Royal School Laboratories, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 818 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

.818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By discriminating against employees Brown, Ciochan, Wesolowski, and Gerlach
to discourage membership in the above-named labor organization, the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Royal School Laboratories, Inc. and United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case No.
5-CA-2082. September 24, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 9, 1962, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent has engaged in and is 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 Intermedi-
ate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner as modified herein.
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner with the following modifications 2
1 No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner 's finding that Foreman Underwood's
interrogation of employee Peak was not violative of the Act. We adopt that finding
pro forma.
s The backpay obligations of the Respondent with respect to the discriminatees shall
include the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent to be computed in the manner set
torth in laic Plumbuuf Co., Inc., 138 NLRB 716 Member Leedom, however, for reasons
stated in the dissent of the aforementioned case would not grant such interest.
138 NLRB No. 101.
ROYAL SCHOOL LABORATORIES, INC. 819
In the notice called "Appendix ," immediately below the signature,
insert the following sentence "We will notify any of the employees
referred to above who are presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the
Armed Forces." Also delete the words "days from the date hereof,"
and substitute therefor the words "consecutive days from the date of
posting."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed January 19 and February 28, 1962, by United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the
Fifth Region ( Baltimore , Maryland ), issued his complaint , dated March 7, 1962,
against Royal School Laboratories , Inc., herein called Respondent . With respect to
the unfair labor practices , the complaint as amended at the hearing alleges , in sub-
stance that ( 1) the Respondent terminated the employment of 21 -named employees
because of their union or concerted activities ; ( 2) Respondent 's officers and agents
engaged in specified acts of interference , restraint , and coercion , and (3) by the
foregoing conduct Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer,
Respondent admits the facts with respect to its business operations and that the
Union is a labor organization, but denies all unfair labor practice allegations.
Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Louis Libbin
at Richmond , Virginia, on May 1 and 2 , 1962. All parties were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses , to introduce relevant
evidence . to argue orally , and to file briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case 1 and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Royal School Laboratories, Inc., a Virginia corporation, has its
principal office and plant in Richmond, Virginia, where it is engaged in the business
of manufacturing laboratory furniture. During the 12 months preceding the is-
suance of the complaint, a representative period, Respondent received goods and
supplies, valued in excess of $50,000, from points located outside the Commonwealth
of Virginia; during the same period, Respondent shipped products, valued in excess
of $50,000, from its plant in Richmond, Virginia, directly to points located outside
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Upon the above admitted facts, I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find, that United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, the Charging Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
11 hereby note and correct the following obvious errors in the typewritten transcript
of the testimony:
Page 5, line 4, for the word "Whiteman" substitute "Flippen"; page 11, line 4,
for the word "December" substitute "September" ; page 22, line 18, for the year
"1961" substitute "1962"; page 24, line 19, for the word "Mullins" substitute
"Flippen" ; page 64, line 2, for the word "he" substitute "I"; page 103 line 5
for the word "pay" substitute "way"; page 162, line 4, for the word "GUTIIAN"
substitute "ALEXANDER" ; page 263, line 17, for the word "ours" substitute
"hours"; pages 339 and 361, lines 24 and 18, respectively, for the words "Respondent's
Exhibit No. 4" substitute "General Counsel's Exhibit No. 3."
662353-63-vol. 138-68
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; the issues
As previously noted, Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of wood laboratory
furniture which is installed m schools and other educational institutions. Respond-
ent's production operations are divided into the following departments: assembly,
machine room, flight sweep, finishing room, top department, and hardware depart-
ment. Involved in this controversy are the following officers and agents of Re-
spondent, all admitted supervisors within the meaning of the Act: Stanley Levick,
president; Lynwood L. Luck, vice president in charge of production; Ben Lerman,
secretary-treasurer and personnel manager; A. Randolph Flippen, foreman of the
hardware department; Fred- Underwood, foreman of the assembly department;
Charles Tennent, foreman of the machine room; and Herman Wall, foreman of the
finishing room.
The Union began its organizational campaign about December 1960, which culmi-
nated in a meeting held at the Masonic Hall on the evening of January 16, 1962.
At that time there were 117 production and maintenance employees at the Respond-
ent's plant. Near the end of the workday on January 17, Respondent laid off 20r
employees, 16 of whom had attended the union meeting held the preceding evening.2
This admittedly was the first time in Respondent's history that it effected a general
layoff when work was slack. On February 7, 1962, Respondent laid off another
employee, who had been active in sparking the union organizational drive. The
issues litigated in this proceeding are (1) whether these layoffs were discriminatory
and violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as the General Counsel contends, or
were for cause, as Respondent contends; and (2) whether Respondent's admitted
officers and agents engaged in specified acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
such as surveillance, promises of economic benefits to refrain from union activity,
and unlawful interrogation, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
B. Sequence of events 3
1. Commencement of union organization
In the latter part of November 1961, Foreman Underwood of the assembly de-
partment asked Henry Peak, Jr., an employee in Underwood's department, if Peak
had heard anything about the Union trying to get into the plant. Peak replied
that he had heard people say that they would like to have the Union but that he
had no knowledge of "its coming in at that time."
The Union began an organizational campaign among Respondent's employees
about December 1961. Jimmie Mullins, employed as a helper in the hardware
department under Foreman Flippen, was the first employee solicited by Union Rep-
resentative Dougherty. Mullins signed a union authorization card on December 4
and thereafter became Dougherty's contact man in the plant. On the first occasion,
Dougherty gave Mullins about 30 union authorization cards. By January 16,
1962, Mullins had returned 22 signed cards to Dougherty.
2. Union meeting of January 16, 1962, and President Levick's conduct with
respect thereto
By letter, dated January 11, 1962, and mailed to Respondent's employees,
Dougherty advised that a special union meeting would be held on Tuesday, Jan-
uary 16, at 7 p.m. at the Masonic Hall, located at 11th and Decatur Streets in South
Richmond, Virginia. The letter urged the recipient to "please come, and bring all
your friends "
Employees began arriving for the meeting about 20 minutes to 7, before the hall
opened . The first arrivals consisted of a group of four employees in a single car
parked directly in front of the hall. While they sat in the car waiting for the hall
to open, they saw Stanley Levick, president of Respondent, drive up in a white
Valiant and stop on the opposite side of the street in front of the hall, directly across
from their car. Levick looked across at the employees in the car parked in front
of the hall, then proceeded north, made a U turn, and parked on the west side of
Decatur between 10th and 11th Streets, facing toward the hall. Other employees
soon congregated in front of the hall, some of whom observed or were made aware
2 Another employee slated for layoff had already quit several days earlier.
8 Unless otherwise indicated , the factual findings in this section are based on credited
testimony and evidence which is either admitted or uncontradicted.
ROYAL SCHOOL LABORATORIES, INC. 821
of Levick' s presence . Levick remained parked in this location until about 7:15
p.m., by which time all 21 employees who attended the meeting had entered the
hall.
The findings in the preceding paragraph are based on the credited and uncontra-
dicted testimony of employees Miles, Deane, Peak, and Carl Jones. Although
President Levick was present in the hearing room throughout the instant hearing,
he was not called to testify.
3. The layoffs of January 17
Shortly before 3:30 p.m., the end of the regular workday, on January 17, without
any prior notice or warning, 20 employees, scattered over 5 departments, were
handed their checks with a layoff slip by their respective foremen.4 The layoff slip
reads as follows:
JANUARY 17, 1962.
We regret that due to persistent slowness in orders at this time of the year,
we find it necessary to reduce our work force. Pending a pickup in orders,
you will be laid off for an indefinite period, however you will be given first
opportunity for reemployment when business conditions improve.
ROYAL SCHOOL LABORATORIES, INC.
This admittedly was the first general layoff during a slack period in Respondent's
history.
Of the 20 employees thus laid off, 16 had attended the union meeting at the
Masonic Hall the preceding evening, and a 17th had signed a union authorization
card prior to that meeting. A breakdown by departments reveals the following:
Assembly: Of the 35 employed at that time, 11 5 of the 12 who were laid off had
attended the union meeting.
Machine room: Of the 20 employed at that time, three 6 of the four who were
laid off had attended the union meeting and the fourth? had previously signed a
union card.
Flight sweep: Of the 12 employed at that time, the only employee 8 laid off had
attended the union meeting.
Top department: Of the three or four employed at that time , the only employee 9
laid off had attended the union meeting.
Finishing room: Of the eight employed at that time, the two 10 who were laid off
had not attended the union meeting.
4. The immediate reinstatement of Herbert Donald Flippen
Herbert Donald Flippen was employed as a helper in the assembly department
under Foreman Underwood. When he was given his check and layoff slip, Under-
wood stated that he was sorry and that if Flippen would talk to Levick and Luck,
Respondent's president and vice president, respectively, he might get his job back.
Flippen collected his tools and went outside with the rest of the laid-off employees
to wait for Union Representative Dougherty who had been called by one of them.
Before Dougherty's arrival, Flippen went back into the plant where he met Levick
and asked to speak to him. Levick invited Flippen into an office and told him to
wait until Mr. Luck also came in. While waiting for Luck, Levick engaged Flippen
in conversation by asking him if he had a family and whether he intended to make
Richmond his home.
After Luck came into the office, Flippen asked whether the only reason he had
been laid off was because of slack work or whether there was another reason such
as the Union. Levick stated that work was slack, that it had been slack every year
at that time of the year, and that in the past he kept the boys on and tried to carry
them during the slack periods because he knew they had families and needed the
money. Flippen then explained how badly he needed a job, that he had been trying
to do every odd job he could get to make a living, and that he had just jumped at
' An additional employee slated for layoff had already quit several days earlier.
5 Fllppen, Lester, Peak, Bowman, Thomas, Johnson, J. Smith, Miles, C. Jones, Santa-
marie, and Madaris.
e Deane, Lambert, Loenig.
' Butler.
8 Campbell. The other employee slated for layoff in this department who had quit a
few days earlier, had not attended the union meeting.
6 Rogers.
10 Rouse and Clark.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the chance to see if the Union could bargain for him to get more money . Flippen
expressed the belief that he had been laid off "because of messing with the union."
Levick brought out a copy of a union pamphlet that Union Representative Dougherty
had passed out at the union meeting the preceding evening, and explained what was
meant by the union benefits and contributions mentioned therein. Levick informed
Flippen that he could either work for Levick or he could work for the Union, "one
of the two," but that he was not going to have Flippen working for Levick and "for
the union also," that Levick had worked too hard building the plant up to let some
union move in on him and "mess it up." He then asked what Flippen wanted to do,
to work for Levick or to work for the Union? Flippen replied that he would rather
work for Levick . After stating that if Flippen would "forget" the Union and "quit
fooling" with it, it would be all right for him to go back to work, Levick recommended
to Luck that Flippen go back to work. Luck then told Flippen to come in to see
him the following morning and to make sure he understood the reason for going
back to work . Flippen agreed to come back the following morning and stated that
he understood.
Flippen returned to the plant at 10 o'clock the next morning . Luck told him that
he could not make Flippen sign any papers but that if he would promise not to have
any more dealings with the Union, he would be permitted to go back to work.
Flippen promised and returned to work that day. He has been working continuously
since that time and was still employed at the time of his testimony in this proceeding.
The findings in the preceding paragraphs are based on the credited testimony of
Flippen. Luck testified that.Flippen talked to him and Levick about his job and
that Flippen said "in effect, what he testified basically" and asked whether he was
losing his job because of lack of work or because he "messed with the union," that
Flippen expressed his regrets for having become involved with the Union and pleaded
to have his job back, and that Luck told Flippen to return the next day and in the
meanwhile Luck would try to see if they could provide work for him. Luck denied
that he conditioned Flippen's return to work upon Flippen 's promise not to be
involved in the Union. Luck admitted that Levick asked Flippen "if he were work-
ing for us, if we were the ones who had employed him, and if we were paying his
salary." Luck further testified that he asked Foreman Underwood if he could find
work for Flippen, and that Underwood stated that he would make work for him and
that he would be able probably to find work for him. Flippen admittedly was
reemployed the next day. Although Levick was present in the hearing room when
Flippen testified and remained in the hearing room throughout the hearing, he was
not called to testify.
Flippen impressed me as a sincere and forthright witness. He was still in
Respondent 's employ at the time of his testimony , which was not shaken in any
material respect on cross-examination. He testified with the detailed specificity
which normally does not accompany a fabrication . Upon consideration of all the
foregoing and the demeanor of the witnesses who testified , I accept and credit as
true Flippen 's version of what Levick and Luck said to to him , as hereinabove
detailed.
5. Foreman Wall interrogates employee Cook
The original charge with respect to the layoffs of January 17, was filed with the
Board on January 19. About the first of February, Herman Wall, foreman of the
finishing room , asked Roger Cook , an employee in his department , if he had had
any part in the Union. When Cook replied in the affirmative, Wall stated that an
agent of the Labor Board was downstairs and wanted to see him. Cook went down-
stairs and talked to the Board agent. When Cook returned to work, Wall called him
into his office and asked Cook what the Board representative had talked to him about.
Cook replied that the Board representative had asked him why he had not been laid
off. Wall then asked Cook what his reply had been. At that point Cook stated
that what he said was a matter between him and the Board agent. Wall said, "Well,
if you feel like telling me anything , just come back in here, and I will be willing to
listen to you." Cook then went back to work.
Later that afternoon , Foreman Wall asked Cook if there was anything Cook wanted
to tell him. Cook replied that there was not. Wall then asked if Cook would like
to give him the names of any employees who were still working with the Union.
When Cook stated that he did not know any, Wall replied that "they did."
6. The layoff of Mullins on February 7
Jimmie Mullins was employed as a helper in the hardware department under
Foreman Flippen . As previously noted , Mullins was the first one solicited by
Union Representative Dougherty . Mullins signed a union authorization card on
ROYAL SCHOOL LABORATORIES, INC. 823
December 4, 1961, and thereafter became Doughtery's contact man with the em-
ployees in the plant. By January 16, 1962, Mullins had turned over to Dougherty
about 21 signed union cards. However, Mullins did not attend the union meeting
held on the evening of January 16 at the Masonic Hall.
On February 7, Foreman Flippen gave Mullins his check and told him he was
being laid off because work was slack and that he was sorry "that this had come."
7. Conversation of Luck and Levick with employee Cook
About 3 or 4 weeks after Foreman Wall had interrogated employee Cook in the
manner hereinabove set forth, Cook gave another statement to a Board agent in
connection with the investigation of the unfair labor practice charges. Thereafter,
Foreman Wall asked Cook how he would like to go down and talk to Mr. Luck
and see what "he has to say about what the idea of it is." Cook expressed his
willingness to do so. Wall thereupon accompanied Cook to Luck's office and re-
mained during the conversation.
During the discussion about having a union in the plant, Luck stated that if the
Union came in there, Respondent could change the hours and put a padlock on
the door. Luck also told Cook that if he would be willing to help them they would
be willing to help Cook. Levick came into the office during the conversation and
also talked to Cook about the Union. Levick asked Cook what the Union had
ever done for anyone he knew. Cook replied that "it had helped my family out a
whole lot." At the close of the conversation, Cook went back upstairs and returned
to work."
The findings in the preceding paragraphs are based on the credited testimony of
Roger Cook. Levick and Wall were not called to testify. Luck admitted that
Cook's foreman brought Cook into his office one day and that he had a conversation
with Cook about a union in the plant. Luck testified that Cook indicated he was a
strong union man, that Luck asked the reason for his attitude, and that Luck stated
he had no control over Cook's participation in the Union and that there was nothing
Luck could do about it. He denied saying anything about changing working hours
or about padlocking the door. He admitted that Levick came in during the con-
versation and also talked to Cook, asking him what the Union could do. Luck
further testified on direct examination as follows:
Q. (By Mr. ALEXANDAR.) Did you say anything to him about if he would
help you, you would help him?
A. I talked to this young man somewhat about the loyalty of himself to the
Company who had brought him in and given him work to do, which he did
not have; and tried to teach him a job, which he did not know. And indicated
that we felt we were entitled to a certain degree of loyalty for taking a man
off the street who had no knowledge of a job, nor ability, and working with
him, bringing him along, and trying to teach him something, and this is what
his foreman had been doing for him in working with him.
Cook impressed me as a candid and forthright witness, and testified in a con-
vincing manner. Upon consideration of all the foregoing and the demeanor of the
witnesses while testifying, I credit and accept as true Cook's version of what Luck
and Levick said in this conversation, as hereinabove set forth.
8. Employee efforts to obtain reinstatement and Respondent's recruitment of
new employees
Cecil Deane was employed as a helper, running the Masonite saw in the machine
room under Foreman Tennent. He had attended the union meeting of January 16
and was in the group laid off the next day. The following Monday, Deane returned
to the plant and talked to Levick about getting his job back. Levick stated that they
were not doing any hiring but to return in 2 or 3 weeks when he would probably do
some hiring. Deane telephoned to Levick at his home before the end of January
and made the same inquiry. Levick stated he was not doing any hiring but to call
back a week later. When Deane telephoned Levick for the third time, Levick stated
that they were hiring men and suggested that Deane call Lerman, Respondent's
personnel manager. Deane immediately telephoned to Lerman, and asked if he
could get his job back, adding that Levick had told him they were hiring. Lerman
replied that they had been hiring but that they had all they needed. Lerman also
told Deane that the only way he would be considered for employment was to come
u Cook had attended the union meeting of January 16, and voluntarily quit his em-
ployment with Respondent on March 28.
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in at the door and fill out an application in the regular way as any new employee.
About April, Lerman called Mr. Perry of the Virginia Employment Commission
"about the availability of any labor that might be coming in through the office."
Perry thereupon visited Lerman's office "to talk it over." Lerman admitted that he
told Perry that this was the season when Respondent's business would be increasing
and that he "would need quite a number" of employees; that he explained to Mr.
Perry that "the majority of the people that I needed were helpers, and I just needed
a very few people who had some skill," and that "I was sort of thinking out loud
as I was looking at the different sections of the plant, to give him an idea of how
many people we would be needing." Perry mentioned an ad which the Employment
Commission would run under its name so that the Commission could screen and inter-
view the applicants before referring them to Respondent. Lerman admittedly told
Perry that "that sounded like it might be all right with me." Thereafter, beginning
with April 5, an ad appeared four times in the Richmond newspapers for wood-
workers, bench carpenters, machine operators and helpers, requesting applicants to
apply at the Virginia Employment Commission. Respondent was billed for these
ads by the newspapers on April 10 and paid for them on April 13.
Employees Miles and Butler were in the group laid off on January 17. Miles had
been employed as a helper in the assembly department under Foreman Underwood,
and Butler had been employed as an apprentice in the machine room under Foreman
Tennent. Miles had attended the union meeting of January 16, while Butler had
signed a union card prior thereto. On the evening of April 5, Butler saw the
above-described ad in the evening newspaper and called it to the attention of Miles.
The next morning Butler and Miles appeared at the Employment Commission in
response to the ad. They were each interviewed by different men as to their experi-
ence and past employment with Respondent, and were referred to Respondent. They
arrived at the plant about 10 a.m. and informed Lerman that they had been sent
by the Employment Commission. Lerman stated that he had needed a "couple of
men" in a hurry and had already hired them. Butler saw the same ad in the news-
papers the following 3 days.
James Smith was employed as an apprentice, running the belt sander in the assem-
bly department under Foreman Underwood. He had attended the union meeting
of January 16 and was in the group laid off the following day. About the second
week in April he went to the plant and talked to Underwood for about an hour
about getting his job back. During the conversation Underwood asked Smith what
good it would do to get the Union in. Smith replied that "off hand" he did not
exactly know. Underwood asked Smith if he had seen Luck or Levick. When
Smith replied that he had not, Underwood went with Smith to Luck's office. Under-
wood went into the office alone and talked to Luck for about 15 minutes. When
he came out, he told Smith that Luck "wasn't taking back any of you all under
certain circumstances."
Respondent's own records show that it hired approximately 22 new employees
between April 6 and 27, 1962, with about 20 of them being classified as helpers.
These records further show that during the period from February 22 to April 6,
Respondent hired about 10 new employees, 7 of whom were classified as helpers.
As of the date of the hearing in the instant case, Respondent had the same number
of production and maintenance employees as it had before the layoff of January 17.
By that time, Respondent had reemployed five 12 of the laid-off employees, in addi-
tion to Herbert Donald Flippen who was reinstated on January 18 under the circum-
stances previously described.
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. President Levick
Upon consideration of the facts set forth in section B, 2, supra, and the failure of
Levick to testify, I find that on the evening of January 16, 1962, President Levick
engaged in surveillance of the union meeting hall and of the employees who arrived
and entered the hall for a previously announced and scheduled meeting. That such
conduct by such a high ranking official of Respondent constitutes a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) of the Act, requires no citation of authority.
President Levick's conduct of January 17 in warning employee Flippen that he
could either work for the Union or for Respondent, but not for both, in asking
Flippen to choose between the Union and his job, and in conditioning Flippen's
12Lester, Koenig, Lambert, Campbell, and Clark. Of this number, only Clark had not
attended the union meeting of January 16. After his reemployment, Clark voluntarily
quit on January 29, 1962.
ROYAL SCHOOL LABORATORIES, INC. 825
reinstatement on his forgetting the Union and ceasing to "fool" with it, all as pre-
viously found, constituted obvious acts of interference, restraint, and coercion within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2. Vice President Luck
Luck's conduct on January 18, in .telling employee Flippen that he could not make
Flippen sign any papers but conditioning Flippen's return to work upon his promise
that he would not have any more dealings with the Union, as previously found, was
an equally obvious violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Luck's statement to employee Cook that if the Union came into the plant Respond-
ent could change the hours and put a padlock on the door, constituted a threat of
economic reprisals and hence coercive within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1). I
also find that Luck's promise to help Cook if he would be willing to help them, con-
sidered in the context in which it was made and in the light of Luck's testimony that
he indicated they felt they "were entitled to a certain degree of loyalty" from Cook,
all as previously found, constituted a promise of economic benefits for Cook's as-
sistance in keeping the Union out of the plant. As such, it was just as violative of
Section 8 (a) (1) as the threat of economic reprisals.
3. Foreman Wall
Foreman Wall's attempts to get employee Cook to disclose the contents of his
statement to a Board agent investigating the unfair labor practice charges against
Respondent, as previously found, interfered with Cook's exercise of his statutory
rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Hilton Credit Corporation, 137
NLRB 56, footnote 1. Equally violative of Section 8(a)(1) was Wall's attempt
to have Cook reveal the names of employees still working for the Union, also as
previously found.
4. Foreman Underwood
As previously found, in the latter part of November 1961, Underwood asked em-
ployee Peak of he had heard anything about the Union trying to get into the plant,
and Peak replied that he had heard people say that they would like to have the
Union but that he had no knowledge of "its coming in at that time."
The General Counsel contended at the hearing that Underwood's inquiry con-
stituted unlawful interrogation violative of the Act. I do not agree. I find that
Underwood's inquiry was a casual, isolated remark and did not constitute inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
5. Concluding findings
I find that by the above-described conduct of President Levick, Vice President
Luck, and Foreman Wall, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of their statutory rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
D. Discrimination with respect to hire and tenure of employment
1. The layoffs of January 17, 1962
Respondent contends that ,these layoffs, as well as the layoff of Jimmie Mullins
on February 7, were motivated solely by economic considerations due to the work
being slack for a longer period than it had ever experienced. The General Counsel
contends that no economic necessity for a layoff existed , and that even assuming
the need for a layoff, it was discriminatory because it was timed to the January 16
meeting rather than to actual necessity and because of the selection of the em-
ployees who were laid off.
a. Respondent's defenses
Luck testified that they began discussing the lack of work during the regular
foreman's meetings in 1961, and that a decision was made in November that there
would be a layoff but action therein was deferred in consideration of the approach-
ing Christmas season and the fact that the employees had families dependent on
them. Concededly, work was always slack at that time of the year and Respondent
had always kept the employees on during past slack periods, relying on a reduction
in hours and normal attrition to take up the slack. This admittedly was the first
general layoff in Respondent's history. No decision was made in November as to
the number of employees to be laid off or as to their identity. Nor was any explana-
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion offered as to why Respondent waited until January 17, about 31h weeks after
Christmas, to announce and effect the layoff. Moreover, if the election of the in-
dividuals slated for layoff had really been made prior to January 17, as Respondent
contends, then Respondent's failure to give them some advance notice or warning,
so that they would have an opportunity to secure other employment, seems strangely
inconsistent with Respondent's professed benevolent concern and consideration of
its employees' financial needs.
Luck further testified that they had adopted a management policy regarding the
method of selecting employees for layoff in case of work reductions, and that
involved a consideration of such factors as the employee's ability, his performance,
his attitude toward the job, how he gets along with his fellow workers, and his length
of service. He further testified that the basic selection of the individual employees
was made by the supervisors. Foremen Flippen, Tennent, and Underwood testified
to the factors considered by them in selecting employees for layoff. The record dis-
closes some inconsistencies in the application of these factors. Thus, in some cases,
the attendance record was not considered or was overlooked, while in other cases it
was of significant value.13 Also seniority was given more or less weight in some
cases than in others.14 Negating the significance of the alleged deficiencies asserted as
the basis for the selection of the individuals for layoff is Respondent's conduct in
reinstating employees Flippen and Lester, helpers in Foreman Underwood's depart-
ment. Thus, Underwood testified that when it comes to making a layoff, "I lay off
men that I figure that eventually will do me no good, or are not doing the job the
way they should do it," and he considers "attendance, cooperation, and attitude in
the performance of the job." Underwood admitted that employee Flippen "could
have done more work than he did," that "he would hold back on me, if he saw
the work was getting close," that "he did not like to work on other jobs," and that
"when we would try to catch up and move on to another job and move on to some-
thing else, he was not too interested in doing that." With respect to Lester, Under-
wood testified that Lester "didn't have much push about him, he had to be pushed;
so when the time came to lay off men, why naturally you would think about those
things." Despite these deficiencies, Flippen was promised immediate reinstatement
if he would "forget" about the Union and cease "fooling" with it, and was reinstated
the next day upon such condition. Moreover, Underwood admitted that Flippen's
work performance did not improve after his reinstatement Yet, he continued to be
retained. Lester was reinstated on February 2, allegedly because he pleaded for his
job and promised to improve his work performance.
In an effort to explain why all the laid-off employees were not reinstated in pref-
erence to new employees subsequently hired to fill their places, as promised in the
layoff notice, Luck testified that he had adopted a policy of "upgrading" Respondent's
employees by not rehiring employees who had been laid off because their work was
not up to the desired standard, that he had nothing to do with the preparation of the
layoff notice which was prepared by Lerman, and that when he learned about it,
he informed Lerman of the Company's policy of "upgrading" the employees which
was to be applied in the future. If Luck had in fact adopted such a policy, it
seems unlikely to me that he would not have informed his personnel manager and
his foremen earlier of his alleged new policy of "upgrading" the employees and of not
rehiring all of the laid-off employees. Yet Foreman Tennent admitted that he told
employees Deane and Butler, who were not reinstated, that they would be recalled
when work picked up. Moreover, Luck made no effort to rescind the statement in
the layoff notice or to inform the employees of the alleged error. Furthermore.
Lerman had admitted to Perry of the Virginia Employment Commission that he
needed mostly unskilled labor, and the record does not show that the new employees
who were hired had any ereater qualifications, experience, or ability or performed
more satisfactorily than the laid-off employees who were not reinstated. Finally,
Respondent's position in this respect is strongly refuted by its conduct in reinstating
employees Flippen and Lester, as previously noted. T am convinced and find that
the alleged adontion of a new rehire policy was an afterthought advanced in an effort
to justify the hiring of new employees contrary to the promise in the layoff notice
and by some foremen to give preference to the laid-off employees.
is Foreman Flippen did not consider attendance in connection with the Iavoff of Mullins
on February 7. Luck testified that he thinks Foreman Wall considered attendance records
Underwood testified that he considered the attendance record as a main factor. Yet, he
retained employee Isley whose attendance record was the worst in the department.
14 Thus Butler, who had more company seniority than other employees in his depart-
ment who were retained, was replaced on his machine by Snead whose attendance record
admittedly did not compare favorably with Butler's
ROYAL SCHOOL LABORATORIES, INC. 827
Nor can I credit the testimony of Luck and Lerman that Lerman exceeded his
authority in ordering new employees through the Virginia Employment Commission,
and that Lerman was merely authorized to call the Commission to obtain certain
information in connection with the possibility of settling the instant case. Lerman
admitted that he had used the same procedure for obtaining new employees on possi-
bly two or three prior occasions. Lerman was called as the General Counsel's first
witness. At that time Lerman testified as follows, on being interrogated by the
General Counsel:
Q. (By Mr. GUTMAN.) Did you, do you recall when he (Perry) visited your
office?
A. He visited my office, I called him and he offered to come over and talk
to me about it.
Q. You called him about what?
A. About the availability of any labor that might be coming through the
office.
Thus, there is not the slightest hint in Lerman's testimony at this point in the hearing
that he contacted the Employment Commission at Luck's request for the alleged
purpose of obtaining information in connection with the possibility of settling the
case, as he testified in response to leading questions by Respondent's counsel the
following day. Moreover, Luck made no effort to rescind what he contends was
unauthorized conduct on the part of Lerman. The fact that remains that subse-
quent to the placing of the ad, about 20 new employees were hired to fill jobs which
could be performed by the laid-off employees while at the same time Respondent
refused to employ laid-off employees who applied, all as previously found. I am
convinced and find that Lerman had full authority to recruit new employees through
the Employment Commission, that Luck was aware of Lerman's conduct in this
respect, and that the position taken at the hearing was also advanced as an after-
thought in an effort to cloak Respondent's true motivation.
b. Concluding findings
Upon consideration of the foregoing and the entire record as a whole, I cannot
accept the reasons advanced by Respondent as being the true motivating causes for
the layoffs of January 17, and for the selection of the particular employees involved.
President Levick was aware of the union meeting scheduled for the evening of
January 16 at the Masonic Hall, as shown by his presence there that night. He
arrived about 20 minutes before the scheduled meeting and stationed himself in a
position where he could observe who and how many entered the hall. Of the 21
who attended the meeting, 16 were laid off the next day out of a total of 20 distributed
over 5 departments. In addition, of the four laid-off employees who had not
attended the union meeting, one had signed a union authorization card prior to the
meeting. This was the first general layoff in Respondent's history. Although the
decision to have a general layoff was allegedly made in November, it was not put
into effect until the day following the union meeting. Employees were informed of
their layoff at the end of their regular workday, without any prior notice or warning.
Reasons thereafter advanced for the selection of the individuals for layoff were not
applied in all cases and were ignored in the immediate reinstatement of Flippen and
later of Lester. Despite Respondent's promise in the layoff notices and of some of
the foremen to give first preference to the laid-off employees when work picked up,
Respondent instead sought to recruit new employees through the State Employment
Commission and did in fact hire about 30 new employees to do the work performed
by the laid-off employees, while at the same time declining to hire some of the
laid-off employees even though they applied and without any record showing that
the new employees had any greater qualifications, experience or ability or performed
more satisfactorily. Thereafter, reasons to justify its actions in this respect were
advanced by Respondent as afterthoughts to cloak its true motivation.
The record shows that Respondent was opposed to having its employees repre-
sented by a union and was willing to take steps to prevent it. Thus, when Flippen
sought reinstatement immediately after the layoffs, Levick pointed out that he had
worked too hard building the plant up to let some union move in on him and
"mess it up," and laid down the ultimatum that Flippen could either work for Levick
or for the Union but not for both at the same time. Levick and Luck then reinstated
Flippen, despite his alleged work deficiencies and the alleged lack of available work,
upon his promise to forget the Union and not to have any more dealings with it.
In his conversation a few weeks later with employee Cook, who admitted being a
strong union adherent, Luck threatened that Respondent could change the hours
of work and close down if the Union came into the plant. He then promised eco-
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nomic benefits to Cook for his assistance in keeping the Union out of the plant.
Upon consideration of all the foregoing and the entire record as a whole, I am
convinced, and find that, whether or not there may have been an economic need
for a layoff, an issue which I do not resolve, Respondent's motive in effecting the
layoff on January 17, 1962, was for the purpose of discouraging its employees'
interest and activities on behalf of the Union, and therefore was discriminatory in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.15 I also find that the selection of
the employees for layoff was discriminatorily motivated because of the employees
known or suspected prounion interest and support and that Respondent's conduct
was violative of the Act on that additional ground.
Finally, I find that Respondent's reinstatement of employee Flippen on condition
that he forget the Union and have no further dealings with it constituted a further
and independent violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
2. The layoff of Jimmie Mullins on February 7
Jimmie Mullins was employed as a helper in the hardware or final assembly de-
partment under Foreman Flippen. As previously noted, Mullins had signed the
first union authorization card in the Union's organizing campaign, and became
Union Representative Dougherty's contact man with the employees in the plant.
Dougherty gave Mullins about 30 union cards and by the time of the union meeting
on January 16 Mullins had returned 22 signed cards to Dougherty. Mullins had
not attended the union meeting of January 16.
As previously found, on the afternoon of February 1, Foreman Wall asked
employee Cook, who had been interviewed that morning by a Board agent in
connection with the investigation of the unfair labor practice charges relating to
the January 17 layoffs, if Cook would like to give him the names of any employees
who were still working for the Union. When Cook replied that he did not know,
Wall replied that management "did" know.
About a week later, on February 7, Foreman Flippen gave Mullins his check and
told him he was being laid off because work was slack and that he was sorry "that
this had to come."
On the first day of the hearing, Luck was called as a witness by the General
Counsel. Luck testified that Mullins was terminated for lack of work in his de-
partment and that the decision to select Mullins was made by Foreman Flippen.
When asked if Flippen told Luck why he was selecting Mullins, Luck testified, "no,
he seemed to be the most, I think he was the employee with the shortest employ-
ment at the time in his department." After being shown his pretrial affidavit, Luck
testified that Flippen told him that Mullins "talked more than the others, and this
was considered in the layoff " On examination by Respondent's counsel Luck
testified that Flippen discussed two employees and Flippen made the decision to
select Mullins because he was "quite often in conversation with other fellow
workers." Luck further testified that the attendance records of the employees did
not enter into the decision.
Foreman Flippen was also called as a witness by the General Counsel on the
first day of the hearing. At that time Flippen testified that about 2 weeks before
Mullins' layoff, he was in a discussion with Luck and Lerman about employees
Masters and Mullins after looking at the personnel cards, that those two employees
were the last hired in his department, that it was "more or less" indicated that
Mullins would be the one to be laid off because he had less experience in his
department and he was the youngest man," that it "wasn't definitely decided at
that time who would be laid off," and that "it wasn't pinpointed that Jimmie (Mul-
lins) would be the one " Flippen further testified that the first time he "definitely
knew" that Mullins was the one who was going to be laid off was when "Mr.
Lerman brought the check up" and "told me to lay him off because of lack of
work." On the second day. of the hearing, Flippen testified that he was the one
who suggested that Mullins be the one to be laid off during the discussion with
Luck and Lerman, and that he took into consideration Mullins' knowledge and
all around ability, his seniority and the fact that he had previously spoken to
Mullins about talking too much during working hours. He admitted that attitude
15 The record does not warrant a finding that employee Peak was a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act. Peak worked along with the rest of the men, doing the same
work. Foreman Underwood gave Peak instructions about what had to be done and what
to tell the other employees, and Peak would relay this information to the other employees,
trying to help them when they needed it and to answer their questions if he knew the
answer. Respondent's own records list Peak as an "apprentice."
ROYAL SCHOOL LABORATORIES, INC . 829
toward the job was a factor which he considered but that he did not consider the
attendance records.
As previously found, attendance was considered as a significant factor in the
case of some of the employees laid off on January 17. Certainly, unexcused and
excessive absences are an indication of an employee's attitude toward his job, one
of the factors admittedly considered as an established management policy. Re-
spondent's records show that employee Masters was employed only 2 weeks before
Mullins and that Mullins had a better attendance record. Respondent's records
further show that employees Ferran and Goins, also classified as helpers in Flippen's
department, had excessive absentee records and in fact that Goins had quit without
notice on a prior occasion. Although Foreman Flippen admittedly told Mullins
he was "sorry" that he had to lay him off because work was slack, Mullins was not
recalled while three new men admittedly were employed as helpers in Flippen's
department in April 1962. There is no showing that any of the three new employees
were more experienced or better qualified or more satisfactory workers than Mullins
who was never recalled.
Upon consideration of all the foregoing and the entire record as a whole, par-
ticularly Mullins' leading roll in the Union's campaign, Foreman Wall's admission
to employee Cook that management knew what employees were still working for
the Union, Mullins' summary layoff a week later without any prior notice or warn-
ing, the contradictions as to who made the final decision for Mullins' selection and
as to when it was made, the failure to give any consideration to the attendance
records in evaluating attitude toward the job, the failure to recall Mullins while
hiring three new employees in the same classification in Mullins' department, and
the other unlawful conduct engaged in by Levick and Luck in an effort to keep the
Union out of the plant, as previously found, I am convinced and find that, whether
or not there was an economic need for the layoff of one employee in Foreman
Flippen's department, the selection of Mullins for layoff was discriminatorily moti-
vated by a knowledge or belief that Mullins was a chief worker for the Union.
By such conduct, Respondent discriminated with respect to Mullins' hire and
tenure of employment, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
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 described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among he several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
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 Respondent was discriminatorily motivated, in violation of the
Act, in effecting a general layoff on January 17, 1962, it is necessary in order ade-
quately to effectuate the policies of the Act to require Respondent to remedy any
loss of jobs or earnings incurred by any of the 20 employees laid off that day and
named in the complaint, whether or not he was or is interested in the Union. I
therefore recommend that Respondent offer immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions to the laid-off employees who have
not been reinstated,16 without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make them and the employees 17 who have already been reinstated
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
torily motivated layoff by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which
each normally would have earned as wages from the date of the layoff to the date
of reinstatement or offer of reinstatement, as the case may be, less his net earnings
during such period, such sums to be computed in accordance with the formula es-
tablished by the Board in F. W. Woolworth, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294.
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily terminated the employment of
Jimmie Mullins on February 7, 1962, in violation of the Act, I recommend that
1e As of the date of the hearing, these were Henry F. Peak, George Santamarie, Cecil
Bowman, Billie Joe Rogers, Robert H. Butler, James F. Smith, Fred D. Williams, Judson
Madaris, George Thomas, Dolphus Lee Johnson, Carl Jones, Jimmie A. Miles, Cecil Deane,
and William Rouse.
17 As of the date of the hearing, these were Herbert Donald Flippen, Ted Wayne Lester,
John Koenig, W. G. Lambert, Jr., Bernard L. Campbell, and Herbert Clark.
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges,
and make him whole in the manner set forth in the preceding paragraph.
While I agree with the position, very ably set forth in the General Counsel's brief,
that the Board has the power to include interest in backpay computations, I will not
recommend such inclusion. This is a policy matter for determination by the Board
and is now under the Board's consideration in other cases.18 I believe it would be
more appropriate for the Board, rather than its Trial Examiner, to make an initial
policy declaration of this kind.
In view of the nature and extent of Respondent's violations, and because dis-
criminatory employment terminations go to the very heart of the Act,19 I am con-
vinced that it may be anticipated from Respondent's past conduct that Respondent
may commit other violations of the Act in the future. Accordingly, I find it neces-
sary in order to effectuate the policies of the Act to recommend that Respondent
cease and desist from infringing "in any other manner" upon the rights of its em-
ployees as guaranteed in the Act, in addition to those rights found to have been
violated herein.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By the conduct set forth in section III, D, supra, Respondent has discriminated
with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of its employees, thereby dis-
couraging membership in the aforesaid labor organization, and has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By the foregoing and by the conduct of President Levick, Vice President Luck,
and Foreman Wall, detailed in section III, C, supra, the Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the conduct of Foreman Underwood in asking
employee Peak if he had heard anything about the Union trying to get into the plant.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that Respondent, Royal School Labora-
tories, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization,
by discriminatorily effecting layoffs, by discriminatorily conditioning or terminating
the employment of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard
to its employees' hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) Interrogating employees to ascertain the names of those still interested in or
active on behalf of the Union or to ascertain the contents of statements given
to a Board agent in connection with the investigation of unfair labor practice charges,
in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of
Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
(c) Engaging in surveillance of union meeting places or union activities of its
employees.
,(d) Warning employees that they could not work for Respondent and also on
behalf of the Union, at the same time asking them to choose between the Union or
their jobs, and conditioning their employment upon a promise to forget and not to
have anything more to do with the Union.
(e) Threatening to change the hours of work, to close the plant, or to take any
other economic reprisals if the Union came into the plant.
(f) Promising economic benefits to employees for agreeing to assist Respondent
in keeping the Union out of the plant.
is Niagara Chemical Division, F.M.C. Corporation, 137 NLRB 376, footnote I.
19 N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co, 120 F . 2d 532 , 536 (C.A. 4).
ROYAL SCHOOL LABORATORIES, INC. 831
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
and to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to the employees who were laid off on January 17 and February 7,
1962, and who have not been reinstated, immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges, and make all the foregoing laid-off employees, including
those who have been reinstated, whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the
section entitled, "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available -to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, relevant to the amount
of backpay due and to the reinstatement and related rights provided under the terms
of this recommended order.
(c) Post at its plant in Richmond, Virginia, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix A." 20 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), shall, after being duly signed
by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure 'that such notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith 2'
I further recommend that the complaint, as amended at the hearing be dismissed
insofar as it alleges that Foreman Underwood engaged in interrogation violative
of the Act.
2O In the event that these Recommendations be adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations 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 "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals. Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
a 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."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiner's of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other
labor organization, by discriminatorily effecting layoffs, by discriminatorily con-
ditioning or terminating the employment of our employees, or by discriminating
in any other manner in regard to our employees' hire and tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees to ascertain the names of those still
interested in or active on behalf of the Union or to ascertain the contents of
statements given to a Board agent in connection with the investigation of
unfair labor practice charges, in a manner constituting interference, restraint,
or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employees' union meeting places
or union activities.
WE WILL NOT warn employees that they cannot work for us and on behalf
of a union at the same time; we will not ask our employees to choose between
832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union and their jobs; and we will not condition employment upon promises
to forget and not to have any more dealings with the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to change the hours of work, or to close the plant,
or to take any other economic reprisals if the Union comes into our plant.
WE WILL NOT promise economic benefits to employees for agreeing to assist
us in keeping the Union out of the plant.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer to the employees who were laid off on January 17 and
February 7, 1962, and who have not been reinstated, immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and we will make
all the foregoing laid-off employees, including those who have been reinstated,
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of our discrimina-
tory conduct.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or re-
maining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
ROYAL SCHOOL LABORATORIES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 707 N.
Calvert Street, 6th Floor, Baltimore, Maryland (Telephone Number, Plaza 2-8460,
Extension 2100), if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Salerno-Megowen Biscuit Company and Local $j:1, American
Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 13-CA-4455. September 25,.1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 9,1962, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent 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 Interme-
diate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report and the entire record in the case, including the excep-
138 NLRB No. 106.