Petros Coal Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1978

239 N.L.R.B. 410 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Petros Coal Company and United Mine Workers of
America. Case 10-CA-12874
November 21, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On May 11, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
James L. Rose 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 of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified herein, and to adopt his recommended Or-
der.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Re-
spondent unlawfully refused to hire Stanley Bunch,
Robert York, Glenn Bunch, and Randall Bunch be-
cause of their past union activity and, more specifi-
cally, to avoid hiring applicants from a preferential
hiring list established pursuant to a settlement agree-
ment between the Charging Party and another em-
ployer and which included the names of these four
individuals.
As the Administrative Law Judge found, on
March 8, 1977, Respondent undertook from Indian
Creek Coal Company (herein called Indian Creek)
operation of a coal mine in Devonia, Tennessee. The
record establishes that, on March 10, Stanley Bunch
and Robert York applied for employment at Respon-
Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule 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 were incorrect. Standard Drv Wall Products. Inc. 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
The Administrative Law Judge found that "[wlilhout regard to whether
Petros is a true successor or. as is more apparent from the record. a mere
alter ego of Indian Creek, if its refusal to hire prospective employees was
because of their union activity, such is an unfair labor practice . " Al-
though we agree with the Administrative I aw Judge that refusal to hire
applicants because of their union activity violates the Act, we do not adopt
the foregoing statement to the extent that it implies that Petrois may be an
alter ego of Indian Creek, for we find that the record fails to support such a
finding. Accordingly, we do not pass on the consequences of a finding that
Petros was an alter ego of Indian C'reek. We further conclude that, in the
circumstances of this case, it is unnecessary to determine whether Petros
was a successor to Indian Creek Furthermore, in the absence of exceptions
thereto, we need not consider whether Petros, if a successor to Indian ('reek.
was hound by Indian Creek's non-Board settlement with the Union.
dent and, in so doing, insisted that Respondent was
obligated to hire them because their names appeared
on the preferential hiring list which Indian Creek ne-
gotiated with the Union as part of a non-Board set-
tlement in another unfair labor practice case. In re-
sponse to their insistence that Respondent honor the
preferential hiring agreement, Sherman Carroll, part
owner of Respondent, told the two men they could
"[tiake [the list] and shove it," and commented to
employee Terry Daugherty that he would have hired
Bunch and York, but since they "came up here wav-
ing that list around, I won't hire them 'til hell freezes
over.... Them two boys ain't nothing but union
agitators."
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the
Act by refusing to hire Stanley Bunch and Robert
York. In this regard, it is clear from Carroll's remarks
to Stanley Bunch and York and to Daugherty that
Bunch and York's demand that the preferential hir-
ing agreement be honored precipitated Respondent's
decision not to hire from the list. Indeed, Respon-
dent admitted that it was only after and because
Stanley Bunch and Robert York insisted that Re-
spondent honor the preferential hiring agreement
that it determined that it would not utilize the prefer-
ential hiring list. We find that Bunch's and York's
insistence that Respondent honor the preferential
hiring agreement negotiated by Indian Creek with
the Union constituted protected concerted and union
activity, notwithstanding that their action was based
on the erroneous assumption that the preferential
hiring agreement was binding on Respondent.2 Con-
sequently, by specifically refusing to hire Bunch and
York because they insisted that it adhere to the
agreement and because they were viewed as "union
agitators," Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(I) of the Act.
We further agree with the Administrative Law
Judge that Respondent unlawfully refused to hire
Glenn and Randall Bunch. In reaching this conclu-
sion, the Administrative Law Judge found that, con-
trary to Respondent's contention, work was available
when Glenn and Randall Bunch applied for work. In
adopting this finding, we note that three other em-
ployees, Ted Bunch, Ricky Carroll, and Allen Lowe,
who applied for work after Glenn and Randall
Bunch had submitted their applications, were hired.3
In view of the conclusion that work was available
when Glenn and Randall applied, Respondent's
demonstrated hostility toward applicants whose
names appeared on the hiring list, and union animus
2 Inierhoro ('ontractors. In,<. 157 NLRB 1295, fn 7 (1966)
None of these employees were on the preferential hiring list, and only
led Bunch hald been employed bh Indian (Creek.
410
PETROS COAL COMPANY
shown by Sherman Carroll's remark to Walter Bunch
that "he [Bunch] had got in this trouble one time . . .
you know, been laid off so I would [sic] fool with it4
anymore," we conclude that Respondent refused to
hire Glenn and Randall Bunch because of their earli-
er union activity and because the)y appeared on the
preferential hiring list.
Respondent contends, however, that its employ-
ment of three men whose names appeared on the
preferential hiring list establishes that it did not dis-
criminate against prospective employees whose
names appeared on the list. However, the record in-
dicates that Glenn and Randall Bunch applied for
work after the incident in which Stanley Bunch and
Robert York insisted that Respondent honor the
preferential hiring agreement, and therefore Respon-
dent's hire of three employees from the list before
that incident is not material to the issue of whether
Respondent later unlawfully discriminated against
Glenn and Randall Bunch.
Based on the foregoing, we agree with the Admin-
istrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent
was determined not to hire any applicant whose
name appeared on the preferential hiring list because
of their previous union activity and that Respondent
implemented this determination by refusing to hire
Robert York and Stanley, Glenn, and Randall
Bunch. Accordingly, we find that the refusals to hire
these employees violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Petros Coal Corpora-
tion, Devonia, Tennessee, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
' The Administrativse Law Judge found and the record as a ihole sup-
ports the finding, thai Carroll was referring to the Union
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES L ROSE, Administrative Law Judge: This matter
was heard before me on January 17 and 18, 1978, at Clin-
ton, Tennessee, upon the General Counsel's complaint,
which alleged, in substance, that on or about March 8,
1977,' the Respondent, Petros Coal Corporation, refused to
hire four prospective employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.
All dates are in 1977 unless otherwise indicated.
The Respondent denied that it engaged in any activity
violative of the Act, although it admitted that it did refuse
to hire the four individuals named in the complaint.
Upon the record as a whole, including my observation of
the witnesses, briefs, and arguments of counsel, I hereby
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. JURISDICTION
It is alleged and adnumitted, and I find, that Petros Coal
Corporation is a Tennessee corporation engaged in the op-
eration of the No. 2 underground coal mine at Devonia,
Tennessee. The Respondent commenced operations on
March 8 and has since that time shipped coal valued in
excess of $50,000 to the Tennessee Valley Authority, a cor-
poration which in turn annually sells and distributes elec-
trical power valued in excess of $50,000 directly to custom-
ers outside the State of Tennessee.
All parties admit, and I find, that the Respondent is, and
at all times material has been, an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
IIL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INvOLVED
United Mine Workers of Amenrica (herein the Union) is
admitted by all parties to be, and I find it is, a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts
In the summer of 1975, the Union commenced an orga-
nizational campaign among the employees of Indian Creek
Coal Company, which at the time was operating the No. 2
mine at Devonia. On August 26, 1975, Indian Creek laid
off the 16 employees comprising its second shift. This lay-
off was the subject of a Board charge and complaint in
Case 10-CA-1 1458 alleging that the layoff was violative of
Section 8(a)(3). Subsequently, on or about October 15,
1975, and for reasons not alleged to be violative of the Act,
Indian Creek ceased operations.
Thereafter, the Union and Indian Creek entered into a
non-Board settlement of the allegations concerning the sec-
ond-shift layoff whereby, in essence, Indian Creek paid
each of the 16 laid-off employees $1,000 and gave them
preferential hiring in case the company (Indian Creek) re-
sumed its mining activities.
In a letter dated November 9, 1976, from Indian Creek's
attorney, Robert Young, Jr., to the Union's attorney,
James A. Ridley 111, setting forth the terms of the agree-
ment, it is stated, inter alia.:
Before undertaking to hire hourly-paid employees for
any resumption of its coal mining operations in the
vicinity of Devonia, Tennessee, or for any new surface
or deep mining operation in that vicinity during the
12-month period ending October 31, 1977, Indian
411
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Creek Coal Company, Inc., will notify through you
the above listed former employees and will offer em-
ployment to as many of them as may be needed, pro-
vided, however, that the Company will have no such
obligation to any of the above listed former employees
who has heretofore obtained or hereafter obtained
regular employment or has refused an offer of regular
employment.
Following the layoff in August 1975 and continuing
through the spring of 1977, the Union, through certain of
the 16 laid-off employees, engaged in picketing at the road
entrance to the mine.
On February 24, Petros Coal Corporation was formed
with the adoption of its corporate charter. The four stock-
holders of Petros, all of whom had worked for Indian
Creek in a supervisory or management capacity, are Win-
ston Meredith, Sherman Carroll, James Redden, and Hoyt
Mullins (a 10-percent owner of Indian Creek). Each owns
25 percent of the stock, for which he contributed to the
capitalization of the corporation $1,000.
On March 8, Petros entered into a "Coai Mine Operat-
ing Agreement" with Indian Creek, the essence of which is:
for consideration of $15.37 per ton (apparently $17 less the
royalty) FOB Kingston Steam Plant (owned by TVA), Pet-
ros would mine the coal at Indian Creek's No. 2 mine. The
agreement states further that Petros is entitled to use Indi-
an Creek's equipment in performance of this operation.
The principals of Petros set the value of this equipment at
around $800,000 to $900,000.
The principals also testified that Petros exists only for
the purpose of mining coal at the Indian Creek mine. They
indicated, although such is not definite in the record, that
the coal ultimately sold to TVA yields about $23 a ton,
with the difference between $23 and $15.37 going to Indian
Creek.
When Petros commenced operations, it did so mostly
with former employees of Indian Creek. However, Petros
specifically refused to hire on application Randall A.
Bunch, Glenn Bunch, Stanley Bunch and Robert York.
Petros did hire at least two employees who had not for-
merly worked for Indian Creek, though how many more is
unclear from the record. Most of those hired were former
Indian Creek employees who were not on the preferential
hiring list.
B. Issue
The General Counsel alleges that in refusing to hire the
four named individuals, all of whom were on the preferen-
tial hiring list executed in settlement of the previous com-
plaint, Petros violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
The Respondent contends that when it undertook to hire
employees, for those who had previously worked for Indi-
an Creek, it looked at their work records, and determined
they should not be hired. Specifically, the Respondent
claims that the attendance of Stanley Bunch and York was
the cause of their not being hired. The Respondent does
not, and specifically did not at the hearing, contend that
any of these four were incompetent miners.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
Most of the testimony involved Stanley Bunch and Rob-
ert York, both of whom were principal spokesmen for the
laid-off employees throughout the events here. However,
Randall and Glenn Bunch were also laid off, were also
involved in the earlier unfair labor practice, and were also
on the preferential hiring list. There is no apparent reason,
and none was suggested, why they should be treated differ-
ently from Stanley Bunch and Robert York. Thus, con-
cluding, as I do, that Stanley Bunch and York were not
hired by Respondent for reasons proscribed by Section
8(aX3) of the Act, I further conclude that the failure to hire
Randall and Glenn Bunch was unlawful.
Initially, the General Counsel and the Charging Party
argue that Petros, as a successor to Indian Creek, is bound
by the settlement agreement of the earlier complaint. Thus,
failure to abide by the preferential hiring stipulation is a
violation of the Act.
A successor is bound by the unfair labor practices of its
predecessor and is required to remedy those unfair labor
practices. Perma Vinyl Corporation, Dade Plastics Co., et al.,
164 NLRB 968 (1967). Research, however, has disclosed no
case in which this doctrine has been applied to a settlement
entered into with Board approval, much less to a non-
Board settlement.
Further, a successor is not bound by the contracts of its
predecessor, at least insofar as the failure to honor such a
contract would be the basis for an unfair labor practice
finding. N.L.R.B. v. Burns International Security Services,
Inc., 406 U.S. 272 (1972). Petros, as a successor employer,
would not necessarily be required to honor the preferential
hiring agreement entered into by Indian Creek.
However, a successor is liable for its own unfair labor
practices. "Thus, a new owner could not refuse to hire the
employees of its predecessor solely because they were
union members or to avoid having to recognize the union."
Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees,
etc., 417 U.S. 249, fn. 8 (1974).
Such I find to have been the situation here-that Petros
refused to hire the four above-named individuals because
of their previous activity on behalf of the Union, and spe-
cifically to avoid the preferential hiring agreement and
such renewed organizational activity as might reasonably
occur upon recommencing operation of the Indian Creek
mine.
Without regard to whether Petros is a true successor or,
as is more apparent from the record, a mere alter ego of
Indian Creek, if its refusal to hire prospective employees
was because of the union activity, it is an unfair labor prac-
tice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, analo-
gous to refusing to recall laid-off miners because of their
union activity. Buckhorn Hazard Coal Corporation, 194
NLRB 557 (1971).
Whether Petros committed the violation alleged neces-
sarily depends upon its motive in refusing to hire the four
individuals. Direct evidence of antiunion animus in refus-
ing to hire prospective employees is rarely available. Nev-
ertheless, unlawful motive may be inferred from all of the
facts, including a finding that the reasons advanced by the
Respondent for acting as it did are not reasonable. Shat-
412
PETROS COAL COMPANY
tuck Denn Mining Corporation (Iron King Branch) v.
N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966).
Where the reason asserted for discharging, or refusing to
hire, an employee is not reasonable, that fact is evidence
that the true motive is something else. Here there is no
suggestion why Glenn and Randall Bunch were not hired
when they made application other than what they were
told-that there was "no work available." There is no
claim that they are poor workers or incompetent. Inas-
much as the Respondent in fact hired individuals who were
not on the list, including at least two who had not even
been prior employees of Indian Creek, clearly work was
available, and the two were early applicants. Since no ra-
tional reason was advanced why they were not hired even
though work was available, the conclusion is inescapable
that the reason they were not was their earlier union activi-
ty, and because they were on the preferential hiring list.
As to Stanley Bunch and Robert York, the Respondent
contends that they were not hired because, on evaluation
by the principals of Petros, it was determined that their
attendance while employees of Indian Creek was substan-
dard. The Respondent does not argue that they are poor
workers, except for contending that neither can run a high
lift.
I find Respondent's claim a pretext and its refusal to hire
Stanley Bunch and York unlawful. Plymouth Cordage Com-
pany d/b/a Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Company, 151
NLRB 949 (1965), enfd. 381 F.2d 710 (5th Cir. 1967).
While there is some evidence that York and Bunch missed
what might be considered a substantial number of work-
days, there is also evidence that other employees who were
rehired missed as many, if not more. Whether and to what
extent the attendance of Stanley Bunch and York is sub-
stantive insofar as the operation of this mine is concerned
is not in evidence. I would note, however, and do conclude
that apparently their absenteeism was not particularly seri-
ous, because both worked for Indian Creek for some time
and neither was even counseled concerning his attendance,
much less disciplined or discharged. From the record be-
fore me, it appears that something less than perfect atten-
dance has been tolerated in the operation of this mine, and
by the same individuals who are the principals of Petros.
Three of them were Indian Creek foremen, while the fourth
was the bookkeeper-business manager. I conclude that had
the attendance of Bunch and York been as substantial a
problem as the Respondent now claims they would have
been disciplined or discharged while employed by Indian
Creek and by someone who is now an owner of Petros. The
fact that this did not occur means that their attendance
records while employees of Indian Creek were not consid-
ered too bad. Their absenteeism could not have been the
true reason they were not hired. Further, Dolphus Carroll
had an even worse attendance record but was hired. He
was not on the preferential hiring list.
For these reasons I reject the claim that poor attendance
was the reason Bunch and York were not hired. I infer that
the true motive was related to their union activity.
In addition to the inference of unlawful motive, there is
direct evidence of such. On or about March 10, York and
Bunch attempted to talk Ted Bunch, another employee
who was not on the preferential hiring list, not to go to
work for Petros until all of those on the list were hired.
And Bunch and York confronted the owners of Petros with
the list insisting that Petros honor it. At or about that time.
Sherman Carroll, according to the testimony of Bunch and
York, which I credit over Carroll's denial, stated that he
would have hired them but for the fact that they were at-
tempting to enforce the preferential list, telling Bunch to
"[t]ake it and shove it." And Carroll said to Terry Daugh-
erty, after noting that Bunch and York had "come up here
waving that list around," that "I won't hire them 'til hell
freezes over" and "[t]hem two boys ain't nothing but union
agitators."
When Walter Bunch was hired, in early March, he had a
discussion concerning union membership with Sherman
Carroll, during which Carroll told him, "that I had got into
this trouble one time . . . you know, been laid off so I
should [sic] fool with it [the Union] anymore."
Though asserting that the Union was not a consideration
in refusing to hire the four, Carroll did not deny the state-
ments attributed to him. In fact, he admitted having said
that he would close the mine if they had to hire Bunch and
York. He testified that this was because they could not
operate with such poor attenders.
Subsequent to closing the mine in 1975, the principal
owner of Indian Creek, Curtis Owens, suggested that em-
ployees "gang work it," that is, in effect, become subcon-
tractors or form a company to mine the coal. There is also
testimony concerning statements by Owens during the pe-
riod the mine was not in operation, to Stanley Bunch and
others, to the effect that the "union had lost." Owens is not
alleged to be an agent of Petros. This evidence, however,
does have some relevance to the issue of whether or not
Petros in fact came into existence for the purpose of flank-
ing the Union's effort to organize the mine's employees. I
conclude that this was a principal purpose for creating Pet-
ros. Nothing of substance was changed with regard to min-
ing coal at the No. 2 mine. The owners of Petros, who had
been foremen for Indian Creek, continued to be supervis-
ors. The same coal continued to be mined with the same
equipment and was sold through the same broker to the
same customer. While none of this is alleged to have been
an unfair labor practice, it does corroborate the intent of
Petros' owners to operate the mine without the principal
union activists. To this end it was determined not to honor
the preferential hiring list.
Petros' determination not to be governed by the prefer-
ential hiring list, as evidence by its actions as well as the
statements of Carroll, shows an intent to weed out the prin-
cipal union activists of Indian Creek, notwithstanding Pet-
ros' protestations to the contrary. Such discrimination vio-
lates the Act. Crawford Container, Inc., 234 NLRB 851
(1978) (member Jenkins dissenting). Nor is the violation
made lawful by the fact that some union supporters were in
fact hired. N.LR.B. v. W. C. Nabors d/b/a W. C. Nabors
Co., 196 F.2d. 272 (5th Cir. 1951), cert. denied 344 U.S.
865. I therefore conclude that Petros, independent of Ow-
ens or Indian Creek, violated the Act as alleged when from
and after March 8 it refused to hire Randall Bunch, Glenn
Bunch, Stanley Bunch, and Robert York.
413
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE INFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices found are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce and the free flow of commerce
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respon-
dent will be ordered to offer employment as miners to
Randall Bunch, Glenn Bunch, Stanley Bunch, and Robert
York without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and benefits, and to make them whole for any loss of wag-
es they may have suffered from March 8, 1977 (March 10,
1977, in the case of Glenn Bunch), in accordance with the
formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest as prescribed by Florida Steel Cor-
poration, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).2
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to
the provisions of Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended:
ORDER 3
The Respondent, Petros Coal Corporation, Devonia,
Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to hire, or otherwise discriminating with re-
gard to hire or tenure of employment against, potential
employees because of their interest in or activity on behalf
of United Mine Workers of America, or any other labor
organization.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, deemed neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer employment as miners to Randall Bunch,
Glenn Bunch, Stanley Bunch, and Robert York and make
them whole for any losses incurred by reason of the dis-
crimination against them in accordance with the provisions
set forth in the remedy section above.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all documents neces-
sary and relevant to analyze and compute the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Devonia, Tennessee, facility copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said no-
tices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 10, after being duly signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2See. generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating (o.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations ol 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.
In the event that this Order is enforced by ajudgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words ill the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment 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
After a hearing at which all parties participated, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board found that we violated the
National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post
this notice and to abide by its terms.
WE WILL NOT refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate
against our employees because of their interest in or
activity on behalf of the United Mine Workers of
America or any other labor organization.
WE WIL.L NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer employment to Randall Bunch,
Glenn Bunch, Stanley Bunch, and Robert York in
jobs in our mine, and WE WILL give them backpay plus
interest for any losses they may have suffered as a
result of our refusing to hire them from and after
March 8, 1977.
Our employees have the right to join United Mine Work-
ers of America, or any other labor organization, or to re-
frain from doing so.
PETROS COAL CORPORATION
414