Pulaski Veneer Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 3, 1938

10 N.L.R.B. 136 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of PULASKI VENEER CORPORATION and UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION #1862
Cases Nos. C-555 and R-616.-Decided December 3, 1938
Cabinet Plywood, Veneer, and Novelty Furniture Manufacturing Industry-
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: hostility toward union organization ex-
pressed by employer to employee-organizer ; surveillance of union meetings by
executive and supervisory employees ; assistance by supervisory employees in
circulation of antiunion petition; anti=union speech-Discrimination: lay-off,
discharge, and demotion followed by lay-off, respectively„ of three employees
for union activity ; charges of, not sustained as to six other employees-Rein-
statement Ordered: of employees laid off, discharged, or demoted-Regular and
Substantially Equivalent Employment: desire of employee controlling in absence
of strong evidence showing-Back Pay: awarded to employees laid off, dis-
charged, or demoted : as to one such employee, not to include period between
date of Intermediate Report and date of Decision-Investigation of Repre-
sentatives: controversy concerning representation of employees : refusal of em-
ployer to agree to consent election or cross-check of union membership cards
against pay roll-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all employees ex-
cept supervisory, clerical, and office employees ; no dispute concerning unit-
Election Ordered
Mr. Reeves R. Hilton, for the Board.
Mr. R. K. Sutherland, and Mr. J. C. TV?sor, of Pulaski, Va., and
Mr. William A. Stuart, of Abingdon, Va., for the respondent.
111r. Phil J. Knee, of Roanoke, Va., for the Union.
Mr. Harry Cooper, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 21, November, 15, and November 19, 1937, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local Union #1862,
herein called the Union, filed a charge, an amended charge and a
second amended charge, respectively, with the Regional Director for
the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), alleging that Pulaski
Veneer Corporation, Pulaski, Virginia, herein called the respondent,
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting-
10 N. L R. B., No. 11.
136
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 137
commerce, within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act,
49-Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On November 19, 1937, the Union
also filed with the Regional Director a petition alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the respondent, and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.
On November 24, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and
Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice, and acting pursuant to Article
III, Section 10 (c) (2), and Article II, Section 37 (b), of said Rules
and Regulations, further ordered that the two cases be consolidated
for the purpose of hearing. On December 27, 1937, the Board, by
the Regional Director, issued its complaint and accompanying notice
of hearing and a separate notice of hearing on the petition, copies of
which were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
The complaint, charging that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act, alleged in substance (1) that in September, October, and Novem-
ber, 1937, the respondent discharged and has since refused to reinstate
12 named employees for the reason that they joined and assisted the
Union, and (2) that it intimidated, restrained and coerced its em-
ployees to prevent them from joining a labor organization of their
own choosing. The respondent filed an answer, dated December ^9,
1937, in substance denying the unfair labor practices charged in the
complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Pulaski, Virginia, from
February 3 to 12, 1938, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The respondent was represented by
counsel and by its president, the Union by one of its organizers, and
the Board by counsel. Counsel for the Board and for the respondent
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to exam-
ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing
upon the issues was afforded all parties.
At the close of the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved that
the complaint be dismissed with respect to George Farmer, Ed Hurst,
and Argell Turpin, employees who were alleged in the complaint to
have been discriminatorily discharged and who were not available
to testify at the hearing. Counsel for the Board also moved that the
complaint be conformed to the proof adduced at the hearing. Both
motions- were granted by the Trial Examiner. Also at the close of
the Board's case and at the close of the hearing, counsel for the
138 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent moved that all testimony offered by the Board be stricken
as insufficient to support any remedy or judgment against the re-
spondent. The motion was denied. At the close of the hearing
counsel for the respondent moved that testimony bearing upon the
petition be stricken and that the petition be dismissed on the ground
that the evidence was insufficient to show that the Union represented
a majority of the employees. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling
at the hearing but subsequently denied the motion in his Intermediate
Report. Counsel for the respondent also made motions that all evi-_
dente introduced as tending to support the complaint with respect
to Shinault, Rupe, Stout, and Morris, be stricken as insufficient to sup-
port the granting of any relief. The motions were denied. Counsel
for the respondent made similar motions in the cases of Stuart, Delp,
Brookman, Cooper Johnson, and J. W. Johnson, the other employees
alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged. Ruling upon these
motions was reserved at the hearing but denied by the Trial Exam-
iner in his Intermediate Report. During the course of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner made a number of other rulings on motions and
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On February 18, 1938, the respondent filed a brief which the Board
has considered.
On April 21, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. The Trial
Examiner found that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint by dis-
charging and refusing to employ L. H. Morris, Roy Stout, and
Garnett Shinault, and by interfering with the organizational activi-
ties of its employees. He recommended that the respondent cease
and desist from its unfair labor practices, that it offer Morris and
Stout reinstatement to their former positions and make them whole
for any losses of pay incurred, and that it snake whole Garnett
Shinault for any loss of pay he` has suffered. Since Shinault testi-
fied that he did not desire reinstatement, the Trial Examiner did
not recommend that he be reinstated. The Trial Examiner also
found that the separation from employment of the other employees
named in the complaint, with the exception of Clair Delp, was occa-
sioned by business conditions at the respondent's plant and recom-
mended that the complaint as to them be dismissed. The Trial
Examiner failed to pass on the case of Clair Delp.
On April 27, 1938, and on May 16, 1938, the Union and the re-
spondent, respectively, filed their exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port. On April 30, 1938, the parties were advised of their right,
within 10 days from receipt of notice, to apply for oral argument or
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 139
permission to file briefs. The Union, on May 12, and the respondent,
on June 4, 1938, each filed a brief in support of its exceptions to the
Intermediate Report. Neither applied for opportunity to present
oral argument thereon before the Board.
The Board has considered the exceptions and briefs of the respond-
ent and the Union. The exceptions, in so far as they are inconsistent
with the findings, conclusions, order and Direction of Election set
forth below, are hereby found to be without Inerit.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board makes the fol-
lowing :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Pulaski Veneer Corporation is a Virginia corporation engaged in
the business of manufacturing and distributing cabinet plywood, face
veneer, dimension walnut, novelty furniture, and other articles. Its
office and plant is situated in Pulaski, Virginia.
Its principal raw materials are logs, about 60 per cent of which are
purchased in Virginia and about 40 per cent of which are purchased
in West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and
Maryland. The respondent also uses screws, hinges, and furniture
hardware, which are procured from New York, Pennsylvania,
Indiana, and North Carolina.
The respondent produces several thousand novelty pieces and one
million feet of veneer material per month. Approximately 75 per
cent of these products are shipped to points outside the State of
Virginia. The respondent employs salesmen who solicit orders from
jobbers, wholesalers, and retail stores, including chain and depart-
ment stores. Its jobbers are located in Omaha, Nebraska; Minneapo-
lis, Minnesota ; St. Louis, Missouri ; and Kansas City, Missouri ; as
well as in other cities throughout the United States.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local
Union #1862, is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor. It admits to membership all woodworking
employees in the town of Pulaski, Virginia, except supervisory and
clerical employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Late in August 1937, Kues, organizer for the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters & Joiners of America, visited Wysor, president of the
respondent, and Richardson, its general manager, and told them of
his intention to organize at the respondent's plant.
140 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about September 1, 1937, L. H. Morris , an employee of the
respondent who conferred with Kues, began to organize the Union
among the respondent 's employees . Soon thereafter , Richardson
called Morris into his office , and in the presence of DeCamp, plant
superintendent , asked him if lie was organizing . When Morris
answered in the affirmative, Richardson replied, "We don't want
organized labor." He -further stated : "I am afraid that a union
would not be a good thing for our company ." He also asked for
and received a sample union application card and advised Morris
not to circulate such cards about the plant.
On the night of September 10, 1937, the first meeting of the Union
was held at the Hotel Pulaski , and weekly meetings were thereafter
held at various places in Pulaski. Present at the Hotel Pulaski on
the night of September 10 were Wysor, Richardson , and DeCamp,
each of whom was seen by employees attending the meeting of the
Union. Wysor, Richardson , and DeCamp testified at the hearing
and each sought to explain his presence at the Hotel Pulaski.
DeCamp testified that he was present to attend a meeting of the
American Legion, which was being held in a room adjoining the
union meeting hall. Wysor testified that he was on his way home
from the movies , noticed a crowd outside the hotel, and stepped in
to see what was going on. He ,met DeCamp who remarked to him,
"I ain attending a meeting of the Legion , but we are having here a
meeting of the Union." Shortly thereafter he met the mayor of
Pulaski and they -talked about the Union , among other things.
Wysor also observed Richardson , -who, upon being asked what was
going on, stated "that there was a meeting of the Union."
Richardson testified that lie was called from his office that night
by the mayor of Pulaski , who asked him to come over to the hotel,
that the request was not unusual since he was accustomed to meeting
the mayor there for conferences , and that they discussed the Union.
According to Richardson, as he approached , the mayor announced :
"It looks like there is quite a big crowd at the union meeting."
Richardson did not reveal why the mayor had summoned him to the
hotel that evening nor what other subjects were discussed by him
and the mayor.
The second meeting of the Union took place on September 17 in the
yard of the home of L. H. Morris . Lively, the assistant superin-
tendent at the plant , and Troy Richardson , foreman of the novelty
shipping department and brother of the general manager, were seen
at the Morris yard meeting standing alongside the fence. Lively
admitted attending this meeting and subsequent meetings of the
1 Lively was assistant superintendent from May 1 to about September 20, 1937, and from
about October 8 to October 20, 1937.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 141
Union "out of curiosity." Harris, a foreman in the cabinet room,
was also seen at union meetings.
Howlett, foreman of the machine room, advised Brookman, an
employee in his department, not to attend the meeting in Morris'
yard because "there will be someone there to spot you . . . some of
the company officials." Binschadler, foreman of the finishing room,
told Shinault, an employee in his department, on the day after the
second meeting which Shinault had attended that "you had been
down at the meeting . . . you joined the Union . . . somebody was
there,,down there, watching you and told me you joined." Neither
Howlett nor Binschadler denied making these statements.
For a period of about 2 weeks after the first meeting of the Union,
the following petition was circulated throughout the plant for the sig-
natures of the employees :
To the MANAGEMENT OF PULASKI VENEER CORPORATION, PULASKI,
VIRGINIA :
It is understood that efforts are being made by outsiders to
organize your employees for the purpose of representation in
collective bargaining. This is to advise you that we, the under-
signed employees of your plant, have not joined any such organ-
ization and have not delegated the right to anyone to represent
us in any way in such matters.
It is our opinion that the Company will treat us fairly. If
we later find it necessary or advisable to have an organization
for bargain purposes we prefer to have one of our own.
You may consider this statement to you as continuing in effect
until we notify you to the contrary.
According to Cox, a carpenter in the plant, the idea of the petition
was conceived by him immediately after the first meeting of the
Union. The petition was drawn up by Cox and Askew, an employee
in the supply and sample room of the plant. Cox and Askew circu-
lated the petition throughout the plant and solicited signatures
thereon both during and after working hours. Most of the foremen
signed the petition, and Brown, foreman of the core department, and
Binschadler, foreman of the finishing room, advised employees to
sign it. Brown, in his own avords, "kindly urged it on." In one in-
stance Binschadler told Isaacs, an employee under him, that he would
probably be discharged if he did not sign, and said "that if the Union
wasn't going through, and if it didn't go through, and which it
wasn't, that they would look on that sheet, at all the names that
wasn't on it, and they would probably be discharged." In another
instance, Binschadler told J. S. Morris, another employee under him,
after advising him to sign, "just in case you ever ask for a raise or
anything, they will refer back to this paper to see whether you are
142 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the Union or against it." In view of Binschadler's admission that
he told employees that he would like to see them sign the petition, we
do not credit his denials of the above statements. On one occasion
Patterson, assistant foreman in the plant, advised an employee to
-sign the petition, saying "if the Union would come in there, we was
all going to be out of work." Patterson did not testify at the hearing,
and the statement attributed to him remained uncontradicted.
Early one evening, shortly before the night shift went on, Askew
called Lively from his office to explain the petition to a group of night-
shift employees of the core department. Lively, addressing these
employees in the presence of Brown, stated, in his own words, among
other things, that "as far as the paper was concerned, I did not know
about that or about the Union. But it meant this much : If we did
not-we had a lot of orders on file, that if we failed to fill the orders
.because of unrest we had around and did not get those orders, and
customers cancelled their orders, I did not see any other way for the
plant but to shut down . . ." At least one of his listeners under-
stood Lively to say that "if the Union went through we would be
all out of a job and said if the ones that signed it would still have
a job."
The circulation of the petition was completed by about September
27, 1937, after some 300 employees had signed it.
Meanwhile, Richardson had received reports that his name had
been reviled at union meetings by Kues. On October 29 Richardson
called the employees together in the face department and read to
them a speech which he had written out. He discussed the uncertain-
ties of the respondent's business, the increase in the respondent's pay
roll without a corresponding increase in production, and the losses
incurred. He then said, among other things, "This would be a com-
plete puzzle to me if it were not for the fact that I realize there are
elements which are disrupting the coordination and cooperation of
you men one with the other, which have been going on for several
months . . ." He referred to the "continuous program of public
speeches for several weeks in this town attacking my integrity, hon-
esty, fairness etc.," and asked the employees if they approved of that
kind of public speaking. He continued as follows :
... we have built you nice buildings to work in, have given you
nice machinery to work with, have given you conditions that are
so far head of a farmer that it is pitiful, and we are asking that
you stop and pause a minute and consider what it is all about
and help to get rid of this agitation and favoritism and one
bunch trying to influence another, all of which has added to the
expense and loss of the Company. I can assure you that if I try
to operate this plant next year, the hiring, firing and rating of
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 143
men is going to be on such a basis that the only favoritism shown
will be to men that show their ability and do the work in a man-
ner which is profitable to the company .. .
if you feel this company and the management is the type
that has been described to you by others, please say so, as we
much prefer to let nature take its course than to take a chance
with no profit to us other than keeping the Company going and
to employ men and what the pay roll means to the town and com-
munity. Boys, what are your sentiments?
Richardson explained the paragraph last quoted as follows "I meant
if I did not have the assurance of those men that they were going to
stand by and not pull a strike-that I had been told they had planned
to pull at one time, that I wasn't going out to take orders at that
market ... just to keep the plant running etc." There is no evidence
in the record that the Union contemplated a strike.
B. Conclusions with respect to in f er f erence, restraint, and coercion
From the foregoing facts, it is clear that the respondent expressed
hostility toward union organization in the plant and made every
^etfort to discourage its employees from becoming members of the
Union.
The record abundantly shows that the respondent, through its execu-
tive and supervisory employees, maintained surveillance of union
meetings. We cannot accept the explanations of Wysor, Richardson,
and DeCamp for their presence at the Hotel Pulaski on the evening of
the first union meeting. Richardson did not testify in detail regarding
his business at the hotel, and we do not believe that Wysor inadvert-
ently discovered that the meeting of the Union was taking place that
evening at the hotel. It is apparent from the testimony of Wysor,
Richardson, and DeCamp that the union meeting being conducted that
evening was uppermost in their minds at that time. In the fight of
their testimony, the presence of all three was more than a coincidence
and we are of the opinion that Richardson and Wysor, at least, visited
the hotel on the evening of September 10 to engage in surveillance of
the union meeting. Our conclusion is buttressed by the evidence of the
surveillance of later meetings of the Union by supervisory employees
and by at least one statement by a supervisory employee to his subordi-
nate indicating that the respondent was maintaining such surveillance.
Although there is no evidence that the respondent initiated the
anti-union petition which was circulated throughout the plant, it is
clear from the facts set forth above that the respondent encouraged and
assisted its circulation and the solicitation of signatures on it. As
proof of its neutrality, the respondent urges that following a con-
ference with Humphrey, Board investigator, which took place about
144 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
September 24, 1937, it posted notices in its plant on or about October
1, informing employees of their right to join a labor organization and
stating that the management would not permit interference with that
right. There is also evidence that instructions to the same effect were
issued orally to supervisory employees. However, by the time the
notice was posted and the instructions issued, circulation of the peti-
tion had been completed. While the solicitation of signatures, en-
couraged by supervisory employees, was going on, the respondent was
well aware that the petition was being circulated. It made no attempt,
however, to stop such circulation.
Finally, the speech of October 29 was patently an appeal to em-
ployees to help the respondent rid itself of the Union in order to
keep the plant running. The respondent contended in its brief in
support of its exceptions to the Intermediate Report that "'Richardson
did no more than defend himself before the same persons to whom
Kues' scurrilous statements had been made." It is clear, however, that
Richardson did much more than speak in defense of his character.
Unquestionably Richardson had the right and privilege of defending
his character if the Union had attacked it. However, in availing him-
self of the opportunity at the same time of making anti-union state-
ments in the guise of such defense, the respondent violated the Act.
We find that the respondent, through its executive and supervisory
employees, by expressing to its employees hostility toward union organ-
ization, by maintaining surveillance of union meetings, by encouraging
the solicitation of signatures upon the anti-union petition, and by the
speech of October 29, 1937, interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
C. The lay-offs and discharges
1. Background
The respondent contended in its brief filed February 18, 1938, as
follows :
The necessary background for the consideration of these indi-
vidual complaints must be the condition of business at respondent's
plant. The uncontradicted testimony is that respondent's business
is extremely sensitive to fluctuations in general business. It is
further uncontradicted that the current recession in general busi-
ness made itself felt by respondent in July, when the National
Furniture show resulted in a disappointingly small volume of
orders, much less than the previous year. This fact, in spite of a
large radio order from the General Electric Company, accepted in
an effort to fill the gap, resulted in a steady and progressive decline
in the business of the plant during the closing months of i he year
1937, with a subsequent decline in employment.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 145
Although the orders received by the respondent in July were "very
disappointing" Wysor testified that they amounted to "a very large
sum in total." For that reason, early in the fall of 1937 the
respondent increased its normal working force of about 300 by about
50, a normal increase for that time of the year. Moreover, because
of the large General Electric order, the respondent hired about 100
additional employees. Employment at the plant reached its peak of
449 during the pay-roll period ending September 3. Thereafter,
there was a steady progressive decline in employment through the
successive weeks of September, October, and November. Work on
the General Electric order ceased on or about October 16. By the
pay-roll period ending November 19, the number of the respondent's
employees had declined to 274. The discharges and lay-offs herein
.complained of took place between September 4 and November 6, 1937.
2. Lay-offs and discharges
Clair Delp. On Saturday, September 4, 1937, McNeely, foreman
•of the lumber yard, laid off two 2 employees in that department, Clair
Delp and Vergil Richardson.8
Delp was hired by the respondent in August 1936. About a
week before he was laid off, he signed an application card for mem-
^bership in the Union and solicited for members. When McNeely
laid him off on Saturday he told him to come back on Sunday to roll
sawdust. Delp told him he would, but the sawdust job was only for
a day, and Delp did not return on Sunday because lie "did not think
it was any use to come back when he told me he cut me off Saturday."
A few days after September 4, Delp met McNeely on the street and,
in the words of the former, said "How come you cut me off over
the Union?" McNeely "just laughed" and said "You had better let
that Union go. We are all making a living as it is." McNeely did
not deny having made this statement.
About 2 weeks after he was laid off, Delp went to the plant and
asked McNeely if he would take him back. McNeely "just laughed.
-He said he did not have nothing to do with it." About a month
thereafter, Delp again inquired about his job and McNeely said that
there was no work for him at that time. McNeely admitted that
2 McNeely's testimony is contradictory in this respect At one place he testified that he
laid off John Burton together with Delp and Richardson At another place lie testified that
Burton worked 60 hours during the week ending September 10 Thus if Buiton was laid
off on September 4, it was not for long
S Richardson is not named in the complaint and we make no finding of discrimination in
`his case Nevertheless, it is ielevant in connection with Delp's lay-off, to note briefly the
facts in the case of Richardson The latter was employed by the respondent for a period
of 4 years , having seniority over four other employees retained at the time of his lay-off,
and was admittedly a satisfactory employee, having acted as assistant foreman in the
lumber yard Ile was laid off the day after he solicited for members in the Union, being
among the first to be laid off . The respondent advances no satisfactory reason for select-
ing him foi lay-off.
146 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Delp cane back 2 weeks or a month after his lay-off inquiring about
work.
At the time Delp was laid off, 10 or 12 employees were employed
in the lumber yard. The respondent contends that selection for lay-
off in the plant is based on the comparative merits of employees, and
that seniority and family responsibilities are considered when two
employees are equal in ability. McNeely admitted that Delp was a
comparatively good worker but testified that the employees retained
were better in workmanship and dependability. With respect to
workmanship, however, no instances were cited to show that Delp
was inferior to the other employees. In fact, McNeely admitted
that he had had no trouble with Delp other than "his days out occa-
sionally." McNeely testified on direct examination that Delp was
not dependable because he would "lose a lot of Saturdays and Mon-
days," that he had on one or more occasions seen Delp on the street
intoxicated on Sunday and that on Monday Delp would send in word
that he was sick. On cross-examination, however, McNeely admitted
that Delp's intoxication on several occasions was not the cause of
his lay-off and, further, that he had admonished other employees for
being drunk.
McNeely further claimed that he laid off Delp for only a few
days, and that he told him he would call him and divide up the
work if the slackness lasted but that he did not do so since Delp
quit after his lay-off. McNeely testified that if Delp had not quit, "he
would have probably got as much or more work than these boys
were," referring to other employees retained after De]p's lay-off, four
of whom had less seniority than Delp.4
Delp did not deny being told that the lay-off would only last a few
days and admitted that on Tuesday of the week following September
4, he returned to the plant, turned in his raincoat and hat, and told
McNeely he was going to "get another job." McNeely testified that
Delp stated at the time that "he believed he would settle up and go
somewhere else, so he could get steady employment." Delp denied
that he quit, testifying that he turned in his raincoat and hat because
he had been laid off. Thereafter he twice applied for reinstatement.
Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that he did not quit
his employment. His conduct on Tuesday was only the normal
result of his lay-off on Saturday.
The respondent has advanced no satisfactory reason for the selec-
tion of Delp for lay-off prior to the lay-off of other employees with
less seniority. We are convinced from McNeely's testimony that
Delp was neither less capable nor less dependable than other em-
ployees. In the light of McNeely's statement to Delp after his lay-
4 Employment in the lumber yard was reduced after September 4, so that by November
13 no employees were employed there.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 147
off and the other considerations set forth above, the selection of Delp
as one of the first to be laid off finds explanation only in his activity
on behalf of the Union.
We find that the respondent, by laying off Clair Delp, discrimi
iiated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby dis-
couraging membership in the Union and interfering with the rights
of its employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
At the time of his lay-off, Delp was earning about $15 weekly.
About 3 months before the hearing, Delp was employed as a
laborer at the Appalachian Dam by the Appalachian Electric and
Power Company at the same weekly wage. It appears, however,.
that he has not obtained regular and substantially equivalent em-_
ployment. His work for that company consisted of "cut off right
of way," and his employment is apparently not regular. That it,
is not substantially equivalent is shown by the fact that the Appala-
chian Dam is approximately 10 miles from Pulaski. He desires to-
be reinstated to his former position. In the absence of strong evi-
dence to the contrary, his wish is entitled to great weight in deter-
mining whether lie has actually acquired substantially equivalent,
employment. We find that Clair Delp has not obtained regular and.
substantially equivalent employment.
Roy Stout. Stout was hired by the respondent in August 1934,,
and at the time of his discharge was employed as a stationary boiler-
fireman on the night shift. He signed an application card for mem-_
bership in the Union on September 4, 1937, and thereafter solicited
members. He also acted as warden at meetings of the Union and
he was present at the first two meetings of the Union in September._
In August 1937, while Stout was at work, Lively came into the
boiler room and talked about unions. According to Stout he
"started talking about the trouble they had in Logan County, West
Virginia, back several years ago, and made it appear it was an awful
bad thing for a laboring man to belong to an organization of any
kind." Lively did not deny this conversation. Thereafter, as already-
set forth above, Lively "explained" the anti-union petition to em-
ployees in the plant and attended meetings of the Union.
The respondent contends that Stout was discharged because he-
neglected his duties in order to solicit members for the Union during-
working hours, that he disregarded warnings to improve his conduct,__
and that his derelictions finally resulted in the failure of a boiler
which he attended to operate efficiently. It is not disputed that prior-
to the beginning of union organization in the plant, the respondent
had no trouble with Stout. In fact, according to General Manager-
Richardson, he was a "very satisfactory employee."
Stout was discharged on September 21, 1937, by DeCamp who ac-
costed him when he came in to work and told him he had received
148 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reports that Stout "had had a row" with the night watchman and
that he had been "running around through the plant, calling the
men yellow dogs." Stout denied calling employees "yellow dogs."
He told DeCamp, however, that he would not sign the "company's
yellow dog," referring to the petition. DeCamp then handed him
his check.
On the night before his discharge, Stout left his boiler and spent
some time in the core department soliciting employees during work-
ing hours. As a result of his absence, water came up into the pop
valve of the boiler, thus affecting the operation of a redrier. The
respondent maintains that Stout's neglect of duty during that night
precipitated his discharge.
Stout denied having received complaints about his work, and denied
having been warned by Lively about neglecting his duties and leav-
ing his boiler to talk to employees. The record discloses little cred-
ible evidence concerning Stout's alleged neglect of his duties prior
to the night before his discharge, and the alleged warnings in regard
thereto. The Trial Examiner, who had the opportunity to observe
both Stout and Lively, the respondent's chief witness in this respect,
when they, testified, found that Stout made a sincere and convincing
witness, "a statement which cannot be applied to said Lively." The
testimony of Haga, the night watchman, with respect to Stout's al-
.leged neglect of duty prior to the night before his discharge, is also
vague and not convincing. And DeCamp, who stated that lie had
received reports from Lively and Haga, regarding Stout's absences
from his post and his calling employees "yellow dogs" had himself
never taken the matter up with Stout.
Although the weight of credible evidence does not establish that
Stout had been warned previously, we are of the opinion that his
failure to heed such warnings, if made, would not, under the circum-
stances of this case, have justified his discharge even though he may
have occasionally left his boiler during working hours to solicit
members for the Union. His activity in this regard must be consid-
ered in the light of the anti-union activity of Cox and Askew. There
was no rule prohibiting solicitation in the plant before September 24.
It appears that prior to this date Cox and Askew were active in the
solicitation of employees throughout the plant during working hours
for signatures on the anti-union petition. Cox talked to 75 or 100 em-
ployees about the petition within a 3 to 4-day period. Although he
testified that his duties permitted him to circulate through the plant,
he admitted going into various departments solely for the purpose
of talking to employees about the petition. Askew likewise admitted
that he solicited employees "almost anywhere I see them," although
he testified that it did not interfere with his work. In view of the
considerable time he spent circulating the petition, we cannot believe
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 149
that his work did not suffer by reason of his activity . At least one
supervisory employee, Binschadler , also participated in anti-union
activity during working hours. Although the respondent knew that
the petition was being circulated by Askew and other employees it
does not appear that any of the employees were ever reprimanded
or told to discontinue their anti -union activity . In fact, Askew ad-
mitted he was never disciplined or warned about his circulation of
the petition . The conclusion is inescapable that the respondent dis-
charged Stout solely because of his Union sympathies . Its failure to
discipline anti-union employees in any manner for similar neglect of
duty is eloquent proof of its discrimination . Furthermore , the respond-
ent's contention that the boiler failure on the night of September 20
justified his discharge cannot be sustained . Surber , master mechanic
at the plant , admitted that other firemen had let water come up into
their pop valves. The evidence further shows that letting water into
the pop valve was not considered a serious enough offense to cause
the discharge of at least one other employee who had been guilty of
the same breach of duty some time before Stout's discharge.
In view of the above considerations , we do not think that Stout's
neglect of duty on the night before his discharge was the real reason
for such discharge .. We are - of the opinion .that Stout was discharged
because of his activity on behalf of the Union.
We .find that by discharging Roy Stout , the respondent discrim-
inated in regard to his hire and.tenure of employment , 'thereby dis-
couraging membership in the Union and interfering with the rights
of its employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. .
At the time of his discharge , Stout was earning $19 .60 weekly. On
October 25 , 1937 , he was employed by the Appalachian Electric and
Power Company as a laborer . His work for that company was not
similar to that which he did for the respondent . He was employed
at the time of the hearing , earning a weekly wage of $15. He de-
sires to be reinstated to his former position . We find that Roy
Stout has not obtained regular and substantially equivalent employ-
-ment. ,
Claude Brookman. Brookman was employed by the respondent in
August 1934, resigned his position in August 1936, and was reem-
ployed by the respondent late in August 1937. At the time of his
lay-off on October , 21, he ran a shaper machine in the machine room
on the night shift . He signed an application for membership in the
Union on September 10 and attended meetings. He became financial
secretary of the Union some time in October or November 1937.
Between September 10 and 15, Askew asked him to sign the anti-
union petition . Brookman refused. A. few days later, on Septem-
ber 17 , Howlett, foreman of the machine - room, ' asked him if he
h,,d signed the petition , "begged and pleaded" , with him to do so,
147841-39-vol 10-11
150 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and later the same day again asked him to sign and warned him not
to attend a meeting of the Union that evening. Brookman attended
the meeting.
Brookman was laid off on October 21, 1937, together with five
other employees, when the night shift in the machine room was dis-
continued because of lack of work. Brookman admittedly was an ex-
perienced and satisfactory employee. However, there is no evidence
in the record that Brookman was more competent or more satis-
factory than any employees in the machine room retained on the
day shift. Wendle and Fields, employees on the night shift with
Brookman were transferred back to the day shift from which they
had been taken when the night shift had been put on in August.
Wendle was an assistant foreman on the night shift and Fields had
greater seniority than Brookman.
Brookman testified that when he was reemployed in August 1937,
Howlett promised him that he -would be kept on when the night
shift would be laid off., Brookman admitted, however, that DeCainp
told him before he was reemployed that he would be among the
first to be laid off. - Howlett denied promising Brookman steady
employment..
Upon the basis of the record we do not find that the respondent
laid- off Claude Brookman because of his" membership in or his
activity on behalf of the Union.
Marvin Stuart, Roland Rupe; -John William Johnson, ",CoopeA
Johnson. The night shift in the core department was discontinued
on or about October 21. Pursuant to the order of DeCamp, Brown
made up a list of 11 employees to be laid off from that department at
that time, among them being the four named above, who were em-
ployed on the day shift. At the time of their lay-off these employees
had been employed by the respondent for periods ranging from 4
months to ^ 31/2 years and each was employed -on a ripsaw except
Cooper Johnson who operated a planer. None of them was particu-
larly active in the Union, although each had signed an application
card for membership before October 21, except Cooper Johnson who
signed shortly thereafter, and although each attended meetings of
the Union. Stuart solicited for members. Each was asked to 'sign
the anti-union petition by Cox or Askew and each refused, except
John William Johnson, who at first also refused but signed after his
foreman, Brown, advised him to do so.
Brown based his selections for lay-off on ability. Although Stuart
had never received any complaints about his work, and the work of
Rupe and Cooper Johnson was satisfactory, the employees on the
night shift who replaced each of those named and John William
Johnson were claimed by Brown to be either more efficient or more
experienced, and one was an assistant foreman. Brown's testimony
I)b:CISIONS AND ORDERS 151
regarding the superiority of those employees who replaced the four
in question was not controverted.
The record does not reveal whether other employees of the core
department laid off or retained at this time were or were not members
of the Union except Rufus Richardson, who replaced Stuart and who
was charged by John William Johnson with being "non-union"
because he heard him "talk agin the Union."
The Union contends that the respondent's claim that the lay-offs
in the core department were occasioned by business conditions should
not be credited because the respondent purchased cores shortly after
the start of union organization in the plant, although it had manu-
factured its own cores theretofore, and had the facilities for doing so.
There is uncontroverted evidence, however, that such purchases were
made because of a shortage.of air-dried lumber from which cores
were manufactured.
On the basis of the facts set forth above we do not find that the
respondent, by laying off Marvin Stuart, Roland Rupe, John William
Johnson, and Cooper Johnson, discriminated in regard to their hire
and tenure of employment to discourage membership in the Union.
Garnett Shinault. Shinault was hired by the respondent in October
1936, and at the time of his discharge was a sprayer in the novelty
finishing department. He signed an application card for membership
in the Union on September 13, 1937. On September 17, his foreman,
Binschadler, called hint into his office, asked him to sign the anti-
union petition, and threatened him with loss of his job if he did not
sign. Although Binschadler denied threatening Shinault with loss of
-his job he admitted telling him he would like to see him sign the
petition. In the light of this admission we do not credit his denial.
That night Shinault attended the meeting of the Union at Morris'
yard, and the following morning Binschadler told him that he had
been informed that he had attended the meeting.
- Shinault reported the conduct of Binschadler to the Board investi-
gator on September 24. On the same day Binschadler asked J. S.
Morris, a fellow employee of Shinault, if he had told "that Labor
Board man that I said I was going to fire you if you did not sign that
paper?" Morris answered in the negative. Binschadler then said
"I believe it was that damn Garnet Schinault. He is a dirty liar."
Binschadler did not deny having made this statement.
Shinault was discharged on October 22, 1937, together with Thomas,
a fellow employee working on the sprayer adjacent to his. The
respondent claims that Shinault was discharged because he was caught
scuffling during working hours, and that previous to this occasion he
was guilty of carelessness in work, playing, and smoking during work-
ing hours. Regarding the events surrounding his discharge, Shinault
claims .that he and Thomas were sitting around and joking while
152 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
waiting for the air pressure to be turned on. The record does not
reveal whether Thomas was or was not a member of the Union.
There is no credible evidence of any serious misconduct on Shinault's
part prior to the event leading to his discharge. On the other hand,
the weight of the evidence establishes that the air was not off in the
finishing department on the main line when the incident took place,
that Shinault and Thomas were squirting spray at one another, and
scuffling, that they had paint on their clothes, and that there was paint
on the floor and walls. Moreover, there was a company rule against
"horse-play" on the job.
Although there is considerable doubt whether Shinault's misconduct
was the real reason for his discharge in view of the antiunion conduct
of Binschadler toward Shinault as set forth above, the evidence does
not warrant a finding of -discrimination in his case. Accordingly, we
do not find that the respondent, by discharging Garnett Shinault, dis-
criminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment to dis-
courage membership in the Union.
L. H. Morris. Morris has been continuously employed in the
respondent's shipping department since July 1933, except for a few
occasional lay-offs due to. slack business and one lay-off of several
weeks due to illness. At the time union organization began at the
plant, he was No. 1 reserve man in the shipping department, engaged in
the work of, counting and packing veneers; fellow employee Cregger
was his helper.
Morris was instrumental in starting to organize the respondent's
employees and was subsequently elected president of the Union. As
already indicated, he was called in by Richardson shortly after Septem-
ber 1 when, in the presence of DeCamp, Richardson expressed his
disapproval of union organization at the plant. Morris attended the
first meeting of the Union on September 10 and the second meeting
was held at his home on September 17.
On September 17 Morris was transferred from the shipping depart-
ment to the lumber yard. The transfer did not entail any reduction in
pay. Thereafter, following a conference between tiVysor, Richardson,
and Humphrey, Board investigator, Morris was transferred back into
the shipping department, to the stockroom section, to work as helper
to Aaron Richardson, an employee in that department who is a brother
of the general manager.
As a result of his transfer to the lumber yard and retransfer to
the stockroom, Morris was demoted from No. 1 reserve man in the
shipping department to No., 2 reserve man in that department.
Cregger became No. 1 reserve man. On November 6 Morris was laid
off, together with Cregger, Turpin, and Killen, three other employees
in the shipping department, in connection with the general lay-off at
the plant. Since November 6, Morris has had 11/2 days' work at the
DECISIONS AND, ORDERS 153
respondent's plant ; Cregger received very little work in December
and 40 hours' work in January. Neither Morris-nor Cregger was
working at the time of the hearing. The respondent claims that al-
though Morris is still on its pay roll and will be called back when
work in the shipping department increases, Cregger is entitled to
priority in employment. It therefore appears that the charge of dis-
crimination against Morris centers in his transfer from the shipping
department to the lumber yard. The respondent contends that Mor-
ris was transferred because he made mistakes in counting veneers in
the shipping department. Morris denied that he made any mistakes
in counting and testified that he had always counted every face veneer.
He further testified that he had never been reprimanded and that his
work was satisfactory.
- In June 1937 and thereafter, General Manager Richardson received
complaints, both written and verbal, from customers concerning dis-
crepancies between orders and shipments. Richardson testified that
a few days after June 2, the date of the first complaint, as he was
walking through the shipping room he asked Morris if he was "count-
ing these faces." Morris responded that he was. The respondent in-
troduced evidence to show that thereafter Richardson received re-
ports from his brother, Aaron Richardson, who was under instruc-
tions to make a check count, that Morris,was not counting; that Aaron
Richardson noticed Morris making errors and spoke to him on several
occasions about the latter's mistakes, and that Morris became angry ;
that in one instance Aaron Richardson observed Morris making a
large error by his failure to make the count; and that Cregger also
noticed during-the summer of 1937 that Morris was not checking the
preliminary count of the face veneers that came from the face
department.
Harkrader, his foreman, testified that prior to the summer of 1937,
he had had no trouble with Morris about counting the faces, because
he then did much of the counting himself or was near at hand when
Morris counted; that in the summer and early fall of 1937, he was as-
signed to additional duties that required him frequently to leave the
place where Morris was working; that much more of the counting
was then assigned to Morris, after which General Manager Richard-
son told him that he was receiving complaints* from customers of mis-
counts of veneer faces; that Cregger did not do much of the count-
ing; and that he, Harkrader, received instructions from Richard-
son to require the men making the count to initial the. packing
memorandum.
Although Richardson testified that he ordered the packing memo-
randum to be initialled for the purpose of fixing responsibility for
the miscounting, there is no evidence that he, himself, traced the mis-
takes to Morris through the initialling process. He claimed to have
154 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
found Morris responsible from ' the reports of his brother , Aaron.
When General Manager Richardson was asked on cross-examination
how he traced the errors to Morris , he answered : "By getting them
up and questioning them and the other men admitted that Morris
wasn't counting." We are not convinced that the mistakes were defi-
nitely traced to Morris . It is significant that among the employees
whom General Manager Richardson questioned Cregger and Hark-
rader were themselves engaged in some of the counting and could
have been equally open to charges of inefficiency.
However , although Morris may have made mistakes, an analysis of
the record does not support the' contention that he was transferred for
that reason. There is no evidence that Richardson , DeCamp, or
Harkrader ever complained to Morris about such mistakes before his
transfer . DeCamp investigated the complaints which Richardson re-
ported to him, but admitted that he never admonished Morris for
making those mistakes because as a rule he always entrusted the con-
duct of the department to the foreman . DeCamp, however , did not
remember advising Harkrader , Morris' immediate superior, about
Morris' mistakes. Indeed, although Harkrader testified that he was
told by Richardson that complaints had been made by customers,
Harkrader did not claim to have informed Morris of such com-
plaints. Furthermore , it is significant that at the time of his trans-
fer Morris was not told that he was being transferred because he made
mistakes in counting . In fact, when the transfer occurred Harkrader
told him that he did not know the reason for it, that "there were lots
going on in there that he did not know anything about. " Harkrader
did not deny having made this statement . Finally, it is significant
that the transfer did not take place until the middle of September
when union organization among the respondent 's employees under
Morris' leadership was well under way, although Aaron Richardson
claimed he noticed Morris' errors as early as July. Under the cir-
cumstances , we believe , that Morris was transferred because of his
activity in behalf of the Union.
We find that the respondent , by demoting L. H. Morris from No.
1 reserve man in the shipping department to No. 2 reserve man in
that department , discriminated against him in regard to the terms
and conditions of his employment in order to discourage membership
in the Union . By virtue of such discrimination , Cregger has re-
ceived preference in employment since the lay-off of November 6,
1937, and the respondent has thus discriminated against Morris in
regard to the hire and tenure of his employment.
At the time of his lay-off Morris earned between $14 and $18 per
week. He has not been employed since then except for a day and
a half at the respondent 's plant. He has earned about $3.70. He
desires to be reinstated to his former position . We find that Morris
has not obtained regular and substantially equivalent employment.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 155
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent described in Section I above,-have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. We shall order the respondent to cease and
desist from such interference, restraint, and coercion.
' We have also found that the respondent has discriminated in re-
gard to the hire and tenure or terms and conditions of employment
of Clair Delp, Roy Stout, and L. H. Morris. We shall, therefore, af-
firmatively require the respondent to offer immediate reinstatement to
each of said employees to his former or a substantially equivalent
position. The respondent shall offer L. H. Morris immediate rein-
statement to his position as No. 1 reserve man in the shipping de-
partment. We shall also order the respondent to make each of said
employees whole for any loss of pay each has suffered by reason of
his lay-off, discharge, or demotion by payment to each of them of
a sum equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as
wages from the date of his lay-off, discharge or demotion, to the
(late of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 6 during said
period. Since the Trial Examiner did not find that the respondent
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Clair
Delp, the latter is not entitled to back pay from the date of the
Intermediate Report to the date of this Decision.6
VI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
At a meeting between Richardson, Wysor, and Humphrey, Board
investigator, held' on or about November 16, 1937, Humphrey pro-
posed that the respondent and the Union agree to determine whether
the Union represented a majority of the respondent's employees,
either by a check of membership cards against the respondent's pay
roll, or by the holding of a consent election. Wysor told Humphrey
5 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment else«here . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Lumber and Sawmill Torlers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L R B. 440.
6 Matter of E R HaffelJinger Company, Inc and United Wall Paper Crafts of North
America, Local No. 6, 1 N. L R B 760, 767.
156 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he and Richardson could not agree to either procedure. On or
about November 18, Kues called Richardson and asked him if either
one of Humphrey's proposals was acceptable. Richardson stated
that Wysor had "given Mr. Humphreys the answer on 'that, or some-
thing similar." -
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the respondent.
VII. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening' and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
VIII. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT'
In its petition the Union claims that the appropriate bargaining
unit consists of "all employees paid on an hourly or piecework basis
in the production and maintenance departments, exclusive of super-
visory and clerical forces." At the hearing Kues enlarged on this
claim to include all employees in the respondent's plant exclusive of
supervisory, clerical, and office employees. No objection was made
by the respondent at the hearing regarding the appropriateness of
this unit. All the respondent's employees except supervisory and
clerical employees are eligible for membership in the Union. We see
no reason for deviating from the Union's desires in regard to the
bargaining unit.
We find that all the respondent's employees, excluding clerical,
office, and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to the
respondent's employees the full benefit of their right to self-organiza-
tion and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Ix. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Union filed its petition on November 19, 1937. The Union,
claims that on or before that date, approximately 193 of the respond--
ent's employees had signed application cards for membership in the
Union. The cards, however, were not introduced in evidence at the
hearing. We find, therefore, that the question concerning representa-
tion which has arisen can best be resolved by an election by secret
ballot.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 157
As the petition requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives was filed over a year ago, we shall provide that those
persons employed by the respondent in the appropriate unit during
the pay-roll period next preceding the date of the issuance of this
Decision and Direction of Election, and those ordered reinstated by
this Decision, shall be eligible to vote, excluding those who have
since quit or been discharged for cause.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire
record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local
Union #1862, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure or terms
and conditions of employment of Clair Delp, Roy Stout, and L. H.
Morris, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
5. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure or the terms and conditions of employment of Garnett Shin-
ault, Marvin Stuart, Cooper Johnson, John William Johnson, Claude
Brookman, and Roland Rupe, within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the Act.
6. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Pulaski Veneer Corporation, Pulaski,
Virginia, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
7. All the respondent's employees, exclusive of clerical, office, and
supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
158 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pulaski Veneer Corporation , and its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall : "
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From discouraging membership in United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America , Local Union #1862 , or any other
labor organization , by laying off, discharging , demoting, refusing to
reinstate , or otherwise discriminating against , its employees in regard
to hire or tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employ-
ment ;
(b) From in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization,
to form, join , or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Clair Delp, Roy Stout , and L . H. Morris, immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges ;
(b) Make whole Clair Delp, Roy Stout , and L . H. Morris for any
loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent 's discrimina-
tion in regard to the terms and conditions or hire and tenure of their
employment by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to
that which each would normally have earned as wages from the date of
his lay-off , discharge or demotion , to the date of such offer of rein-
statement , less his net earnings during said period; provided that, in
the case of Clair Delp, back pay shall not run from April 21, 1938, the
date of the service of the Intermediate Report, to the date of this
Decision ;
(c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant and maintain such notices for a period of thirty ( 30) consecutive
days from the date of such posting , stating that the respondent will
cease and desist in the manner aforesaid;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region ( Baltimore,
Maryland ) in writing within ten ( 10) days from the data of this
Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint , in so far as it alleges that
the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Marvin Stuart, John William Johnson, Cooper John-
son, Roland Rupe, Claude Brookman , and Garnett Shinault, within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act , be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 159
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449 , and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Pulaski Veneer Corporation , an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted within fifteen (15 ) days from the date of this Direction,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent of the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules
and Regulations , among all the employees of Pulaski Veneer Corpora-
tion who were employed during the pay-roll period next preceding
the date of the issuance of this Direction of Election , excluding super-
visory, clerical , and office employees and those who quit or were dis-
charged for cause between such date and the date of election, but
including those employees whose reinstatements are ordered above, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America , Local Union # 1862,
for the purpose of collective bargaining.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision , Order and Direction of Election.
[SAME TITLE
AMENDMENT TO DIRECTION OF ELECTION
December 10, 1938
On December 3, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in
the above -entitled proceeding , the election to be held within fifteen
(15) days from the date of Direction , under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region ( Baltimore,
Maryland).
The Board , having been advised by the Regional Director for
the Fifth Region that a longer period within which to hold the
election is desirable , hereby amends its Direction of Election by
extending the period within which the election shall be conducted
to such time as the Board may in the future direct.
MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration
of the above Amendment to Direction of Election.
10 N. L. R. B., No. lia.