United Terrazzo Precast Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 612 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Terrazzo Precast Co., Advance Tile Company,
Inc., Consolidated Tile & Terrazzo Corporation
and International Association of Marble , -Slate &
Stone Polishers , Rubbers & Sawyers, Marble
Mosaic & Terrazzo Workers ' Helpers, AFL-CIO.
Case 11-CA-5967
November 12, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On July 9, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Bernard J. Seff issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and, a supporting brief and the General Counsel
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,'
findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge to the extent consistent herewith and to adopt
his recommended Order.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that
.Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of,the
Act, by discharging Otha Lancaster, Roy Lancaster,
William Simons , and William Moore because they
engaged in lawful union activities. With respect to his
findings of Section 8(a)(1), however, we rely on the
following credited testimony.
Respondent is engaged in business in and about
Raleigh , North Carolina, and at the time of the
i We find no merit in Respondent 's exception to the Administrative Law
Judge's denial of its Motion for Discovery. Chambers Manufacturing
Corporation, 124 NLRB 721, 722 (1959) The General Counsel complied
with the Board 's applicable rules and supplied Respondent with all
affidavits of witnesses called by the General Counsel and Respondent had
an opportunity to engage in cross-examination of these witnesses. J H
Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Company, Inc., 194 NLRB 19 (1971).
2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis, except as set forth infra, for
reversing his findings.
Respondent also has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's
restricting Respondent's cross-examination of David Turner, and Respon-
dent's direct examination of Paul Taylor and Ronnie Taylor With respect
to Turner, Respondent inquired into Turner's reasons for not speaking up at
an earlier date when he had an opportunity to do so about allegations that
Wes Taylor, a supervisor, knew why Respondent discharged certain
employees, as discussed below. Turner responded that he did not give the
matter any thought nor had anyone asked him in prior interviews anything
about what Wes Taylor said We find that further examination of Turner on
221 NLRB No. 94
events herein Respondent had about 15 employees
on the payroll. Edward Bean , an international
representative of the Union, was hired by Respon-
dent around the middle of October 1974. On his first
day on the job he spoke to William Moore about
organizing a union, and subsequently Moore, Si-
mons; and Otha and Roy Lancaster met on Novem-
ber 7, 1974, in Bean's hotel room and all four signed
membership cards for the Union. Subsequently they
attended another union meeting, visited some em-
ployees in their homes, and talked to other employ-
ees in the plant on behalf of the Union.
In the interim, Respondent learned about the
union activity and the identity of some of the
employees involved therein. Wes Taylor, a supervi-
sor, asked employee David Turner, in early Novem-
ber, if the latter-had heard anything about the Union.
In the same conversation, Wes Taylor told Turner
that Otha and Roy Lancaster and some others had
signed cards for the Union and that they were going
to be laid off on account of their union activity. Wes
Taylor also told Turner in December that Otha was
the leader and that he was trying to organize
Respondent's employees. Wes Taylor also asked
Turner if he had heard Taylor speak about- the fact
that employees who joined the Union were going to
be laid off. Taylor then confirmed the fact that the
only ones that were to be laid off were those who
signed cards. The Lancaster brothers and Simons
were laid off on December 3 and Moore was
discharged on December 9. Later in December,
Taylor told employee Carpenter that, in his opinion,
the reason Otha and the others were laid off was
because of their union activity. In February 1975,
Wes Taylor told Carpenter that Carpenter did not
have to tell him who was in the Union because
Taylor knew who they were.
this question was unnecessary , and we uphold the Administrative Law
Judge's ruling.
We also find no merit in Respondent's exception to the Administrative
Law Judge's denial of Respondent's offer of proof that Ronnie Taylor,
Respondent's own witness , was coerced by the Union to sign a false
statement for the purpose of showing that such coercion or inducement of
Ronnie Taylor would in and of itself have probative force with respect to
determining the credibility of Turner and Carpenter . This kind of evidence
would not support an inference that either Turner or Carpenter had also
been coerced into giving adverse statements.
We also note that the Admunstrative Law Judge inadvertently stated that
Wes Taylor approached Turner about the middle of November and asked
Turner if he wanted to join the Union . The record shows that Turner was
approached by Otha Lancaster
Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we do not rely on Paul
Taylor's testimony , since it is clear that his testimony is unworthy of belief
As noted by the Administrative Law Judge at the hearing, it is apparent that
Paul Taylor was untruthful either on the first day of the hearing when be
testified for the General Counsel in support of the complaint allegations of
violations of Sec. 8(a)(1), or was untruthful on the second day of the hearing
when he gave testimony which was in direct conflict with that given by him
on the previous day We agree therefore with the Administrative Law
Judge's evaluation at the hearing that Paul Taylor was not a credible
witness, but unlike the Administrative Law Judge, we place no reliance on
his testimony.
UNITED TERRAZZO PRECAST CO. 613
Accordingly, we find that the credited testimony of
Turner and Carpenter amply supports the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's finding.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, United Terrazzo
Precast Co., Advance Tile Company, Inc., Consoli-
dated Tile & Terrazzo Corporation, Raleigh, North
Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in said recommended
Order.
Respondent denies that the three companies are a single
integrated business enterprise. However, in Case 11-RC-
3985, the Board found United Precast is wholly owned by
Advance Tile Company and Consolidated Tile are owned
by the same stockholders, the president of United is vice
president of Consolidated and vice versa There is some
interchange of employees between the companies and it is
clear that with common ownership, common officers,
directors, and operators both companies constitute a single
integrated business enterprise.
Respondent stipulated at the hearing that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. I so
find.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD J . SEFF, Administrative Law Judge: Pursuant
to an unfair labor practice charge filed on December 11,
1974,1 and a complaint issued on February 26, 1975,
alleging that Respondent, United Terrazzo Precast Co.,
discriminatorily discharged four of its employees2 and
engaged in other acts violative of Section 8(a)(1) and
Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act. Respondent denies the
commission of any unfair labor practices. The hearing was
conducted by me on April 3 and 4, 1975, in Raleigh, North
Carolina. The General Counsel filed an unopposed motion
to correct the transcript which I hereby grant.
At the conclusion of the hearing at which evidence was
presented by the General Counsel and by Respondent, the
parties waived oral argument and thereafter submitted
written briefs which have been duly considered. Upon the
entire record and upon my observation of the'demeanor of
the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTION
The business of the Respondent (this proceeding
concerns United Terrazzo Precast Company) is the
securing of orders from various customers throughout the
country and then fabricating a product known as terrazzo
which is made of cement and marble chips. The product is
used on steps, window sills, base, and various items of that
nature.
Respondent admits in its answer that it operates under
charter of, and is wholly owned by, Advance Tile
Company, Inc., a North Carolina corporation. Consolidat-
ed Tile & Terrazzo Corporation, with offices and facilities
in Raleigh, North Carolina, during the past 12 months
received raw materials from points directly outside the
State of North Carolina, valued in excess of $50;000.
A. The Facts
Otha Lancaster, Roy Lancaster, and William Simmons
were discharged on December 3 and Moore was dis-
charged on December 9. All the men were told by Babuin
they were being let go because of bad business. They were
never recalled and have not worked for Respondent since
they were discharged.
In October Edward Bean was hired but he only worked
about 2 weeks after which he quit. He testified that he is an
International representative of the Union. His role as a
short-time employee was to organize the men. In this
capacity he met the Company's employees and more
especially he initially contacted the two Lancasters,
Simmons, and Moore. The first union meeting took place
in Bean's hotel room on November 7 at which time all four
employees signed union cards. It is not denied on the
record that the various unfair labor practices of the
Respondent took place after these men signed union cards.
Simmons thereafter , together with Bean and Otha, went
to the Trailway Bus station, a church, and visited some
employees' homes on behalf of the Union. Otha, who was
the Union's chief protagonist, and the other dschargees
talked the Union up in the plant among the employees
whose total number at the beginning of the organizing
campaign consisted of approximately 13 men. The four
men who were discharged also attended a union meeting
which also occurred in Bean's hotel room on November 22.
B. The Dischargees
Otha Lancaster had approximately 8 years' experience
with Respondent during which he had three breaks in his
employment. Since 1973 he was responsible for pouring
cement, loading trucks, and framing precasts. He was
regarded as a good and experienced employee and when
Ray Baduin, company vice president, decided to cut back
on his working force he at first thought to keep Otha but he
later changed his mind.
Roy Lancaster, brother of Otha, began working for
Respondent on July 9. He was a helper, who worked with
his brother running the mixer, transporting the mix in a
I All dates refer to 1974 unless otherwise indicated.
2 Otha Lancaster, Roy Lee Lancaster , William Moore , and William
Simmons.
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wheelbarrow to forms in which Otha poured the terrazzo.
He was told about the Union by Bean, signed a card on
November 7, attended the union meeting on November 22,
and discussed the Union with his brother.
William Moore started to work for Consolidated in 1970
when it commenced its business operations. He was
transferred to United Terrazzo in April where he per-
formed a number of tasks including grouting (handling
thin mortar), grinding, and other work as it was needed.
During the time Bean worked for Respondent, Moore
worked with him and it was Moore who introduced Bean
to Otha. Moore discussed the Union in the plant during
lunch time with the two Lancasters and Simmons. He also
signed the union card on November 7 and attended the
union meeting on November 22.
William Simmons began his job with Respondent on
October 8 as a helper. He learned about the Union from
Bean in the Precast shop. He also signed a card on
November 7 and thereafter accompanied Bean and Otha
to the Trailway Bus station, a church and also visited
employees at their homes to talk up the Union.
It should be noted that Baduin discharged the employees
on December 3, a Tuesday. It should be further remarked
that no precipitating incident occurred on the day of the
discharges which otherwise might explain the sudden
discharges so early in the workweek.
During the course of his testimony Badum said he had
known the layoffs were due to take place 90 days before
December 3. In this connection it was stated to both Otha
and Moore by Ernest Rusnak, plant superintendent, who
testified he was surprised that the layoffs took place when
they did. On -December 2, one day before the layoffs,
Rusnak told Otha that it looked like there might be enough
work to last through the middle of June. In-the same vein,
Rusnak told Moore that there was sufficient work to last at
least through spring.
Rusnak admitted in direct examination as a witness for
Respondent that he, had spoken to Otha and "I told him to
the best of my recollection that we had work up on the
boards until February . . . and I felt that we had enough to
carry us through spring over at the other office
[Consolidated Company]."
C. Independent 8(a)(]) Violations
In the early part, of November 1974, employee David
Turner was approached by Foreman Wes Taylor while he
was at work. Turner testified that Wes Taylor asked him if
he had heard anything about the Union organizing
Respondent. Turner replied that he had heard nothing at
that time . In the same conversation Taylor said Otha and
Roy Lancaster, and some of the others had signed union
cards. Taylor also told Turner "and that they were going to
get laid off on account of their union activity." On another
occasion, about December 5, he said that Otha was the
leader and he was trying to organize the Company. Taylor
asked Turner "if he heard Taylor speak about the fact that
the employees who joined the Union were going to be laid
off." Turner answered, "Yes sir" and Taylor said, "Just
Otha and Roy Lancaster and some others." No other
names of employees were mentioned by Taylor during the
above conversation. Once again Taylor approached Turner
about the middle of November and asked Turner if he
wanted to join a umon, and Turner told him he would join.
The two Lancasters, Moore and Simmons, were subse-
quently laid off early in December.
Another incident took place which was testified to by
Cedric Carpenter. On this occasion, which took place in
mid-December, Foreman Taylor spoke to Carpenter and
said, "in his opinion the reason Otha and them got laid off
was because of their union activity." Later, in February
1975, Foreman_ Taylor asked Carpenter if he would join a
union if it came in. Carpenter avoided a direct -answer by
asking Taylor if he was in the Union. Carpenter testified
that Foreman Taylor responded, "you don't have to tell me
who was in_ it, I know who is in it." On the next day, in
mid-December after the four discriminatees were dis-
charged, Paul Taylor, one of Wes Taylor's sons, was
standing with a group of employees near the Precast office
when Foreman Taylor came up and said they were laid off
because of union activities. The foreman added that "we
would get laid off too if we joined."
The record contains mention of two of Paul Taylor's
affidavits of February 10, 1975. The first of these indicates
that he had heard that the Lancasters, Moore, and
Simmons were laid off because of union activities. The
second states that Paul Taylor recalled his father saying
that he "thought or heard" that the men had been laid off
because of union activity. In a third affidavit, dated March
26, 1975, Taylor stated that his father did not use the words
"thought or heard." By way of explanation Paul Taylor
said that a part owner of United Precast was Cecil Gibbs
who is his uncle and who lives right next door to Wes
Taylor. Taylor then went on to say that when he gave the
affidavits he felt some concern because he did not want to
get his father involved in this situation. On the second day
of the hearing Paul Taylor requested permission to resume
the witness stand. He testified that the information he had
sworn to on the previous day was untrue and he wanted to
recant it out of a sense of guilt. He testified that when he
returned home at the end of the first day of the hearing,
both his sister and his wife brought pressure; to bear on him
and told him that his testimony might incriminate his
father. In the context of the events as they unfolded at the
hearing, I am convinced and find that Paul Taylor's
testimony on the first day was the truth and his recantation
was untrue. Furthermore, the record shows that on
December 4, 1974, Paul Taylor, David Turner, Cedric
Carpenter, and Ronnie Taylor (another son of Wes Taylor)
gave testimony which was identical with what Paul testified
to and thus Paul's testimony was mutually corroborated by
all four witnesses . I credit the testimony of this group and
discredit Paul's second thoughts on his testimony of the
previous day. To recapitulate, Paul testified that:
. my Dad came up and said, "they were laid off
because of union activities." Wes Taylor who is my
father, made this statement. Wes Taylor also said ".. .
we would get laid off too if we joined.
The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the
second circuit in N.L.R.B. v. Universal Camera Corp., 179
F.2d 749, 754, held that it is not uncommon "to believe
some and not all" of a witness' testimony.
UNITED TERRAZZO PRECAST CO. 615
Wes Taylor is the foreman who committed numerous
8(a)(1) Acts. He is very hard of hearing. His testimony is
garbled and he demonstrated confusion in many of his
answers. He either could not hear the questions, asked of
him or did not understand them. His answers were often
not responsive to the questions asked. From the welter of
confusion that developed in his testimony he did say that
his boss, Badum, never spoke to him about the Union and
he (Taylor) never mentioned the Union to any employees.
His testimony was fumbling, unclear, and confused. I do
not credit Taylor and fmd him to be an incredible witness.
The Company's defense is that the permanent layoff of
the four employees was due solely and only because of
adverse economic conditions and that the layoffs were
effectuated to reduce overhead. Badum testified that there
was a drastic reduction in sales in the 6 months immediate-
ly preceding December 1974, which necessitated a reduc-
tion in the precast employee complement:
1974 1973
June $26,000 July $43,783
July 1,188 Aug. 21,501
Aug. 34,758 Sept. 57,669
Sept. 12,153 Oct. 38,860
Oct. Nov. 6,300
Nov. - Dec. 2,500
Dec.
$74,099 $170,613
These figures show a reduction in business of $96,514
from the year's previous comparable period. As the figures
indicate there were no orders in the Precast operation
during October, November, and December. The work
performed by the employees during the month of Decem-
ber 1974 was 'generated by orders from previous months.
Also during the period of poor business and no business
the cost of raw materials increased enormously. The puce
of cement increased 33 percent; steel increased from 7, 8,
and 9 cents per pound to 28, 29, and 30 cents per pound;
marble chips,' which are an important component of
terrazzo, increased from a 1972 price of $3035 per ton to
$65-$68 per ton. Baduin testified that in order to meet a
$1,000 payroll weekly his company had to produce $3,000
worth of orders and products each week. There is no doubt
that business fell off sharply in the last 6 months of 1974
from the same period in 1973 due to the nationwide slump
in the construction industry. Also, on the week following
the layoffs the Precast operation was reduced from a 40-
hour week to a 32-hour workweek.
Badum testified that in August 1974, poor business
required that he reduce the working force by the elimina-
tion'of six employees. Similarly, the problems facing him in
December 1974 required a reduction in the number of
employees of four men. He further stated that no
employees were added to the payroll since December. In
3 100 NLRB 702, 715 (1973).
fact three additional employees have been discharged thus
making a total of seven employees who were let go in
December.
Baduin said that he first learned of union activity on
Friday, December 6. Word to this effect was given to him
by an employee, Preston High, who had been a truckdriver
and consolidator. High was under the "influence" when he
told Badum that there had been meetings in hotels by
employees of Precast and the Consolidated companies. The
next time he heard about union activities came about when
the NLRB field examiner, his attorneys and Baduin met to
discuss a copy of an NLRB charge filed on behalf of the
four alleged discriminatees on December 11, 1974. He also
stated he had had no discussions with Wes Taylor about
the Union. I do not credit Baduin.
I doubt that this last statement is correct. There were
only a handfull of employees (approximately 9) left in the
plant. Without placing undue reliance of the Board's small
plant doctrine it appears that the activities of the four
employees, who were discharged attended a union meeting
on November 22 and had all signed union cards on
November 7. These activities of necessity involved conver-
sationand discussion which enveloped some if not all of
Respondent's employees. It is reasonable to infer, as I do,
that Respondent secured information about the union
activity of these employees. Avon Convalescent Center, Inc.3
The Company's defense is that the permanent layoff of
the four employees was due solely and only to adverse
economic conditions. The layoffs took place in order to
reduce overhead. There was a drastic reduction in sales in
the United plant in the 6 months immediately preceding
December 1974, which necessitated a reduction in the
Precast employee complement. However, no satisfactory
explanation was offered by Respondent for the basis of
how it selected the employees to be eliminated. Apparent-
ly, there was no understandable seniority plan in opera-
tion. Baduin said that one employee who worked continu-
ously for 16 years had seniority. Also, and a matter of
paramount importance, is whether or not an employee was
related to either Baduin or Gibbs. Nepotism was a primary
consideration after which skill and ability played a part in
the selection.
Respondent places heavy reliance on its defense on its
assertion that Baduin had no knowledge of the union
activities of the four employees. However, I credited the
testimony of David Turner that Wes Taylor knew about
their union activities as early as the middle of November
1974. According to Turner, whom I credit since his
testimony was given in a straightforward and convincing
manner, Wes Taylor told him that employees who joined
the Union would be laid off. In this conversation Taylor
mentioned "Otha and Roy Lancaster and some others."
The other instances of independent 8(a)(l) activity
engaged in by Wes Taylor show that he knew of the union
campaign, made threats against those active unionists and
in February 1975, Taylor told employee Cedric Carpenter
that in his opinion, "the reason Otha and them got laid off
was because of their union activity." Later Taylor told
Carpenter, "You don't have to tell me who was in it, I
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
know who is in it." I credit Carpenter's testimony. He
spoke confidentially, without hesitation and believably.
It is elementary as a matter of law that the actions and
knowledge of Wes Taylor, an undemed supervisor, are
imputed to his principal, Baduin, and are binding on
Respondent.
It should be noted that Wes Taylor mentioned as
dischargees the exact four men who were the nucleus of the
Union's organizing campaign. If this is a coincidence it is a
remarkable one. Based on the above, I am persuaded that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and
I so find. I did not find that Respondent also created the
impression of surveillance because this allegation is based
on one isolated remark made by Wes Taylor some months
after the December discharges.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By terminating the employment of Otha Lancaster,
Roy Lancaster, William Moore, and William Simmons and
failing to reinstate them because they engaged in union
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees as to their union mem-
bership and threatening them with discharge for engaging
in union activities Respondent violated the Act within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1).
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and from like and
related unfair labor practices, and that it take the
affirmative action provided for in the recommended Order,
below, which I find necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged
Otha Lancaster, Roy Lancaster, William Moore, and
William Simmons , it will be recommended that Respon-
dent be ordered to offer them immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and" privileges, and that Respondent make each of
them whole for any loss of pay that he may have suffered
by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that which
he would normally have earned from December 3, 1974, to
the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, if
any, during such period, to be computed in the manner
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 130 NLRB 716
(1962).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER4
Respondents, United Terrazzo Precast Co., Advance
Tile Company, Inc., and Consolidated Tile & Terrazzo
Corporation, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging union activities of its employees by
discharging any of its,employees or by discriminating in
any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating our employees as to their union
sympathies and activities.
(c) In any, like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Otha Lancaster, Roy Lancaster, William
Moore, and William Simmons, immediate and full re-
instatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, discharging if necessary any employees
hired to replace them, and make them whole for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered as a result of the unlawful
termination of their employment, in the manner set forth in
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, timecards, personnel records, and all other
records necessary for the determination of the amount of
backpay due and the rights of reinstatement i'nder the
terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its place of business in Raleigh, North
Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 11, after being signed by
an authorized representative of Respondents, shall be
posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
as to any unfair labor practices not specifically found
herein.
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order , and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
5 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
UNITED TERRAZZO PRECAST CO. 617
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage union activity of our
employees by discriminatorily discharging our employ-
ees or in any other manner discnminating,against them
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner,
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to engage in union activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees-as to their
union sympathies and activities.
WE WILL offer Otha Lancaster, Roy, Lancaster,
William Moore and William Simmons reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights, and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for
any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them, discharging if necessary any persons
hired to replace them.
UNITED TERRAZZO PRECAST
Co., ADVANCE TILE
COMPANY, INC.,
CONSOLIDATED TILE &
TERRAZZO CORPORATION