe maintained in testifying that the conversation was confined to asking Morgan what the latter did at Hawkeye and the promise to send Morgan an application. In due time Morgan received the application which he completed and returned to Van Lauwe. Thereafter, on January 4, 1971, Van Lauwe sent to Morgan a letter stating that a representative of the Respondent would be in Clinton, Iowa, on January 12, at a motel, to test individuals in the Clinton area who had made application for employment. The letter went on to state the exact date and time and place of the examination. On January 12, 1971, Morgan took the examination which was given by Van Lauwe. Approximately 12 individuals took the test at the same time as Morgan. Evidently Morgan successfully passed the test given by Van Lauwe and on January 21, 1971, Van Lauwe sent to Morgan a letter, which was probably a form letter, advising Morgan that the latter had successfully completed "our initial requirements for employment." The letter went on to state that in the near future they would be contacting Morgan regarding "permanent employment with Northern Petrochemical Company." Within a short time thereafter, Morgan's wife received a telephone call from Van Lauwe who stated that he would like to talk to Morgan about coming to Morris, Illinois, for an interview . Van Lauwe left instructions for Morgan to call him the next night . Morgan did so and set up an appointment for February 9 at 10 in the morning in Morris, Illinois . At that telephone call Van Lauwe told Morgan that the latter should bring his wife over; that the Respondent would pay mileage and other expenses. Morgan appeared for the interview with Van Lauwe at the appointed time. According to Morgan, Van Lauwe asked Morgan what the latter could work on and what kind of work he was doing at his present employment. Morgan answered that he worked for the most part on gear boxes, pumps, compressors , and "stuff like that ." Then Van Lauwe asked Morgan if the latter could work on heavy piping. Morgan answered that he had worked on piping up to 2 inches , that some of the piping was screwed piping and the rest was welded; that he had acted as a welder's helper on the welded pipe. Morgan was then asked if he could work on reciprocating compressors . Morgan answered that he had worked on them. Thereupon Van Lauwe asked Morgan if the latter was a union member and Morgan answered in the affirmative. Then Van Lauwe asked Morgan if the latter held any offices and Morgan again answered in the affirmative and explained that he was recording secretary of the union and that he had ' been chief steward and had been on a negotiating committee . Then Van Lauwe asked Morgan how they liked the union out at Morgan's present employment. Morgan answered that they were angry at the union because the last two times they were negotiating they were held up from striking by reason of the International union's failure to give the required 30-day notice to the NORTHERN PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY 313 Federal Mediation Service. Thereupon, Van Lauwe told Morgan that Van Lauwe did not think he could hire Morgan because of the latter's union affiliation. Then Van Lauwe asked Morgan if the latter understood. Morgan answered that he did not and that he thought he was being condemned before he had a chance. Thereupon, Morgan offered to sign a paper that he would not try to bring the Union in for a year. With that, Van Lauwe asked if Morgan could leave the office for 5 minutes because Van Lauwe had a telephone call to make. Morgan thereupon left the room and sat in the receptionist's office for about 5 minutes. Thereafter Van Lauwe came out, called Morgan back into his office, and told Morgan that because of the latter's affiliation with the union Van Lauwe could not hire him. Van Lauwe further explained that even if Morgan got by Van Lauwe, the maintenance superintendent would refuse to hire Morgan. Thereupon Morgan told Van Lauwe that Morgan had been turned down on another job because of his union activities. Van Lauwe agreed that that could have been and then Morgan asked about the expenses. Van Lauwe told Morgan to send a letter with his mileage and expenses and the Respondent would pay it. A few days later Morgan received a letter, dated February 10, 1971, signed by J. M. Harding, manager of industrial relations for Respondent, stating that Morgan's background and experience had been thoroughly reviewed but that another applicant had slightly nearer the background specified in their employment standards and he had been hired rather than Morgan. However, the letter informed Morgan that his correspondence would be kept on file and should a suitable vacancy develop in the future the Respondent would contact Morgan. According to Van Lauwe, he told Morgan at the outset of the interview the work that was going to be done at the Respondent's plant and he told him something about the company benefits explaining to him that the reason for the interview was to learn a little more about Morgan's background and experience. He then asked Morgan what a B mechanic at Hawkeye Chemical Company did. Morgan responded that he worked on pumps, valves, and piping. Then Van Lauwe asked Morgan if the latter could do carpentry, insulating, painting, and welding and whether Morgan had worked on large reciprocating compressors. Morgan answered that he could do carpentry, insulating, and painting but he did not weld. Van Lauwe again asked Morgan about work on large reciprocating compressors and Van Lauwe got the impression from Morgan' s answer that he had not done work on large reciprocating compressors at all. Then Van Lauwe asked Morgan whether the latter did simple or heavy piping and Morgan simply answered that he did normal piping work. Then Van Lauwe asked Morgan what else the latter did at Hawkeye. Morgan replied that he was recording secretary for the Chemical Workers and that he had been on the negotiating committee for the last contract. Then Morgan asked Van Lauwe if they had a union at the Respondent's plant. Van Lauwe answered that they had no union and that it was the Respondent's intention to keep running the plant that way by paying good salaries, having good benefits, and an excellent safety program and, more important, excellent communications up and down the line. Van Lauwe then asked Morgan to have a seat in the foyer while Van Lauwe reviewed Morgan's file . After about 5 minutes he called Morgan back in and told the latter that because of his lack of ability to weld and lack of experience on large reciprocating compressors that Van Lauwe did not believe he could sell Morgan's background and experience to the maintenance department manager. Then Morgan told Van Lauwe that Morgan had been turned down several times at a complex in Clinton, Iowa, because of his union activities. He also told Van Lauwe that Morgan had been offered a job as a foreman at Clinton Corn Products which left Van Lauwe with the impression that Morgan had probably not given them an answer as of that point. This, according to Van Lauwe, ended the interview. Van Lauwe further testified that he had been given instructions by the individuals who were responsible for the maintenance of the plant equipment with respect to the kind of experience they considered desirable in the individuals who were to be hired for the maintenance department. They desired individuals who had had experience on equipment and machinery such as they were going to have in the polyethylene unit . The skills that were required were a broad background in mechanical mainte- nance and repair. They also desired an individual who could weld, could handle high pressure piping, and work on large compressors and turbines and related equipment such as pumps and vessels . According to Van Lauwe, from his conversation with Morgan, and the application which Morgan had filed with the Respondent, he decided Morgan did not have sufficient experience with this type of equipment to qualify Morgan for hire or for reference to the maintenance supervisors for their appraisal of Morgan's abilities. In fact, according to Van Lauwe, at the time that he interviewed Morgan they had just started to advertise for maintenance people and had done so in places throughout the country where there were plants which were engaged in the manufacture of polyethylene. Van Lauwe additionally testified that they had had little or no success in their advertising for maintenance people even in those places where there were plants which were in the business of manufacturing low density polyethylene. This was so because the requirements were so high that very few individuals in the United States could qualify for the work that had to be done. Van Lauwe also stated that at the Respondent's facility in Moms, Illinois, they had already engaged a maintenance contractor to do the work of maintenance for both the part of the plant that there was already operating and intended to use the same mainte- nance contractor for the bulk of the maintenance to be done in the low density polyethylene facility. The only individuals they were going to hire on the Respondent's own maintenance staff of approximately 11 would be highly skilled and have all the qualifications necessary for the performance of the work necessary to maintain the Respondent's equipment. And their work was to be supplemented by the maintenance contractor. John Harding, industrial relations manager at the Respondent's plant, testified that he had had experience throughout a number of the plants of the Respondent in the 314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS'BOARD United States and that they employed a total of approxi- mately 1,200 employees and had never had an unfair labor practice charge filed against them prior to the one filed in the instant proceeding. He estimated that approximately 50 percent of the employees that were working for the Respondent at the Respondent's Morris, Illinois, plant had been union members before coming to work for the Respondent. In addition, two employees of the Respon- dent's plant testified that each had been involved in union activities prior to their being employed by the Respondent and that the Respondent knew of this. Nevertheless, they had not only been hired but had progressed in the plant to higher positions than those for which they were first hired. On the other hand, General Counsel's witness, Chf James, an employee of Hawkeye Chemical, who was interviewed in December 1970 by Van Lauwe at Clinton, Iowa, was asked by Van Lauwe what James thought about the union. Additionally, Ambrose Dannels, maintenance supervisor of Hawkeye Chemical, testified that Morgan was a competent maintenance employee who possessed the skills and knowledge to successfully work on the type of equipment which was used in the manufacture of polyethylene at the Respondent's plant. C. Analysis and Concluding Findings Counsel for the General Counsel contends that Morgan's version of the conversations between Morgan and Van Lauwe is the one which should be accepted and that it is abundantly apparent from Morgan's version that Morgan was refused employment by the Respondent, through Van Lauwe, because of Morgan's admitted union activities in his position with Hawkeye Chemical. On the other hand, Respondent argues that Van Lauwe's version is the one that is truthful and should be relied on to make a finding that Morgan was refused employment because he did not possess the qualifications to perform maintenance work required by the Respondent. Van Lauwe had been in the Respondent's employ only a few months before the events herein. His most recent experience in personnel work was with another employer, which position Van Lauwe left because he had a disagreement with an official of the former employer concerning an organizational drive and an election which a union had won. This could well have conditioned Van Lauwe's attitude toward hiring a union minded job applicant, especially one who was a union officer and a member of the negotiating committee. That this is a strong probability is borne out by the fact that another witness of the General Counsel, Clif James, also testified that Van Lauwe in the job interview in Clinton, Iowa, asked James what the latter thought about unions. James was not hired by the Respondent and his testimony was unrefuted by Van Lauwe. I, therefore, credit it. Accordingly, from this and from my observation of the witnesses, I conclude that Morgan's version of the conversation between Morgan and Van Lauwe is the more acceptable and plausible. Additionally, I note that even in Van Lauwe's version of the interview of February 9, there is little to demonstrate that his questioning of Morgan's ability and experience was more than shallow and cursory. He did not ask Morgan to describe his work in depth. In making this credibility resolution, I have considered, as argued by the Respondent, that if Van Lauwe had not wanted to hire a union activist he could have rejected Morgan during their earlier telephone conversation when he allegedly asked Morgan if the latter belonged to a union. However, at that time Van Lauwe did not possess the knowledge, which he acquired during the February 9 interview, that Morgan was a strong union adherent and an officer of the Chemical Workers and a member of its negotiating committee. Accordingly, I find and conclude that Van Lauwe told Morgan on February 9, 1971, that Van Lauwe could not hire Morgan because of the latter's union affiliation. In view of this and in view of the lack of depth of inquiry into Morgan's experience and ability, I conclude that Morgan was not hired because of his union membership and activities. This conclusion is bolstered by the testimony of Ambrose Dannels, maintenance supervisor of Hawkeye Chemical and Morgan 's immediate superior that Morgan was, indeed, an experienced chemical plant maintenance man who could and did perform well on the type of equipment used by the Respondent. I have considered the testimony of John Harding, Respondent's industrial relations manager , that Respon- dent does not have an antiunion policy and that it has never been involved before in an unfair labor practice proceed- ing. But, the actions of Van Lauwe are Respondent's responsibility and it must therefore be held liable for such activity. Accordingly, I find that Respondent has discriminatorily refused to hire Douglas K. Morgan in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activity of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent set forth in section 1, above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. The Remedy Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent, on February 9, 1971, and thereafter , refused to employ Douglas K. Morgan in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent offer Morgan immediate and full reinstatement at the same or substantially equivalent position to which he would have been entitled had he not been discriminated against, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by paying to him a sum of money equal to the amount that he would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against NORTHERN PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY 315 him to the date of the offer of employment, less his net earnings.' Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce 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. By discriminatorily refusing to employ Douglas K. Morgan on February 9, 1971, and thereafter to discourage membership in International Chemical Workers Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, or coercing employ- ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act on or about February 9, 1971, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 2 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 ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. No other material relative to this matter shall be posted during this period. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Subregion 38, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.4 1 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. The backpay obligation of Respondent to Morgan shall include payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716. 2 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 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. 3 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 4 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Subregion 38, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."" ORDER Respondent, Northern Petrochemical Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of International Chemical Workers Union, or any other labor organization, by refusing to hire, or in any other manner discriminating against its employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to form, join, assist, or be represented by International Chemical Workers Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing or 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 activity. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Douglas K. Morgan immediate employment at the same or substantially equivalent position at which he would have been employed had he not been discriminated against, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered in the manner set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy." (b) Post at its Morris, Illinois, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 38, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi- ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of International Chemical Workers Union or any other labor organization , by refusing to hire, or in any other manner, discriminating against our employ- ees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to form, join, or assist, or to be represented by any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer to Douglas K. Morgan immediate employment at the same or substantially equivalent position at which he would have been employed had he not been discriminated against, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination, together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. WE WILL- notify Douglas K. Morgan, if he is presently serving in the Armed Forces, of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military 316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Training And Service Act, as amended, after discharge This is an official notice and must not be defaced by from the Armed Forces. anyone. NORTHERN PETROCHEMICAL This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days COMPANY from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, (Employer) or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with Dated By its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, (Representative) (Title) Savings Center Tower, 10th Floor, 411 Hamilton Boule- vard, Peoria, Illinois 61602, Telephone 309-673 -9061, Ext. 282.