Wellman Industries

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 21, 1973

201 N.L.R.B. 958 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Wellman Industries and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 11-CA-4811 and 11-CA-4875 February 21, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On September 20, 1972, Administrative Law Judge John M. Dyer issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting 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 brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions 1 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. 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 Respondent, Wellman Industries, Johnsonville, South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 1 In adopting the Administrative Law Judge 's conclusion that the discharge and disciplinary action were discnminatonly motivated , we note that the Respondent 's questioning of employees Wilson , Walker, and Graham was designed to ascertain whether they were involved in union activity, and not whether they had interfered with production in violation of the Company' s rule . It is apparent that Respondent made no attempt to discover whether or not any employees had, in fact , broken the Company's rule against solicitation interfering with production, rather , Respondent was interested only in curbing union solicitation DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN M. DYER , Administrative Law Judge : The Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the TWUA or the Union , filed the charge in Case 11-CA-4811 on February 15, 1972,' and the charge in Case I1-CA-4875 on March 29 , which allege that Wellman Industries , herein called the Company or Respondent, discharged Harry Graham on February 8 and gave a 4- hour disciplinary layoff on February 8 and a written disciplinary warning on February 9 to Isaac Wilson and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. On April 4 the Regional Director of Region 11 issued a consolidated complaint alleging in addition to the requisite jurisdictional and commerce facts that Respondent dis- charged Graham and laid off and gave a warning slip to Wilson in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. On May 26, an amendment to the consolidated complaint was issued alleging that employees had been interrogated on February 8, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), by Re- spondent's Shift Supervisor Paul W. Posten. Respondent's answer of April 12 admitted the requisite jurisdictional and commerce facts and that it had dis- charged Graham, and given a disciplinary layoff and warning to Isaac Wilson, but denied that it had violated any sections of the Act. At the hearing Respondent denied that its supervisor, Paul Posten, had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to argue orally at the hearing held on June 5 and 6 in Conway, South Carolina. General Counsel and Respondent have filed briefs which have been considered. The principal question in this case is whether Respon- dent disciplined Graham and Wilson for violation of a company rule or because they engaged in protected union activities. As set forth below, I find that the discipline was not imposed for violation of a company rule but because Graham and Wilson engaged in protected union activity and therefore that the disciplinary actions violated Section 8(axl) and (3) of the Act. There is some dispute as to whether a blue union authorization card was solicited and returned in the plant or only passed from one employee to another and whether employee Walker was present at the time. Whether the conflict is resolved according to General Counsel's or Respondent's version is immaterial since the determination of violation of the Act remains the same because the decision is based on the fact that the employees did not break Respondent's rule about solicitations. Upon the entire record in this case, including my evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses based on the evidence received and my observation of the witnesses' demeanor and the nature and manner of their responses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at Johnsonville, South Carolina, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of wool and synthetic fiber products. At its plant Respondent annually receives directly from points outside South Carolina, raw materials valued in excess of $50,000, and annually sells and ships its finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of South Carolina. Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. i Unless otherwise stated all of the events herein took place during 1972 201 NLRB No. 146 WELLMAN INDUSTRIES 959 Respondent admits and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. H. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background The Company operates on a three-shift basis with shift supervisors over various departments or sections. Paul Posten is the shift supervisor over "A" shift in the bale press department, supervising some nine employees includ- ing Walker, Graham, and Wilson. Gale Hughes is a shift supervisor on the "A" shift over the scouring department, also supervising some nine employees. The Company admitted the supervisory capacity of both of these men and, as Posten testified, he alone decided on the discipline to impose on both Graham and Wilson, although he checked his decision with a superior in Respondent's supervisory hierarchy. The three bale presses in Posten's department receive finished goods and pack them into a bale for shipment. Depending on how well Respondent's cloth production or the bale presses are running , each press may get sufficient cloth for a complete bale in 4 or 5 minutes. If, however, the operation is not running smoothly, or the lines are temporarily down, or stopped, it is possible that a bale press may not turn out a bale more than once every half hour or hour. These bales usually weigh from 600 to 900 pounds after they are banded and removed from the bale press. They are then moved on a handcart to a scale where they are weighed. The weight is recorded on a ticket attached to the bale as well as on a piece of cardboard which makes up part of the bale bottom. Parts of the ticket are removed so that other parts of the Company may be notified of the weight of the bales. The bale is then moved into the stacking area, some 30 or more feet from the scale, where it is dumped and held until it is removed for shipment. A pencil is used to mark the tickets while a "Magic Marker" is used to mark the bale cardboard. Normally two men operate a bale press with one of the men usually acting as the weighmaster, weighing the bale and marking the tickets and the other doing the moving. On occasions, depending on the weight of the bale, two or possibly three men may be needed to remove the bale from the handcart. Respondent has a personnel department under the supervision of Employment Manager Michael L. Powell. According to Powell, employees are first interviewed in his department and if there is an opening he notifies the appropriate department head who then interviews the applicant. If he wishes to hire the person, he then tells Powell or someone in his section and the person is hired and his papers completed. Powell testified that it has been standard procedure when a person is being hired to give him a copy of Respondent's "Policy Manual" which contains Respondent's rules and regulations. Respondent offered testimony that supervisors explain this policy manual to the individuals if it has not been explained to them before they start to work. According to Powell, Isaac Wilson's interviews were completed on February 3 and he was employed on February 5 and Powell said he personally handed Wilson a policy manual since his secretary was then absent . Wilson testified that he received no such manual , and in fact denied even talking to Powell , saying he was interviewed only by the shift department head , Billy Douglas. Respondent maintains that Graham was discharged and Wilson was disciplined for their actions which Respondent states broke its rule entitled "Solicitations" found on page 10 of the Policy Manual. It states , "There shall be no solicitation of any kind on Company property by persons not employed by the Company. There shall be no solicitation of any kind by employees of the Company which in any way interferes with the production of the Company." It was stipulated by Respondent and the General Counsel that this rule appears on its face to be a valid rule. The legitimacy of the rule was therefore not contested by General Counsel or the Charging Party in this proceeding and for the purposes of this case its legitimacy will not be questioned . This rule is phrased differently from most rules which the Board has considered and there are conceivable circumstances which would bring its validity into question since it is silent as to company or personal time and as will be discussed below there is an area of difficulty regarding Section 7 rights and company rights. B. The Events of February 8 and 9 Isaac Wilson began work for the Company on February 5 and testified that late on February 7 before starting work at midnight , Early Walker gave him a blue union authorization card in the Company's parking lot. Walker went on into the building while he stayed in the parking lot and filled out the card . He said Walker told him to either give it to Harry Graham or himself. Walker corroborated this testimony. That morning Walker and Wilson were working on bale press 2 while Graham was working on bale press 1. There is agreement by all parties that bale press 1 was not working properly that night and was producing small bales very slowly sometimes one an hour or half hour with the line occasionally being shut down . Graham was therefore helping other men by making out weight tickets and helping unload bales in the stacking area , all of which, as Supervisor' Posten agreed , was proper productive activity under the circumstances. Wilson testified that after he and Walker had removed a bale from bale press 2 they weighed it and while Wilson was moving it towards the stacking area, Walker told him to change the weight on the cardboard since it had been written down incorrectly . Wilson took a "Magic Marker" with him to make the change and went to the stacking area where Graham helped him unload the bale. Wilson, Walker, and Graham testified that Walker did not come down into the stacking area but went back towards bale press 2 ; but, in contradiction to this testimony, in Graham's March 28 affidavit to the Board he stated that he was in the stacking area with Wilson when Early Walker came back and all three of them helped unload the bale. As they were starting to return towards the bale presses from the stacking area , Wilson sought to hand Graham a blue union card which Graham initially refused noticing that Supervisor Gale Hughes was coming towards them. When 960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Wilson persisted Graham took the card and put it in his shirt pocket just about the time that Supervisor Hughes came up even with them. Later during the shift Wilson was called into Supervisor Posten's office and asked if he had signed a union card, which he admitted, and whether Graham or Early Walker had asked him to sign a union card and was told that if he would give a statement to that effect that nothing would happen to him. Hughes had come into the office and a statement concerning the card was written which Wilson refused to sign saying it was not true. Thereafter Graham was called into the office and asked whether he had given Wilson a union card and noting Hughes' presence Graham replied that he had, testifying that he was involved and did not want to get Walker involved, even though Walker had been the one who had given Wilson the card. When Walker was called into the office he denied giving the card to Wilson. Graham was called back to the office a short while later and Posten said he was being terminated for soliciting on company time. Graham punched his clock and left. Wilson was called in and Posten told him to go home for the rest of the shift, that he was not fired but that he ( Posten) was going to talk to his superior and would tell him the next night whether he was fired or not. On the following day Wilson was given a written "Notice of Warning" by Posten which he refused to sign.2 Wilson was restored to work having lost 4 hours' pay as a result of his disciplinary layoff. During Wilson's conversation with Posten on February 9, the policy manual was explained to him by Posten. When he was discharged on February 8, Harry Graham was given a notice of termination which gave as the explanation: "The above employee was observed by Gale Hughes soliciting another employee, Isaac Wilson, to sign a union card during working hours in a working area. He admitted to Paul Posten and Gale Hughes that he had given Isaac the card and asked him to sign it. This is a direct violation of company policy." This notice of termination is signed by Paul Posten and there is a notation that Graham refused to sign it. Gale Hughes testified that he had been on a break in the cafeteria about 1:30 a.m. and on his way to his department he came through a door behind bale press 3 and around the scale, and as he was walking back through the stacking area from a distance of 30 feet he saw Wilson using a pencil while Walker and Graham were standing nearby. He states that they did not notice him until he was about 20 feet away from them and as he continued walking towards them he saw Wilson attempt to hand a blue card to Early Walker who refused it. Wilson then attempted to hand the card to Harry Graham who initially refused it but then took it from Wilson as he was within 4 or 5 feet of them. Hughes testified that he stopped and Graham put the card in his pocket and that he looked at Graham and turned around and they both walked away. Hughes was positive that the blue card was a union 2 This "Notice of Warning" states: "Isaac was seen signing a union card, during working hours, in a working area , by Gale Hughes on 2/8/72. This employee is supposed to be at his work area and working at all times unless he is on his scheduled break . Any personal matters must be taken care of on his own time and not during working hours . This employee is still on his authorization card even though he did not see the writing on it , identifying it by size and color . He continued walking on through the stacking area to the other end and to his department. After making his rounds in his department he called Supervisor Paul Posten and told him what he had seen . Posten later asked him to come to the office while Wilson was there and , as he testified, he wrote out what he had observed and Wilson was asked to sign it but refused stating that he did not want to get anybody in trouble. Paul Posten corroborated that Hughes told him the story and that he called in Wilson and then Graham and Walker as they related. The parties are in agreement that Graham admitted to Hughes and Posten that he had given a card to Wilson and received it from him. Graham and Wilson insist that they were not asked if this occurred on company time and property, while Posten and Hughes insist that Graham and Wilson agreed the incident occurred on company time and property. Posten testified that Graham was fired for soliciting on company time, and that was the reason he gave Graham for his discharge. Respondent counsel argued at the close of General Counsel's case that the complaint as to Graham should be dismissed since Graham had admitted that he misled the Company's supervisors by telling them that he had given an individual a union card and received it back on company time. Posten testified that the statement written out by Hughes on February 8 was torn up after Wilson refused to sign it and that he wrote out another statement from memory on the following day which again Wilson refused to sign. He testified that he did not tell Wilson that Wilson could be fired if he signed a union card on company time. Posten also testified that he did not discharge Wilson because Wilson had not been soliciting but had been the solicited person and for that reason received a lesser discipline. He also testified that Wilson was not doing his work properly because he should have immediately gone back to the press after dumping the bale in the stacking area . Asked whether it would be a violation of company rules to talk to anyone on company property , Posten answered "It could interfere with his job, yes." Respondent counsel elicited testimony as to what could happen to a bale press if it was left unattended . There was no evidence that a bale press was improperly left unattended . The testimony established that if the bale press was improperly left unattended too much cloth might be packed into the bale so that it would be too big to strap (or band) which might necessitate stopping the press and removing excess cloth and then banding the bale, perhaps necessitating shutting down the line until such was done. C. Conclusions It seems that the description of the events as related by Hughes is more plausible in that it would appear extraordinary for Wilson as a new employee to have probationary period and I have explained to him that one more warning of this nature will subject him to discharge." The warning continues in a different handwriting with initials apparently that of a higher ranking supervisor , Al Holder, and a date of 2/14/72 as follows: "Employee admitted that he had signed the card " WELLMAN INDUSTRIES received a union card from Walker on the parking lot and not to have returned it to Walker since they were working together at the bale press rather than waiting several hours and then attempting to give it to Graham. The contradiction between Graham's affidavit and the oral testimony of Graham, Walker, and Wilson as to Walker's presence in the stacking room also gives me pause. Whether the events happened as Walker, Wilson, and Graham testified or as Hughes testified, it is clear that there has been no interference with the Company's production. As the events are related by Hughes, he was some 30 feet away from the three men when he saw Wilson write something while standing near a bale. He continued walking and was about 20 feet away when the three men first noticed him and when Wilson sought to hand a blue card to Walker and was within 4 or 5 feet of Graham when Graham finally took the card from Wilson. The 30-foot distance would mean that Hughes took some 10 to 12 steps toward the three men before he was even with them and stopped. He would have taken three or four steps toward them before they saw him and would have taken another five to eight steps before he was even with Graham as Graham received the card. Hughes' testimony was that he was walking continuously from the time he entered that department behind bale 3 until he stopped by Graham and then went on through the stacking area. This means that the events occurred within the time it would take a man to walk 10 or 12 steps. Brisk, fast walking at an army cadence of 120 steps a moment would have meant that the sequence of events took some 6 seconds. If Hughes was walking very slowly the time consumed would be at most from 10 to 20 seconds. It was solely on the events that Hughes saw in that timespan that Respondent predicates the alleged rule breach and the discipline meted out. Hughes did not inspect the condition of the bale presses or whether production on them had been interrupted, having come into the room from behind bale press 3 and having walked directly through past the scales and into the stacking area without observing the presses. Supervisor Posten made no inspection , examination , or inquiry as to whether any production had been interfered with at bale presses I or 2. The only reference Respondent made to production was to elicit testimony of what could have happened to the bale presses if they had been improperly watched. Respondent did not offer any testimony that the presses were improperly attended or that there was any interference with production on that shift. It is clear that Respondent through its supervisor, Posten, and with the agreement of the supervisors above him, felt that the company rule against solicitations was breached by the mere soliciting or passing of a union card between employees, whether such actions in fact interfered with production or not. But as stated above the rule does not forbid any or all solicitations by employees during working hours along the 3 Emphasis supplied 4 In Talon, Inc, 170 NLRB 355, it was determined that there was no no- solicitation rule at the time of the discharge and the rationale there is equally applicable in this case where I find that the stated rule was not 961 line of the"working time is for work" rule. Respondent's rule expressly states that "There shall be no solicitation of any kind by employees of the Company which in any way interferes3 with the production of the Company." There- fore any solicitation by employees which does not interfere with the Company's production is not prohibited by Respondent's rule . There is no question under this rule of whether the solicitation might interfere but rather whether it did interfere . The Company's evidence in regard to interference is purely speculative and no inquiry was made by it to determine whether there was any actual interfer- ence with production. It is therefore clear that the rule upon which Respondent relies was not in fact broken by Walker, Graham, or Wilson and Respondent could not reasonably have felt it was under the facts before it. Consequently the discipline handed out by Respondent was not because there had been any interference with the Company's production, disci- pline, or efficiency, but rather (taking Respondent's version of the facts) was exacted because these employees engaged in minimal union activity in a work area during worktime. Therefore the discipline was meted out for the specific purpose of interfering with and curtailing such legitimate union activity. Again I repeat this is not a case where Respondent has a valid rule prohibiting solicitation on company time on company property in the "work time is for work" category. This is the manner in which Respondent applied its rule but this is not Respondent's rule . Respondent's employees are entitled to rely on the plain meaning of Respondent's published rule. As the Board stated in its decision in Welsh Company of the South, Inc., 190 NLRB No. 42 , in affirming Trial Examiner James Foley: "A discharge for engaging in union activity in a working area during working time is an unfair labor practice if the evidence discloses that it stemmed from hostility to union activity , and therefore to union membership , a consequence of it, and not from interference with or disruption of efficiency , discipline or production." 4 Respondent's actions here have no other basis than interference with this minimal union activity based on hostility toward the Union . Indeed Supervisor Posten testified that he was hostile toward the Union and that it was his decision to effect the discipline. I therefore find and conclude that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Harry Graham on February 8 and giving employee Isaac Wilson a 4-hour disciplinary layoff on February 8 and a written notice of warning on February 9. Respondent's reserved motion to dismiss the complaint made at the close of General Counsel's case and renewed again in its brief is denied. General Counsel alleges that the inquiries made of Wilson, Walker, and Graham by Supervisor Posten on February 8 as to whether they passed a union card, signed it, or solicited it were unlawful interrogation of these three employees since no Respondent agent told them of rights broken. In The J. L Hudson Company, 198 NLRB No . 19, and Daylin, Inc., Discount Division d/b/a Miller 's Discount Dept. Stores, 198 NLRB No. 40, the Board found that the no-solicitation rules were invalid, but again the rationale is applicable since here the rule as stated was not broken. 962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to refrain from discussing the Union. It is true that Posten and possibly Hughes asked Wilson, Walker, and Graham what had occurred in the stacking area and whether a union card had been solicited, passed, or received. However, I disagree with General Counsel's interpreta- tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in this instance. Interrogation of an employee concerning his union sentiments, actions, or feelings are protected by the Act where the interrogation is unlawful and without a proper purpose or proper safeguards. In the instant case, however, Respondent's supervisor was investigating a supposed breach of Respondent's operating rules to determine whether any of the parties were guilty of a rule violation stipulated by the General Counsel to be valid. In this case any violation of the Act in regard to 8(a)(1) is part of the res gestae and is encompassed in the 8(a)(3) and (1) violations which I have found and is not a separate and distinct 8(a)(1) violation which needs remedial action. I therefore dismiss paragraph 6(a) of the complaint. III. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with Respondent' s business operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent, Wellman Industries, unlawfully discharged Harry Graham in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act on February 8, 1972, I recommend that Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights and privileges. Respondent shall make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of its discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum equal to that which he would have received as wages from the date of his discharge, until he is fully reinstated less any net interim earnings. Backpay is to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Having also found that Respondent Wellman Industries unlawful- ly gave a 4-hour disciplinary layoff and a warning notice to Isaac Wilson, I recommend that Respondent rescind the warning notice to Isaac Wilson whole by payment to him of his wages for the 4-hour disciplinary layoff together with interest as specified in the Isis case above. I further recommend that Respondent make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to 5 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by 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 facilitate checking the amounts of backpay due and any other rights of Harry Graham and Isaac Wilson. Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Wellman Industries is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminatorily discharging Harry Graham and discriminatorily disciplining Isaac Wilson on or about February 8 and 9, 1972, and by not reinstating Graham to his previous position or rescinding the warning notice and making Wilson and Graham whole , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(axl) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law , and the entire record in this proceed- ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 5 ORDER Respondent, Wellman Industries, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or giving disciplinary layoffs or warnings to employees engaged in lawful union activity in order to discourage them and other employees from engaging in lawful union activity. (b) In the same or similar manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, to bargain collectively with representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Harry Graham reinstatement in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Make Harry Graham and Isaac Wilson whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and the rights and privileges accorded to Harry Graham and Isaac 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 WELLMAN INDUSTRIES 963 Wilson as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (d) Respondent shall revoke and remove from Isaac Wilson's personnel record the notice of warning which it issued to him on February 9, 1972, as provided in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (e) Notify immediately Harry Graham, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. (f) Post at its Johnsonville, South Carolina, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent 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. (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.? 9 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 7 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing , within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which the Company, the Union, and the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board participated and offered evidence , the National Labor Relations Board found that we violated the law and ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL offer Harry Graham full reinstatement together with all of his rights and any backpay due him. WE WILL rescind the warning notice and 4-hour layoff given to Isaac Wilson and pay him for the time he lost. WE WILL NOT discharge, lay off, refuse to hire or rehire , or give warning notices to any employees because they engage in lawful union activities. WE WILL NOT in the same or a similar manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist the Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, to bargain concertedly with representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain union members. Dated By WELLMAN INDUSTRIES (Employer) (Representative) (Title) We will notify immediately Harry Graham if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1624 Wachovia Building, 301 North Main Street, Winston- Salem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone 919-723-2300.