Ref-Chem Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 25, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 488 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Seivice 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, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone No. 529-2411, Extension 6396, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Ref-Chem Company and General Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers , Local 583, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Case No. 16-CA-2070. June 25, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On February S, 1965, Trial Examiner W. Edwin Youngblood issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations 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 and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, con- clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent Ref-Chem Company, Odessa, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.' TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed June 17, 1964,1 by General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers, Local 583, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union or the Charging Party, a complaint was issued against the Respondent on 'The telephone number for Region 16, appearing at the bottom of the Appendix at- tached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, is amended to read: Telephone No. 335-2145. 1 Unless otherwise indicated , all dates herein are in 1964. 153 NLRB No. 51. REF-CHEM COMPANY 489 June 30. The complaint, in substance, alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by creating the impres- sion of surveillance of its employees' union activities by orally warning them that the Respondent knew who was soliciting union cards, and by orally warning and threatening its employees with loss of employment if they did not refrain from union activities. The complaint further alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging J. W. Love, Charles Ray Love, and Rex G. Maxwell. The Respondent's answer to the complaint admits certain allegations such as the allegation that John Cowan, its manager, and Bill Brown, Charlie Tucker, and Glydon Austin, leadmen, are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. The General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent were represented at the hearing which Trial Examiner W. Edwin Youngblood conducted on August 26 and 27, at Odessa, Texas. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent, and have been duly considered. Upon the entire record,2 including my evaluation of the witnesses based upon the evidence and my observation of their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a Texas corporation engaged in the maintenance of industrial equipment, having its principal office and place of business at El Paso, Texas, and various other places of business including its office and warehouse located at Odessa, Texas. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint, a representa- tive period, the Respondent performed services valued in excess of $100,000, of which services valued in excess of $50,000 were furnished to, among others, Rexall Chemi- cal Company, a division of Rexall Drug and Chemical Company, and El Paso Natural Gas Company, each of which enterprises annually produces and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly out of the State of Texas and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000, directly from points outside the State of Texas. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 583, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES As stated above, the Respondent performs maintenance services for Rexall Chemi- cal Company, a division of Rexall Drug and Chemical Company, herein called Rexall, at Rexall's Odessa, Texas, plant .3 On February 18, G. R. Suttle, a general ' Some of the more obvious errors in the transcript ai e corrected as follows page 170, lines 14, 17, 21, 23, and 24, "Bruce Hart" should be "Broussard". The same correction is made at page 171, lines 19, 24, and 25, and at page 183, line 5 Page 222, lines 9, 11, and 13 "Bruessard" should be "Broussard" The same correction is made at page 225, line 5 Page 249. lines 13, and 21, "acquisitions" should be "accusations". Page 274, line 24, "Brussard" should be "Broussard". The same coi rection is made at page 289, line 19, and page 297, line 2. Page 300, line 7, "intended" should be "attended' 3A charge was filed on May 8 in Case No 1G-CA-2035 against Rexall and Ref-Chem Company alleging the discriminatory discharges of the two Loves and Maxwell (Re- spondent's Exhibit No. 1 ) This charge was amended on June 17 deleting Ref-Cheni's name as a charged party thus leaving only Rexall as a charged party and alleging sub- stantially that Rexall interrogated its employees about their union activities and main- tained a company rule prohibiting employees from engaging in union activity on com- pany property during nonworking time and in nonworking areas. (Respondent's Exhibit No 2 ) An "informal" settlement agreement between Rexall and the Charging Party in this case was approved by the Regional Director on June 30 in settlement of the amended charge in Case No. 16-CA-2035. The settlement agreement contained the usual "no admis- sion" clause providing that Rexall did not admit the commission of any unfair labor practices. The notice attached to the settlement agreement provided substantially that Rexall would not maintain any rule prohibiting solicitation of union membership on com- pany property during nonworking time. 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD organizer for the Southern Conference of Teamsters, arrived in Odessa to direct organizational efforts among the employees of the Respondent and Rexall. The first union meeting of employees of the Respondent was held the same day. Maxwell received about 20 to 25 union authorization cards at this meeting. Maxwell passed out a number of these cards to employees, some seven or eight of which were returned to him personally. J. W. Love also attended the meeting of February 18, received union cards which he distributed, of which about 20 were signed by employees and returned to him. Charles Love attended the February 18 meeting , received about 30 union cards which he distributed, of which about 15 to 20 were signed and returned to him. On March 24, Charles Love, J. W. Love, and Maxwell were elected to a union organizing committee for employees of the Respondent. It is clear that the Loves and Maxwell distributed union cards on the Respondent's premises both during worktime and during breaktime. No effort was made to keep union activities secret, in fact, as Cowan testified, the union activities of employees were widely known. A majority of the union cards signed were obtained by the Love boys, Maxwell, and employee Glyndon Austin. Austin later became a leadman for the Respondent. Separate petitions for Board elections were filed for Rexall employees and the Respondent's employees by the Charging Party. An election was conducted at Rexall which the Union lost. The petition for an election at the Respondent was withdrawn.4 J. W. Love attended a party of employees of the Respondent and Rexall at Lead- man Bill Brown's house on February 27. Brown was his supervisor. J. W. Love brought up the subject of the Union. He testified that he was trying to find out what he could about it. Brown informed J. W. Love that he was against the Union, and said that "if the Ref-Chem people went union that Rexall would most likely terminate their contract ." Brown on an occasion in the plant after the party pulled his billfold out of his pocket, showed J. W. Love his Boilermaker card and said that he "had been in the Union for years, but if Ref-Chem got unionized out there, chances were that Rexall would run them off." On March 1, J. W. Love had a conversation with Leadman Austin. Love testified that he was trying to give another employee a union card during shift change and Austin saw him and told him to be careful about "exposing" himself and the cards because "they" were trying to find out who was "pushing" the union cards. J. W. Love understood Austin to be referring to the Rexall Company. Austin testified that he meant Rexall when he used the word "they." 6 About 2 or 3 weeks prior to his discharge Charles Love had a conversation with Leadman Austin in a barbershop. Austin worked as a part-time barber and was engaged in cutting Charles Love's hair. Austin told Charles Love that he "had better watch [his] step out there pushing union cards" adding that Mr. Broussard s had called him into his office and "wanted to know if he had anybody on his crew- or knew of anybody-that was pushing union cards." Austin added that he told Broussard that he did not know of anyone.8 On the morning of April 27, Maxwell had a conversation with his leadman, Charles Tucker. Tucker told Maxwell that Red Mitchell 0 had been out and told him that morning "to watch his hands in the shop. Some of them were passing out union cards." Maxwell told Tucker that there was no use looking any further because he was one of those who was passing the cards out.10 4 The foregoing is based on the credited and undisputed testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel and the Respondent. 5 The foregoing is based on the credited testimony of J. W Love. Brown generally denied telling any employee if he did not quit being a member of the Union he would lose his job However, Brown specifically admitted telling J. W Love that in his opinion Respondent's employees would be fools to vote for the Union because they would all be out of a job because Rexall could cancel Respondent 's contract. O The foregoing is based on the credited testimony of J. W. Love and Austin. To the extent that Austin's testimony constitutes a denial of the foregoing it is not credited. 7 L C Broussard , Rexall's production superintendent. 8 Based on the credited testimony of Charles Love. To the extent that Austin's testi- mony might be construed as a denial of Charles Love's testimony, it is rejected. I note also that Austin admitted in his testimony that Broussard had asked him if anyone on his shift was "pushing cards." 8 Maintenance supervisor for Rexall. to Based on the credited testimony of Maxwell. To the extent that Tucker's testimony constitutes a denial of this testimony it is not credited. REF-CHEM COMPANY 491 The maintenance services which the Respondent performs for Rexall are performed pursuant to a contract which provides inter aha that the Respondent shall remove from its employ, if requested by Rexall, any employee who in Rexall's opinion is incompetent, careless, unqualified, or who has engaged in improper conduct. On April 27 the Respondent's maintenance manager, John Cowan, received a letter 11 from Rexall's plant manager, E. E. Ludwig, reading as follows: It has come to my attention that certain of your employees on contract in our plant appear to be continually leaving their work areas for the purpose of solicitation. We have a standing company policy that there will be no solicitation within the plant during work time and it is, therefore, important that this rule be rein- forced among your employees as it is enforced among ours. We expect your people to handle themselves in a manner similar to what we expect of our employees. Will you please take steps to stop this activity immediately. Following receipt of this letter, Cowan talked with L. E. Broussard. Cowan asked which of his employees were involved, and Broussard named the two Love boys, Maxwell, and Vernon Seals. Either at that time or later that day Broussard informed Cowan of the "accusations" in detail that he made against these employees. At Cowan's request, these accusations were reduced to writing on four sheets of paper each headed by the name of one of the four employees involved and were handed to Cowan by Broussard later that day.12 The paper dealing with Seals referred to "heated arguments" in the plant and to his "pressuring" the Respondent's employees. The paper dealing with Maxwell referred to some of his work not "standing up." The paper dealing with Charles Love referred to his failure to wear safety glasses, refusing to work overtime in emergency, leaving early without permission, and taking up "valuable" time of employees who should be working. The paper dealing with J. W. Love referred to his failure to keep up with the work. Cowan admitted that each paper contained some reference to union solicitation. The employees were called into Cowan's office on the afternoon of April 27 and informed of their discharge. Cowan testified that he discharged these employees because Rexall requested it and he felt he was obligated to do so by the contract. Cowan further testified that he accepted at "face value" Ludwig's statement of the no-solicitation rule set forth in the letter of April 27, and although he did not make a "detailed" investigation of the accusations he found the accusation regarding the no-solicitation rule "fairly accurate." Cowan also testified that even if the allegations were not based on fact he would still have discharged these employees because of his obligation under the contract 13 Cowan offered Maxwell a job after his discharge working for the Respondent in Carlsbad, New Mexico, at $3.90 an hour which, of course, was more than the $3.31 an hour that Maxwell was making when he was discharged. Maxwell turned this job down because he owned his own home in Odessa, did not want to move his home, and did not want the expense of maintaining two homes.'4 It is clear from the record that the Respondent's employees were solicited during working time by supervisory and rank-and-file employees of the Respondent as well as supervisors of Rexall for money to pay for such things as dinners for departing employees, flowers for funerals of employees' relatives, and football pools 15 Analysis and Concluding Findings A. Interference , restraint, and coercion I find the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by: 1. Brown's statement to J. W. Love that if the Ref-Chem employees went union Rexall would terminate the contract. This statement constituted a threat that employ- ees would lose their jobs if they voted for the Union. Accordingly, I must reject the Respondent's contention in its brief that Brown's statements are not violative because they were merely given as his personal opinion. Cf. Wilder Finishing Co., Division of Jervis Corporation, 138 NLRB 1017, 1018. "This letter, which was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No 7, was not offered to prove the truth of the contents of the letter nor was it received for that pur- pose but only to establish that the Respondent received such a letter. '-'These papers were later returned to Rexall pursuant to its request. 13 Based on the credited testimony of Cowan. 14 Based on the credited testimony of Maxwell. 1s Based on the credited and undenied testimony of J. W. Love, Maxwell , and Austin. 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Austin's warning to J. W. Love to be careful about "exposing-" himself in pass- ing out union cards because Rexall was trying to find out who wash pushing union cards. Also Austin's warning to Charles Love that he "had better watch [his] step out there pushing union cards" coupled with his statement that Broussard (Rexall's production superintendent) wanted to know if anybody in Austin's crew was "push- ing" union cards. These warnings under the circumstances of this case particularly in context with the threats of supervisors that Rexall might terminate its contract with the Respondent if the Union won were reasonably calculated to constitute thinly veiled threats to the job tenure of these employees and as such coerced them in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. 3. Tucker's statement to Maxwell regarding Mitchell's instruction to him clearly was reasonably calculated to convey to Maxwell the impression that Tucker would be keeping his union activities under observation whether during worktime or break- time. The Respondent thereby created the impression of surveillance of its employ- ees' union activities by Tucker's oral warning that he had instructions to watch for union activities of his employees.16 The coercive effect of the unlawful warnings and threats found above to have been uttered by the Respondent's supervisors and the Respondent's supervisors were friendly to the employees involved or to the Union. Cf. Star Cooler Corporation, 129 NLRB 1075, 1076. B. The discriminatory discharges It is clear from the foregoing facts that these employees were discharged at Rexall's request which was predicated at least in part on their union activities; i e., solicitation during working hours of other employees to join and support the Union. It is equally clear that the Respondent knew the reason for Rexall's request. Since both the Respondent and Rexall permitted solicitation of employees during working hours for other purposes, i.e., flower funds, dinners, and football pools, it seems clear that these employees were discriminatorily discharged. In its brief, however, the Respondent argues that its motive in making these discharges was not to discourage union activity but solely to comply with the request from Rexall. The Respondent contends, there- fore, that it cannot be held to have acted illegally in discharging these employees. As the Respondent puts it in its brief "the true reason governing the discharges [was] the fact that Rexall compelled and demanded of Ref-Chem the termination of the employment of the four employees and gave as their reasons therefore, violations of a Rexall rule and policy prohibiting solicitation within the plant during working time." The Respondent does not urge in its brief that Rexall had a valid no-solicitation rule, nor does the record establish that Rexall had such a rule. Moreover, even if one existed it is clear from the record that it was unfairly applied since other solicita- tions during working hours were freely permitted.17 In fact, instead of arguing the validity of the rule, the Respondent argues in its brief that it had "no alternative but to accept and did accept at face value Rexall's statement of the rule with regard to the violations and the violators." The Respondent argues therefore that the reason for Rexall's request is not at issue but only the reason for its action. The Respondent contends that the discharges cannot be held to have been discriminatory in the absence of evidence that it exhibited an antiunion bias. In that regard, Respondent points to its offer of a higher paying job to Maxwell after his discharge, and to its promotion of Austin after he became an active union adherent. Assuming, arguendo, the correctness of this contention, the Supreme Court has held that the defeat of employee rights by employer action does not necessarily depend on the existence of an antiunion bias.18 As the Board stated in Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Nassau and Suffolk Contractors' Association, Inc., and its members), 123 NLRB 1393, 1404, "the employer is guilty of a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) even though it had no antiunion motivation and acted only to protect its economic interests." Further, the Supreme Court has held that "specific evidence of subjective intent is not an indispensible element of proof of violation." 19 The Supreme Court has also held that some conduct may by its very nature contain the implications of the required intent-the natural, foreseeable consequences of certain action may warrant 16 Although the complaint does not specifically allege this conduct as violative of the Act, it clearly is in accord with the substance of the complaint and was fully litigated. Cf Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company, Inc, 140 NLRB 1191, 1192, enfd as modified 326 F. 2d 949 (C.A. 10). 17 Cf Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697. 18 N.L R B v. Burnup and Sims, Inc., 379 U S. 21. 19 The Radio Officers' Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union, AFL (A. H. Bull Steamship Company) v. N L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 44. REF-CHEM COMPANY 493 the inference.20 It is clear that the natural, foreseeable consequences of the dis- charges in this case would be to discourage the union activities of employees. Under the circumstances, I must reject this contention, and I find that the Respondent did act illegally in discharging these employees. The Respondent urges however that it cannot be held responsible for these dis- charges because if it had not complied with Rexall's request, Rexall might have canceled the contract "thereby throwing 78 employees out of work plus disrupting financially" its operations. I am constrained to reject this defense. As the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated in a similar situation in N.L.R.B. v. Goodyear Tile & Rubber Company, 129 F. 2d 661, "difficult as an employer's position may be under such circumstances, its duty is plain. The statute prohibits discrimination against persons on account of their membership or activities on behalf of unions. It specifically prohibits the discharge of employees for the purpose and with the effect of discouraging membership in a union...." The court further states that it was the Respondent's duty to resist pressure to discharge its employees and that the Respondent "cannot escape responsibility or the conse- quences of its failure to discharge that duty." Accordingly, I find from the entire record that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged J. W. Love, Charles Ray Love, and Rex G. Maxwell in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.21 The Respondent contends that Maxwell's refusal of its offer of a higher paying job in Carlsbad makes a reinstatement and backpay order as to him unnecessary. Max- well refused this job because he owned a home in Odessa, did not want the expense of maintaining two homes, and did not want to leave Odessa. I note that Carlsbad is 139 miles from Odessa.22 I find and conclude that the rejection of this offer does not bar Maxwell from the usual order with respect to backpay and reinstatement. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondent, described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged J. W. Love, Charles Ray Love, and Rex G. Maxwell, I recommend that they be offered reinstatement and made whole for any loss of pay resulting from their discharges to the date on which they are offered reinstatement, less their net earnings during that period. Such back- pay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and shall include interest at 6 percent as provided by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commission of similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticipated. I shall, therefore, recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 583, affili- ated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 20Local 357 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America ( Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express ) v. N.L R.B, 365 U S. 667, 675 ° In view of this finding, I consider it unnecessary to reach the question of the other reasons given the Respondent by Rexall for requesting these discharges. 21 Standard Highway Mileage Guide, Rand McNally & Company, page 66 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. By discouraging membership in a labor organization through discrimination in employment, and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging 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. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur- suant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relation Act, as amended, it is hereby ordered that the Respondent, Ref-Chem Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening their employees with termination of their contract with Rexall, thereby threatening them with loss of their jobs if they vote for the Union, warning their employees to refrain from engaging in union activities, or creating the impres- sion of surveillance of the union activities of their employees by warning them that their supervisors have instructions to keep the employees' union activities under observation. (b) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 583, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization of their employees, by discharging any employee or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to J. W. Love, Charles Ray Love, and Rex G. Maxwell immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without preju- dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify J. W. Love, Charles Ray Love, and Rex G. Maxwell if any of them are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their rights to full reinstate- ment 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 examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to ascertain any backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post in the Rexall Chemical Company plant at Odessa, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 23 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 16, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, iii con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith 24 23 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" 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" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order". 24 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." CERTAIN-TEED PRODUCTS CORPORATION 495 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with termination of our contract with Rexall Chemical Company thereby threatening them with loss of their jobs if they vote for the union; warn them to refrain from engaging in union activities; or create the impression of surveillance of the union activities of our employees by warning them that our supervisors have instructions to keep their union activ- ities under observation. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 583, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, or any other labor organization, by discharging any of our employees or in any other manner discriminating against our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer to J. W. Love, Charles Ray Love, and Rex G. Maxwell immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. All our employees are free to become and remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the above-named Union or any other union. REF-CHEM COMPANY, 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 rights to full reinstatement upon appli- cation in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train- ing 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, Sixth Floor, Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth, Texas, Telephone No. Edison 5-4211, Extension 2131, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Certain-Teed Products Corporation and United Stone and Allied Products Workers of America , AFL-CIO, CLC. Cases Nos. 16- CA-2059 and 16-CA-2153. Jwne 25,1965 DECISION AND ORDER On March 25, 1965, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in his attached Decision. The Trial Examiner further 153 NLRB No. 44.