Poly Printers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 540 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Poly Printers, Inc., and I.F.L. Plastics, Inc. and Local 169,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America . Case No. 4-CA-3359.
March 10, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 23, 1964, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued
his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom, and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examin-
er's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommended that the complaint be dismissed
with respect to the latter allegations. Thereafter, the Respondents
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision insofar as they
were found to have violated the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, and filed a brief in support thereof. The General
Counsel thereupon filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision with respect to the recommended dismissal of the com-
plaint as to one of the discharged employees and filed an answering
brief. The Respondent filed a brief in answer to the General
Counsel's cross-exceptions and his brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning,
Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and
briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order
recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondents,
Poly Printers, Inc., and H.F.L. Plastics, Inc., their officers, agents,
successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
2 No exceptions having been filed regarding the recommended dismissal of the com-
plaint with respect to the discharge of Charles Chase, the Board adopts , pro forma,
the Trial Examiner ' s findings, conclusions , and recommendations as to him.
151 NLRB No. 66.
POLY PRINTERS, INC., & H.F.L. PLASTICS, INC. 541
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , heard before Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel at Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania , on August 31 and September 1, 1964, pursuant to a charge filed the
preceding May 26 and a complaint issued July 21, presents issues as to whether
Respondents unlawfully interrogated employees concerning their union membership
and activities , and whether Respondents discharged seven employees for union
activitiy.
Upon the entire record , including my observation of the witnesses , and after due
consideration of the briefs filed by General Counsel and by Respondents , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondents , hereinafter jointly called the Company , are affiliated businesses con-
stituting a single business enterprise , engaged at Philadelphia in the production and
printing of polyethylene fabric, and shipping annually in excess of $ 50,000 worth
of goods and materials to points outside the State . The Company is admittedly
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. The Charging Party is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background; the start of union activity and the discharge of Chase
The Company has approximately 24 employees in its 3-shift, 5-day -week opera-
tion , with about 10 men on the day shift and about 7 on each of the other shifts. The
supervisory hierarchy included George Schulman, the general manager, Lawrence
Howard , an officer and supervisor , and Sante (Sam) Alleva, a day supervisor. Per-
sonnel practices verged on the loose or informal . For example , the Keller brothers,
Charles and Frank, would on occasion exchange shifts. The timeclock was con-
cededly inaccurate , and the Company relied on the timecards only to show attendance
or absence , but not hours actually worked . The latter figure was arrived at by oral
reports of the supervisors . With the exception of one Ellis , apparently a good
worker but an alcoholic , who was fired and rehired on two or three occasions, and
one Carl Myers, the Company discharged no employees in the 6 months preceding
April 20, 1964. Between that date and April 28 occurred the separations here at
issue.
Union activity commenced early in April, when employees Frank Keller and Robert
Strange began discussing with other employees the need for union representation.
Beginning on April 20 they distributed union authorization cards to the employees,
and 14 cards were signed between April 20 and 24. The distribution was conducted
in the plant during "break" periods, except that one employee , Charles Chase, who
was absent April 20, signed his card that day at his home. The employees involved
in the case testified that to the best of their knowledge , no management official
observed the union activity in which they were engaged. On the other hand employee
Pinder, who was not discharged , testified that "we" (presumably , the employees) could
see the men passing out the cards and to whom they went . Supervisory personnel
were on the floor all day, and testified that they had reasonably cordial relations with
the small group of employees on each shift.
As just stated , Chase, who had earlier told Frank Keller he would support a union,
signed a union card at his home on Monday , April 20, when he missed work because
of illness. He had also missed work on the preceding Monday, April 13 , because
of the death of an uncle. Apart from those two absences , Chase had worked 40
hours or more in every week but one since February 2 . Chase testified that when
he came to work on Tuesday , April 21 , his supervisor, Alleva, told him he was "fired"
because "you put us in a hole." In an earlier affidavit Chase attributed to Alleva
the explanation that Chase had been "missing too many days ," had been warned
about it, had been late, and had walked away from his machine . Alleva testified
along the lines attributed to him in the Chase affidavit , and his testimony is in square
conflict with that of Chase on such matters as whether Chase was late for work on
April 21, and whether Chase had been warned for the shortcomings Alleva attributed
to him.
B. The discharges of Frank Keller , Strange, and Gilmore
About 10.30 on Friday morning, April 24, Schulman without prior warnings dis-
charged first Strange and immediately thereafter Frank Keller , the two leading union
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
protagonists. The 2 men went to the union hall where they turned in the 14 union
authorization cards, and then returned to the plant for the dual purpose of asking
Schulman to state the reasons for their discharge and of advising the other employees
of a meeting at the union hall the next day. Keller's testimony of his conversation
with Schulman (corroborated by Strange and by employee William McNulty, who
overheard the conversation and was himself discharged the following week, but denied
by Schulman) is as follows:
[I asked] George Schulman why I had got fired. He says, "You already know
the reason, Keller." I said to him that you can't blame a guy for trying to get
ahead. So he said, "But you only been here a couple months and already you're
trying to start a union." I said, "Would it make any difference I was here a
few years?" And George Schulman replied to me, "I'd still fired you." Then
George started getting annoyed and he told me and Robert Strange to leave.
So we proceeded to go to the back door, the platform in the back, and he fol-
lowed us back there. As we were leaving the platform, he said, "If you guys
want a raise or stuff like that, why didn't you just tell me instead of trying to
mess up the plant?" And that's when he said, "You're nothing but trouble-
makers trying to poison the minds of the other employees."
John Gilmore had signed a union card early that week. He arrived at the plant
on Friday, April 24, about 3:30 p.m., preparing to go to work at 4. Schulman told
him that Frank Keller and Strange wanted to see him outside the plant about some
money they said Gilmore owed them, and Schulman added that they had been dis-
charged. After Gilmore's brief conversation with Keller in which Keller asked if he
would attend the union meeting the next day, Gilmore returned to the plant and
found Schulman waiting for him. To quote Gilmore's testimony:
I jumped back up on the platform and Mr. Schulman was there and he said,
"If I were you, I would keep away from those boys." And I replied that I
wouldn't, that I grew up with Frank Keller and I had no reason whatsoever,
to keep away from him. And he again repeated himself, and he said, "If I were
you, I would keep away from them." And I said, "I don't get it George; what's
up?" And George says, "You'll get it." And with that, I walked away from
him. I walked back into the plant to report for work, and back into the wash-
room to get into my gear; I came out of the washroom later; and George Schul-
man was standing by his office and he said, "Wait a minute, Gilmore, I'll have
your check."
And I said, "All right, I was going to leave anyhow."
On cross-examination, Gilmore testified:
Q. Now is there any reason why, that you can explain to the Trial Examiner,
that you stated to Mr. Schulman that you were going to leave anyway?
A. Yes, sir, Mr. Trial Examiner, I felt that there was an injustice done to
these other people-that they felt that I was in the union-the management
felt that I was in the union-and I wouldn't work at that plant under those
conditions because I would be discriminated against, and it would be made to
look as though I was always doing something wrong, and they would be con-
stantly on my back; and that's why I made that statement.
He further testified that before he learned of the discharges of Keller and Strange
he had no intention of leaving his employment. According to Schulman, after he
told Gilmore not to "bother with those fellows," Gilmore replied:
What do you mean don't bother with them? They are my buddies I'll talk to
them if I want to. Besides, I'm tired of this place anyway, I was going to quit.
Schulman, according to his testimony, then said:
Well, if you want to quit, I'll get your check for you right now.
Gilmore's discharge was apparently accomplished in such haste and with such heat
that Schulman neglected to sign the paycheck, and Gilmore failed to notice the omis-
sion . After discovering it, he returned to the plant the following Monday, accom-
panied by Strange, who had some personal equipment to remove. On this occasion,
according to Gilmore and Strange, Schulman denied firing Gilmore for union activity,
stated that Gilmore was fired for making "too many mistakes," and (particularly
addressing himself to Strange) asked what Strange knew about the financial position
of the Company and what he knew about a union. Strange testified that he replied
that a union would give the men more benefits than Schulman would, and that
Schulman then said, "Leave-I don't like that kind of stuff around here, messing
up the plant."
POLY PRINTERS, INC., & H.F.L. PLASTICS, INC. 543
C. The discharge of Albert Myers
Albert Myers, who worked the midnight- to-8 a.m . shift , signed a union card shortly
before he was relieved on the morning of Friday, April 24. That evening, accord-
ing to his testimony , he arrived at work shortly before midnight and was met at the
door by Howard , who gave him his paychecks with the explanation that a general lay-
off was in progress . Myers went to a cafe, where about 2 hours later a fellow
employee, James Pinder , came to purchase various items of food and drink for the
men on the shift. Pinder, according to his testimony , had been discussing the
Myers discharge with Howard and had told Howard that Pinder believed Myers
had had nothing to do with the Union . Howard told Pinder to tell Myers to come in
Monday morning and discuss the matter , and Pinder duly relayed the message. Myers
returned the following Monday and met with Howard and Schulman . Myers testified
in pertinent part:
And then Larry Howard asked me if I signed a union card and I told him yes,
I had signed a union card. And then I think it was both of them or one right
after the other said did I know I could pull my union card and tear it up. Larry
Howard asked me would I tear my union card up. He said that if I did so he
would rehire me and give me my job back. I told him that I would have to
think it over because I did not want to hurt my friends , the guys that I worked
with , and I figured by pulling my union card it would hurt their chances of
getting a union in the shop. So I asked him could he give me a little time to
think it over, so he said he'd give me-so I said would it be all right to call up
or come in the next morning and give him my answer for his question.
Myers did not communicate with Howard or Schulman thereafter.
The Company's version of the Myers discharge is that the determination to dis-
charge him was made Friday morning , April 24, after 8 o'clock because Myers on
that day had persisted in his habit of leaving work before the end of his shift. More-
over, according to Howard , he was not at the plant at midnight that night when Myers
was discharged , and he accomplished the discharge by telephone . Howard testified
that he had told the second-shift supervisor, Blake, to tell Myers to telephone Howard
before punching in that night. Neither Blake nor the supervisor on the midnight
shift , Willits, was called to testify , and we are left with a conflict between Howard
on the one hand and Pinder and Myers on the other as to whether Howard was at
work or at home during the midnight shift that day. Howard did recall his con-
versation with Pinder concerning Myers' discharge , Pinder's observation that Myers
had nothing to do with the Union, and Howard's rejoinder that Myers should come
in Monday if he had something to discuss . Howard placed this conversation with
Pinder as occurring Friday afternoon , which would have been several hours before
Myers had been notified of his discharge . Howard testified that he did not know how
Pinder knew of the discharge at that time. Later Howard changed his testimony to
fix his conversation with Pinder as occurring Saturday rather than Friday. With
respect to the Monday conversation with Myers, the Company's position is that he
offered to tear up his union card and was told this had nothing to do with his
discharge.
D. The events of April 25
On Saturday morning, April 25, according to the testimony of employee Pinder,
Supervisor Alleva asked him whether he was in the Union and if he knew who else
was in the Union. Alleva was not asked to, and did not, contradict this testimony.
That same day some of the discharged employees (Chase, Frank Keller, Strange,
and Myers ) together with another employee, William McNulty, went to the plant to
pick up employee Pilkington en route to the union hall for a meeting . On this
occasion ( according to the testimony of Keller, Myers, Pinder, Strange , McNulty,
and Chase , but denied by Alleva), Alleva saw the group in the car and said to Pinder:
"There's your troublemakers [or "instigators" or "organizers"], there's your union."
E. The discharge of Charles Keller
Charles Keller, who lived with his brother Frank , was not at work during the
critical days described above. Charles , who had signed a union card at his brother's
request, had suffered a head injury and had gone to the hospital on Wednesday,
April 22, for X-rays. The X-rays were negative but the doctor prescribed rest, so
Charles advised the Company, through his brother, that he would be absent a few days.
(Frank Keller corroborated his brother's testimony in these respects , and testified
that Howard, upon being told of Charles ' temporary absence and the negative X-rays,
expressed the view that Charles could return when he felt able. Howard testified
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Frank Keller never told him Charles had been cleared by the doctor.) On
Tuesday, April 27 , Charles reported for work. He noted that one Ellis, a former
employee, had apparently been rehired and was working at Keller 's machine. Keller's
testimony continued:
A. Well, as soon as I seen him , I just stood there . Then Larry Howard
approached me and said , "Come down to my office, I want to talk to you, Skip."
And when I went down to his office he said , "While you were away there was a
wholesale change . Some old men were re-hired . We hired some new men.
We fired some men who worked here. And you were part of the package."
Q. What did you say?
A. I said okay . He said , "I'll mail you your pay check. " And that was it.
Keller at that time had the negative X-rays in his wallet but never showed them to
Howard. Howard contradicted Charles Keller's testimony , stating that Keller reported
an unresolved head injury and that he told Keller only to stay away until he was
better and had a clean bill of health . Schulman in essence corroborated Howard's
testimony, except that Schulman referred to Keller's report of an "undetermined head
injury" as having been made on the preceding Wednesday . According to Schulman,
on April 28 Howard asked Keller, "Did you get a clearance from the hospital? Is
your head all right?" and when Keller replied that he had no hospital discharge,
Howard said: "When you get a clearance from the hospital , your job is available
to you."
F. The discharge of William McNulty
As noted above, McNulty was one of the employees in a car on their way to the
union hall on April 25 when Alleva upon seeing them allegedly remarked to Pinder,
"There's your union." McNulty had signed a union card earlier that week . On Tues-
day, April 28, McNulty arrived at the plant before the starting time and went to the
lunchroom . He was visiting there with Charles Keller when Alleva asked McNulty
when he was going to work. McNulty replied that he still had a few minutes, and
continued to drink his coffee. Keller left, only to return shortly thereafter to state
that he had been discharged. McNulty was still in the lunchroom when Schulman
came in and discharged him, stating , "If you want to sit around, you can sit around at
home," and "you might as well go along with Keller." In his 2 months with the
Company McNulty had been absent three times , and late to work on four or five
occasions.
The foregoing recital represents McNulty's first version of the events of April 28,
a version which he altered during cross-examination to state that he had gone to
work and that Schulman discharged him while he was working , only to return later
in the cross -examination to the statement that he was in the lunchroom when Schul-
man reproved and discharged him.
Schulman's version differs from McNulty's in that Schulman testified to sneaking
to McNulty on two occasions in the lunchroom that morning , and discharging him
on the second occasion , some 20 to 30 minutes after McNulty should have been at
work. (According to McNulty the lunchroom clock was in error, he spent 2 minutes
drinking coffee after Alleva spoke to him, and Schulman came in 5 to 10 minutes
after Alleva.)
G. Concluding findings
As the foregoing summary makes clear, the result in this case turns primarily on
the credibility of the witnesses . Basically, the Company's position is that the seven
discharged employees and Pinder, all of whom are close friends of one another, have
contrived a series of falsehoods to which they have sworn , that the extent to which
their testimony is corroborative of each other merely establishes that they had
agreed in advance on the details of their testimony , and that the several discharges
(except for Gilmore, who "quit," and Charles Keller, who lacked medical clearance)
were for cause . In the latter connection the Company introduced testimony, not
detailed above, that Strange and Frank Keller spent much working time in conversa-
tion together , that they as well as Chase , Myers, and McNulty were often late to work
or left early or spent time away from their machines , and that Gilmore , Myers, and
the others did unsatisfactory work. Finally. the Company's supervisors all professed
ignorance of any knowledge or awareness of union activity until after the discharges
of Frank Keller and Strange and their return to the plant later on the day of their
discharge . General Counsel , of course , relies on the credibility of the employee
witnesses as establishing that the Company knew of their union activity and dis-
charged them therefor.
Upon consideration of the entire record , including my observation of the witnesses,
and with due regard for the friendly relationship existing among the employee wit-
POLY PRINTERS, INC., & H.F.L. PLASTICS, INC. 545
nesses, I am disposed in general to credit their testimony . I do so not only because of
their demeanor and because of the high degree of corroboration including that of
Pinder, a comparatively disinterested witness, but also because in certain respects the
Company's story did not ring true . It is peculiar , to say the least, that Howard,
according to his testimony , should have discussed Myers' discharge with Pinder on
Friday afternoon , hours before Howard had notified Myers of his discharge , and even
if that be attributed to faulty recollection of the date on Howard 's part, his testimony
leaves unexplained how and why Pinder happened to mention to Howard ( as both
testified ) that Myers had nothing to do with the Union , information to which Howard
(by his own testimony as well as by Pinder's ) responded with a suggestion that
Myers come to see him . Likewise peculiar, if the Company 's version is true, is the
conduct of Charles Keller in treating as an outright discharge a simple request that
he obtain medical clearance . And while it may be nothing more than coincidence that
the Company , after tolerating weeks and even months of alleged inattention to work,
tardiness , and early departures , should "crack down" on a large group of employees
(amounting to nearly one-third of its total work force ), it compounds coincidence
that this occurred in the same week in which the employees ' union activity passed the
point of mere discussion and entered the card-signing stage. Cf. N.L R B. v. Con-
denser Corporation of America , 128 F. 2d 67 , 75 (C.A. 3).
More specifically , I credit the testimony of Frank Keller and Strange concerning
their interview with Schulman on their return from the union hall on April 24, and
the testimony of Gilmore concerning his conversation with Schulman that day.
Therefore, I find that Keller and Strange were discharged for union activity, and that
Gilmore was discharged for his open defiance of Schulman's admonition to "keep
away from" Keller and Strange. In the context of the Keller and Strange discharges,
the admonition to Gilmore and his rejection of it conveyed to Schulman the belief,
well founded in fact, that Gilmore was associated in, and would not cease, union
activity . The claim that Gilmore made "too many mistakes" was a patent after-
thought advanced several days later, and Gilmore's statement that he was going to
quit anyway not only followed his discharge but was provoked by the unlawful dis-
crimination against Keller and Strange. I further find , crediting Myers and Pinder
in these respects , that Howard discharged Myers for union activity . Finally, I credit
the testimony of Charles Keller and find that he was discharged as part of the
"package," in which he was included because of the Company 's well-founded belief
that he had followed the lead of his brother , with whom he lived, in union activity.
I am constrained , however, to recommend dismissal of the complaint as to Chase
and McNulty . The timing and circumstances of Chase's discharge are such that I do
not find a preponderance of the testimony supporting his case. He was not a leader
of the Union , and his discharge predated by several days any action against the
leaders, Keller and Strange. I credit Alleva 's testimony as to his reasons for dis-
charging Chase. The McNulty matter is a difficult one , for the Company had iden-
tified McNulty the Saturday preceding his Tuesday discharge as a union supporter.
But McNulty , by his own testimony , lingered several minutes in the lunchroom after
a supervisor had directed him to go to work. It may be that but for his union
adherence McNulty would have been dealt with more lightly, but there is no showing
of similar conduct and hence no basis for a finding based on difference of treatment.
In my view McNulty's conduct furnished a ground for discharge , and against that
General Counsel has established union animus. But to find a violation in McNulty's
case would be to find either that his support of the Union rendered him immune to
discharge for cause ( a patent absurdity ) or that the Company was motivated in part
by his union membership (a pure speculation ). I therefore recommend dismissal
as to him for failure of General Counsel to sustain his burden of proof.
With respect to the allegation in the complaint that Alleva interrogated employees
"concerning their union membership activities , and desires ," this is supported by
Pinder's testimony concerning Alleva's questioning on April 25, and I therefore find
the violation of Section 8(a)(1) inherent in such conduct. General Counsel points
out in his brief that Schulman also interrogated Pinder as to the latter's union member-
ship but the complaint named only Alleva, and not Schulman , as involved in unlawful
interrogation , and I therefore make no finding of violation based on Schulman's con-
duct in that respect.
M. THE REMEDY
I shall recommend the conventional remedy for the unfair labor practices here
found, including the reinstatement with backpay and interest of the five employees
here found to have been unlawfully discharged, and the posting of an appropriate
notice. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formulas approved in
F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
783-133-66-vol. 151-36
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
716. In view of the number of discriminatory discharges, I find that the Company's
hostility to its employees' exercise of their statutory rights warrants a broad cease-and-
desist order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminatorily discharging Frank Keller, Robert Strange, John Gilmore,
Albert Myers, and Charles Keller for union activity, the Company has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By interrogating an employee as to whether he was a union member and as to
who else was in the Union, the Company, acting through its supervisor and agent,
engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a) (l) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions and on the
entire record, I recommend, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, that Respondents
Poly Printers, Inc., and H.F.L. Plastics, Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discriminating against any employee for having joined, or engaged in activity
on behalf of, Local 169, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America.
(b) Interrogating employees as to their union membership or activities, or as to
the union membership or activities of other employees, or in any other manner inter-
fering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer to reinstate Frank Keller, Robert Strange, John Gilmore, Albert Myers,
and Charles Keller to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of them
whole in the manner described in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision
entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against them.
(b) Notify any of the above-described employees who are serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for exam-
ination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount
of backpay due under the terms hereof.
(d) Post at their plant at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 4, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative
of the Respondents, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondents have taken to
comply herewith.2
The complaint, insofar as it alleges discrimination against Charles Chase and
William McNulty, should be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.
i In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "As
ordered by" shall be substituted for "As Recommended by a Trial Examiner of" in the
notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order of" shall be inserted immediately following "As ordered by "
2 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read, "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, wtthin 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
LANE-COOS-CURRY-DOUGLAS COUNTIES BLDG. & CONST. 547
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
As recommended by a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, we
are posting this notice to inform our employees of the rights guaranteed them in the
National Labor Relations Act:
WE WILL offer Frank Keller, Robert Strange, John Gilmore, Albert Myers,
and Charles Keller their former jobs, and pay them for wages they lost since their
discharges in April 1964.
All our employees have the right to join or assist Local 169, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or any other union. WE WILL NOT question them as to whether they are
members of or support a union, or discharge them for doing so, or interfere
with them in any way because of their union activity.
POLY PRINTERS, INC., and H.F.L. PLASTICS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Telephone No. 735-2612, if they have any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas Counties Building & Construction
Trades Council , AFL-CIO and Carpenters Local Union No.
1273, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO , and Construction & General Laborers Local No. 85,
International Hod Carriers , Building & Common Laborers'
Union of America , AFL-CIO and Plumbers & Steamfitters
Local No. 481, United Association of Journeymen & Appren-
tices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the U.S. &
Canada, AFL-CIO and Ramsey-Waite Co., Inc . Cases Nos. 36-
CC-111, 36-CC-112, and 36-CC-113. March 10, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 30, 1964, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative actions, as set forth in the attached Trial Examin-
er's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
151 NLRB No. 63.