Dixie Machine Rebuilders Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 1, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 881 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DIXIE MACHINE REBUILDERS INC. 881
Dixie Machine Rebuilders Inc. and District Lodge
155 of the International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases
26-CA-7825-1 and 26-CA-7825-2
April 1, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND TRUESDALE
On January 2, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Claude R. Wolfe issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge2 and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Dixie Machine
Rebuilders, Inc., La Vergne, Tennessee, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
I Exceptions were not filed to the Administrative Law Judge's dismiss-
al of 8(aX3) allegations with respect to Jackie Noland.
2 The 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 credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLAUDE R. WOLFE, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me at Nashville, Tennessee, on
November 15, 1979,' pursuant to charges timely filed
and complaint issued June 20. The complaint alleges the
unlawful transfer and discharge of Jackie Noland, the
discharge of Larry Gray, and independent violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Respondent Dixie Machine Rebuilders, Inc.,
denies the commission of unfair labor practices.
' All dates herein are 1979.
248 NLRB No. 116
Upon the entire record and my observations of the de-
meanor of the witnesses as they testified, I make the fol-
lowing 2:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Tennessee corporation with an office
and place of business located in La Vergne, Tennessee,
where it is engaged in the rebuilding of machines.
During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the com-
plaint, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its busi-
ness operations, purchased and received at its La
Vergne, Tennessee, location, products valued in excess
of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State
of Tennessee, and sold and shipped products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from this location to points lo-
cated outside the State of Tennessee. Respondent is now,
and has been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Union3 is now, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In February 19794 Larry Gray called the Union, at the
request of another employee, and arranged a meeting.
The meeting was held on February 12. Gray, Jackie
Noland, and other employees signed union authorization
cards at the meeting. Thereafter the Union and Respon-
dent proceeded to a Board-conducted representation
election on March 30, which the Union won.
Shortly before March 30, Plant Manager Verban
called employee Howell into his office to talk to him
about his work. Plant Superintendent Lawson was also
present. I do not believe Verban's testimony that he does
not recall such a meeting. Both Howell and Lawson re-
called the meeting. According to Howell, Verban said
that certain people would have to be let go if the Union
came in, and nothing else was said. Lawson testified that
Verban told Howell that Respondent had a good organi-
zation and did not feel it needed union representation,
and if Howell had any "specifics" Verban would like to
hear them. Lawson does not recall the statement attribut-
ed to Verban by Howell. I find it difficult to believe that
Verban only made the statement testified to by Howell,
and conclude it is probable that something additional was
said, but I also recognize that Howell's testimony was
adverse to Respondent's interests and contrary to the tes-
timony of Verban. Verban, as the highest ranking official
at Respondent's facility, is in a position to retaliate
against Howell. "Having thus much to lose, [his] testimo-
ny, adverse to Respondent, was in a sense contrary to
2 Post-trial briefs were waived, and the General Counsel and Respon-
dent orally argued the case.
3 District Lodge 155 of the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers. AFL-CIO.
' All dates are 1979
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[his] own interests and for this reason not likely to be
false."5 I therefore credit Howell."
Lawson admits that in March he asked Noland and
Howell to remove hats with union insignia on them.
They refused and continued to wear them without fur-
ther incident. Lawson gives as reason the fact that the
hats are not part of the company uniform. The discour-
agement of wearing union insignia violates Section
8(a)(l) of the Act, and Lawson's asserted reason for his
request and the fact that employes continued to wear the
hats do not require a different finding. 7
The Case of Larry Gray
Larry Gray was hired by Respondent as a toolcrib at-
tendant in October 1978. Plant Superintendent Lawson
instructed him on his duties. I conclude from a compos-
ite of the testimony of Gray and Lawson, which is large-
ly complementary, that Gray was told to put the toolcrib
in order; issue and receive tools, rental uniforms, and
shop towels; perform some shipping and receiving work;
care for the vending machine; and perform other tasks as
they became needed. He was not assigned to drive the
truck doing miscellaneous pickup of supplies, as were
others who worked in the toolcrib before and after he
did.
I credit Gray's testimony that when he received a
raise in November 1978 Verban expressed satisfaction
with his work and told Gray he would like to talk with
Lawson about the possibility of bringing Gray into the
office. Verban repeated, on or about February 5 and
Gray got another raise, that they were satisfied with his
work and "kicking around" the idea of getting Gray in
the office. Gray was never transferred to the office nor
does the evidence support a conclusion that Verban seri-
ously considered Gray for that work. Verban was a lo-
quacious and expansive witness given to volunteering ex-
planatory self-serving commentary, and I am persuaded
that his statements to Gray were in tune with Verban's
personality and designed to tell Gray something he
would like to hear without any intention of following
through on the promise implicit in Verban's comments.
At the time of the February raise, which I find
Lawson recommended to Verban at Gray's suggestion
but was not received until Gray personally asked Verban
for it, Gray had been assigned purchasing duties for ex-
pendable items in the toolcrib under the direction and
approval of Purchasing Agent Connell. Gray continued
in these additional duties until his separation on March
30.
Although Gray signed a union card on February 12,
there is no evidence that Respondent knew he did. His
support of the Union was first made obvious to Respon-
dent during the week prior to the March 30 election
when he daily wore a cap with union insignia on it.
The Board-conducted election on March 30 was held
between 11:30 a.m. and noon. Shortly thereafter, about
2:30 p.m., Gray was called into Verban's office. Gray,
° Federal Stainless Sink Div. of Unarco Industries, Inc., 197 NLRB 489,
491 (1972).
a Verban's statement was not alleged as an unfair lator practice, and
would be covered by the remedy herein in any event.
I Regal Tube Company, 245 NLRB No. 124 (1979).
Verban, and Connell, who was listening in from an im-
mediately adjacent office, described the ensuing conver-
sation.
Gray's version: Verban told him that due to a decline
in business and "this union mess" Gray could not be a
full-time toolcrib attendant, but could work in the tool-
crib plus take over truck driving and janitorial work
then being done by one Tommy Dill. Verban continued
that, although they had discussed the possibility of Gray
becoming part of the office staff before "this union
mess," it would now never happen. According to Gray,
Verban then asked what Gray would like him to do, and
Gray responded, "Whatever you like." Verban stated he
had no alternative but to terminate Gray right then, and
Gray did not protest.
Verban gave two different versions. He first related
that he told Gray he would be relieved of his paperwork
and would go back to working in the toolcrib plus doing
trucking, cleaning, and anything else designated by su-
pervision. To this Gray allegedly responded, "I can't,"
an answer which he repeated to two further statements
by Verban. The first was what did Gray mean by "I
can't," and the second was Verban's comment there was
not enough work for a full-time toolcrib attendant and
Gray must do additional duties. Finally, Verban told
Gray that he had a choice of doing all these things or
being laid off. Gray said, "I'll take the layoff," and asked
for a letter to that effect, which Verban promised to and
did give that day. Verban was recalled as a witness and
then testified that he called Gray in and told him, "Now,
after all this is settled and the Union is representing the
Company, now we're going to have to get back to the
duties and the schedule that we must have in order to
maintain our business." Verban says that he told Gray
there was no need for a full-time toolcrib man; he
wanted Gray to take on some of the other duties that he
was performing when he was first hired; and he was
going to have to combine truck driving with the toolcrib
and the other duties Gray had. Gray's purported re-
sponse was "whatever," to which Verban says he an-
swered by pointing out Gray had "slacked off" on his
duties for a month and a half and by posing the alterna-
tive of performing all these duties or getting laid off.
Gray said he would take the layoff, and asked it be put
in writing.
Connell claims he heard Verban give Gray the option
of working as toolroom attendant plus other duties or
being let go, and Gray said he could not do it.
Verban's second version substantially agrees with
Gray's recitation. Gray's testimony on the meeting was
more internally consistent and believable than that of
Verban, and is in fact corroborated in part by Verban. I
find that Gray's version is the most credible of the three.
The letter of termination given to Gray about 3:30
p.m. gives the reason for termination as lack of available
work for a toolcrib attendant only on a full-time basis.
Verban avers that Respondent was so busy it had to add
20,000 square feet of working area, and Gray credibly
testified that plant expansion started in or about Decem-
ber 1978 and would include a larger toolcrib with more
duties for him to perform. it is obvious that a decline in
business was not, as Verban told Gray it was, a reason
DIXIE MACHINE REBUILDERS INC. 883
for the attempted change in his duties. Similarly, I dis-
count the testimony of Verban, uncorroborated by either
documentary evidence, specific instances, or by Connell
for whom Gray did the work, that Gray's paperwork on
purchases was unsatisfactory and Verban had talked to
Gray about removing this work from him because it was
not well done. I find that Verban expressed satisfaction
with Gray's work in November 1978 and February 1979,
and that he did not raise poor paperwork to Gray on
March 30 as a reason for posing him the alternatives. I
regard Verban's testimony that he did as a testimonial
afterthought designed to bolster Verban's position. Ver-
ban's allusions to Gray "slacking off" in his work for a
month and a half and turning over vending machine
work to others so he could sit in the toolcrib are discred-
ited. Verban never supported these claims with any pro-
bative evidence other than his own ipse dixit, and neither
Connell nor Lawson, Gray's immediate superiors who
were more closely in touch with the quality and quantity
of Gray's work, testified in support of the poor work
contentions of Verban, nor is there any showing they
complained to Verban about his work. It appeared to me
as he testified that Verban was grasping at straws to jus-
tify his actions vis-a-vis Gray.
The Union won the March 30 election, and Verban
had earlier told Howell that certain people would have
to be let go if the Union came in. Respondent, and I con-
clude Verban, knew Gray was a union adherent by
virtue of his wearing a union cap prior to the election.
The timing of the confrontation by Verban of Gray
within a few hours of the Union's victory suggests cause
and effect. The raising of a decline in business, when
there was none, to Gray as a reason for the proposed
change in his duties, and raising of the purported short-
comings in Gray's work as a defense, although not stated
to Gray as a reason, unsupported by prior warnings or
corroborative testimony from Gray's immediate supervi-
sors who were available and testified on other matters,
both smack of pretext. It is well settled that pretextuous
reasons warrant an influence of unlawful motivation. I
draw that inference. Moreover, it is transparent from
Verban's reference to the "union mess" that the prime
cause of Verban's action was the advent of the Union.
Penalizing an employee because either the Union was ac-
tively organizing or was successful in a Board election is
inherently destructive of important employee rights and
thus requires no proof of antiunion motivation.9 Further,
it is reasonable to conclude in the circumstances that
Verban's action was designed to implement instanterthe
prediction made to Howell by retaliating against a union
adherent, and I conclude it was. For these various rea-
sons I find that Verban announced a change in duties to
and discharged Larry Gray because of his union affili-
ation, and because the Union won the election and there-
by violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. I am well
aware that the mere fact that an employee abandons a
job because he is dissatisfied with it is not sufficient to
support a finding of a constructive discharge, even in the
' E.g., Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation (Iron King Branch) v.
N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966); Sinclair d Valentine Compa-
ny, 223 NLRB 1043, 1046 (1976).
D N.LR.B. v. Great Dane Trailers Inc., 388 U.S. 26 (1967).
presence of other unfair labor practices. ' This, howev-
er, is not, strictly speaking, a constructive discharge case.
Although the evidence warrants a finding that Verban
changed Gray's work assignments and killed any hopes
Gray might have based on Verban's earlier statements,
for promotion to office work for unlawful retaliatory
reasons and thereby placed Gray in a position of facing
more onerous duties with no chance of improvement,
which would have led to a constructive discharge had
Gray bowed to Verban's pressure and elected to leave,
Gray left the choice of alternatives up to Verban who
quickly made one. Verban's choice was discharge on the
spot without further ado. This was Verban's choice, not
Gray's. Gray's comment, "Whatever you like," is not a
rejection of the conditions imposed by Verban, but an
expression of willingness to perform those duties if
Verban so chose. Although it may appear unusual that
Gray made no protest, I am persuaded that he did recog-
nize the "handwriting on the wall" that Verban had his
mind made up and was not likely to be deterred from
whichever course of action he selected.
The Case of Jackie Noland
Noland was employed by Respondent as a machine
tool rebuilder from June 1978 to May 9, 1979. He signed
a union authorization card on February 12, 1979, and at-
tended union meetings and wore union emblems prior to
the March 30 election at which he served as the Union's
observer.
On Thanksgiving day, November 23, 1978," Verban
warned Noland that he was roaming around the shop too
much and could not be doing his work while so doing.
Noland had received a 25-cent raise on November 20,
and I do not credit his testimony that he got the raise
after the warning. In March 1979, Noland was asked by
Lawson why he was spending so much time repairing a
machine for the Eaton Corporation. Noland was having
trouble with the slide alignment on the machine. Lawson
found that Noland had ground a taper on the machine
and therefore could not properly fit the slide. When
Lawson asked why Noland had not discovered this earli-
er, Noland said he had pressing personal problems and
left the plant more than an hour before quitting time. I
credit Lawson that Noland had not, as he claims, previ-
ously told Lawson of his need to leave early.' 2 As a
result of Noland's early leaving, Respondent had to
assign another man to finish the job.
In early April, Verban assigned to Noland a Bullard
machine for repair, told Noland he was not satisfied with
his work on the Eaton Corp. machine, and further told
him that Verban needed somebody who would stay at
his work station and do the job and not wander around
the plant. The first step in repairing the machine was
steam cleaning it, which Verban told Noland to do prior
to repairing it. Noland concedes this was part of the
work required, that this was not the first time he had
o See Panscape Corporation, 231 NLRB 693 (1977).
' Noland first stated "about Thanksgiving time," but then agreed with
General Counsel that it was in fact that Thursday.
12 Wherever the versions of Lawson and Noland conflict I credit
Lawson who was the most impressive, direct, concise, and believable
witness in the case.
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
worked in the steamroom, he had previously worked in
the steamroom as much as a week at a time before, and
there was nothing unusual about the assignment. He fur-
ther concedes that the Bullard was the only machine he
worked on in the steamroom in April. I do not credit his
testimony, which is neither logically consistent with his
concessions or inherently probable in the circumstances,
that Verban told him to work in the steamroom until fur-
ther notice, or that Lawson told him it was ridiculous
that he was cleaning machinery and took him out of the
steamroom and put him back on the machine he was re-
building. The latter claim is totally incredible on its face
because he was cleaning the same machine he was as-
signed to rebuild. The General Counsel's contention that
Noland was discriminatorily assigned to work in the
steamroom by Verban in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence,
and I shall recommend this allegation be dismissed.
Over the last 3 or 4 weeks he was employed, Noland
was rebuilding a Kearney-Trecker mill. This included
disassembling the machine and installing new parts.
Noland assisted in ordering the new parts and there is no
evidence that he then protested too many new parts
were ordered. Several days before Noland was dis-
charged, another employee told Lawson that Noland had
the job in the late stages of completion and had not in-
stalled the new parts. Lawson investigated and particu-
larly noted that Noland had not installed a new lead
screw. He asked for an explanation, and was told by
Noland that the new part was not the same as the old.
Lawson checked, found it was the right part, and direct-
ed Noland to install it. Prior to installing the new lead
screw, Noland offered that it would take time to disas-
semble the machine and he felt the old parts were satis-
factory. Noland did install the lead screw, and it fit. I
credit Verban that the disassembly and reassembly
caused by Noland failing to install the new parts the first
time around consumed some 3 or 4 days.1" Lawson told
Verban of Noland's performance on the Eaton job and
Kearney-Trecker mill before Noland was discharged.
On May 9, Verban called Noland to his office and told
him that he was going to terminate Noland because he
was dissatisfied with his work. Noland cut off Verban's
explanation of the reasons for the discharge by stating
that Verban was wasting his time. According to Noland,
he did so because there was no reason to lIsten to criti-
cism when he was going to be terminated. I credit the
testimony of Verban that Noland said the Union had him
a job any way. I also credit Connell that Noland said, as
he left, that it made no difference because he had an-
other job to go to that afternoon. 14
At Noland's request, Verban furnished him with a
letter detailing the following reasons for his discharge:
1. Inability to perform duties as directed.
'3 Noland's testimony that he cannot recall, although he cannot deny,
that he was told to disassemble the machine and put in new parts struck
me as transparent prevarication delivered in an unconvincing manner, as
did his failure to recall that he said it would take more time or being
asked why he had not put in new parts and failing to give an explanation.
14 I note that Noland was referred by the Union that very day t an-
other employer for whom he was still working at the tirie of the hearing.
2. Late arrivals to plant and early leaving of
plant without notice or without calling in to plant
supervision to inform them of absences.
3. Repeated warnings by plant supervision as to
leaving your designated work station for the pur-
pose of visiting other employees and engaging in
conversations, thereby, causing delay in work pro-
duction, of other employees.
Reasons 1 and 3 are fairly supported by the foregoing
evidence. As to reason 2, Noland was 2 hours late for
work on January 7; 25 minutes late on February 19; left
1-1/2 hour early on March 21;' 5 3 hours late on May 1;
and a half-hour late on May 4. I do not credit Noland's
claim on direct examination that he always asked permis-
sion when he was going to be absent or leave early, or
that he always called in when he was going to be late.
His early leaving on March 21, the incident of the Eaton
Corp. machine, was without permission, and he admitted
that he did not call in on the occasion of the late arrival
of some 2 hours' 6 even though part of that time was
spent at an auto parts house which presumably had a
telephone. I am persuaded that this record supports
reason 2.
1 conclude and find that the causes advanced for No-
land's discharge have not been shown to be pretextual,
and the General Counsel has not shown by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that Noland's discharge was in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(3) and/or (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Dixie Machine Rebuilders, Inc., is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Larry Gray because of union suc-
cess in a Board election and in order to discourage union
activities among its employees, the Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By discouraging the wearing of union insignia by its
employees, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act.
5. By telling an employee that its adverse action
against him was caused by union activity, the Respon-
dent has violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
6. The unfair labor practices set forth hereinabove are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. It has not been shown by a preponderance of the
credible evidence that the discharge of Jackie Noland
was violative of the Act.
THE REMEDY
In order to remedy the unfair labor practices found
herein my recommended Order will require the Respon-
dent to cease and desist from further violations, to post
an appropriate notice to all employees, and to offer un-
conditional reinstatement to Larry Gray to his former
i5 The incident of the Eaton Corp machine.
16 I conclude this was his estimate of the 3-hour late arrival on May I.
DIXIE MACHINE REBUILDERS INC. 885
job, and make him whole for all wages lost by him as a
result of his unlawful discharge, such backpay and inter-
est to be computed in the manner prescribed in F W
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950); and Florida
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 17
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act I hereby issue the
following recommended:
ORDER'
The Respondent, Dixie Machine Rebuilders, Inc., La
Vergne, Tennessee, its agents, officers, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any
other labor organization, by discharging employees, or
otherwise discriminating in any manner with respect to
their tenure of employment or any term or condition of
their employment.
(b) Discouraging the wearing of union insignia by its
employees.
(c) Telling employees that Respondent's adverse action
against them is caused by union activity.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, res-
taining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Larry Gray immediate and full reinstatement
to his former job without prejudice to any seniority and
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed by him.
(b) Make Larry Gray whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's unlaw-
ful discharge of said Larry Gray. Said backpay shall be
computed in the manner 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, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
"See, generally., Iis Plumbing & Heating Co.. 138 NIRB 716 (1962).
'In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National L.abor Relations Board, the findings,
conlclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as pro vided in Sec
102 48 of tile Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the 3Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order. and all objections herelo shall he
deemed waived for all purposes
(d) Post at its La Vergne, Tennessee, facility, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." ' Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 26, after being duly signed by Respondent's au-
thorized agent, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive 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.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Regional 26, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An agency of the United States Government
WE WIL NOT discourage membership in or activi-
ties on behalf of District Lodge 155 of the Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
by discharging any of our employees or in any other
manner discriminating against them in regard to their
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
WE WIL. NOT threaten our employees with repri-
sals because they engage in union activities.
WE WIl. NOT discourage our employees from
wearing union insignia.
WE WIi. NOT in any like or related manner inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL. offer Larry Gray immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job, without prejudice to
the seniority and other rights and privileges enjoyed
by him, and make him whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of his discharge, with
interest computed thereon.
DIXIE MACHINE REBUILDERS, INC.
ig In the event that this 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."