Oak Hill Improvement Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 300 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Oak Hill Improvement Company and Professional
Embalmers' Union No. 9049 of San Francisco,
AFL-CIO. Cases 20-CA-4086 and 20-CA-4298
March 13, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On September 28, 1967, Trial Examiner James
R. Webster issued his Decision in the above-enti-
tled proceeding, finding that Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. The Trial Examiner also found that Respon-
dent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of
the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following addi-
tions:
1. Pursuant to charges filed on May 23 and June
13, 1966, by the Union , a complaint was issued in
Case 20-CA-4086 on July 21, 1966, alleging that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
interrogating and threatening its employees about
their union activities, and violated Section 8(a)(3)
by discharging employee Jean D. Patterson and
constructively discharging employees Lynn Moyle
and Robert Weinrick because of their union activi-
ties. On November 7, 1966, Respondent executed
and sent to the Regional Director a proposed settle-
ment agreement for the settlement of Case
20-CA-4086. On November 8, 1966, the Union
' The Respondent excepts to many of the Trial Examiner 's credibility
findings It is the Board's established policy, however, not to overrule a
Trial Examiner' s resolutions with respect to credibility unless , as is not the
filed charges in Case 20-CA-4298, alleging that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by discharg-
ing employee Snyder on November 5, 1966. On
February 21, 1967, the Regional Office informed
Respondent that the Regional Director would ap-
prove the settlement agreement in Case
20-CA-4086 only if it were amended to provide
that the General Counsel would have the right to
introduce or rely on the events in Case
20-CA-4086 in establishing the background and
circumstances of Respondent's conduct in Case
20-CA-4298. The amendment not having been ac-
cepted, the Regional Director, on March 21, 1967,
issued a consolidated complaint (without first
withdrawing the complaint in Case 20-CA-4086),
alleging that Respondent (1) violated 8(a)(1) and
(3) as alleged in the original complaint (Case
20-CA-4086); (2) violated 8(a)(3) by discharging
employee Forrest C. Snyder; and (3) committed
other violations of 8(a)(1) in addition to those set
out in the original complaint.
On June 9, 1967, Respondent filed a motion to
dismiss or withdraw consolidated complaint, to can-
cel notice of hearing, and to order settlement
agreement approved with the Regional Director.
On June 21, prior to the opening of the hearing,
Trial Examiner Royster denied Respondent's mo-
tion in its entirety. At the hearing, the Respondent's
renewal of the Motion was denied by Trial Ex-
aminer Webster.
In its exceptions and brief, the Respondent again
raises the issues presented in this motion, contend-
ing that:
(a) It was "irretrievably prefjudiced" by the con-
solidated hearing in that "the decision that the
discharge of Snyder was an unfair labor practice
could never have been made except for the fact
that the other alleged acts of Respondent occurring
5 months earlier were utilized to prejudice
Respondent's defense in the Snyder matter."
(b) The "consolidated complaint was null and
void" since at the time of its issuance "the original
complaint was still outstanding," and National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations do
not authorize the issuance of a consolidated com-
plaint without the prior withdrawal of the original
complaint.
(c) The Respondent 's defense to the Snyder Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) charge was prejudiced by the Regional
Director's failure to approve the proposed Settle-
ment Agreement.
We find these contentions to be without merit for
the following reasons:
case here, the preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that
the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB
544, enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C.A. 3)
170 NLRB No. 29
OAK HILL IMPROVEMENT COMPANY
As to (a), we note- that Section 102.33 of the
Board 's Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedures, Series 8, as amended, specifically
authorizes the General Counsel to consolidate cases
when he "deems it necessary in order to effectuate
the purposes of the Act or to avoid unnecessary
costs or delay . . . . " The Regional Director, acting
on behalf of the General Counsel, cited this section
as authority for consolidating the cases. We find the
Regional Director's action to have been proper and
within the scope of his authority.
As to (b), we note that although the Board's
Rules and Regulations do not state that a con-
solidated complaint may be issued while an original
complaint is outstanding, neither do they prohibit
it. Further, even if the Regional Director's inad-
verent failure to withdraw the original complaint
before issuing the consolidated complaint could be
considered as error, the error was cured by his later
withdrawal of the original complaint. Moreover,
Respondent does not state, nor can we perceive,
how it could have been prejudiced by this inadver-
tence of the Regional Director.
As to (c), we note that the proposed settlement
agreement by its very terms stated that it was "sub-
ject to the approval of the Regional Director." If a
Regional Director were obligated to approve such
an agreement once so proposed, there would be no
reason for the inclusion of such a condition in the
agreement. Indeed, the wisdom of including such a
condition is demonstrated by these very cases,
reflecting that Respondent committed further re-
lated unfair labor practices after a settlement agree-
ment had been proposed.
2. The Respondent also contended at the hear-
ing and in its exceptions and brief that the Board
should not take jurisdiction over Respondent's
operations as a mortuary and cemetery on the
ground that such industry is "even more heavily
regulated and even more local in character than the
horse racing industry" over which the Board has
not asserted jurisdiction. We find this contention to
be without merit. The Board has long exercised ju-
risdiction over cemetary and mortuary operations
and the 'Respondent has offered nothing which
would warrant a change in the Board's practice.2
3. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent
committed numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1).
Respondent does not except to some of these
findings. Respondent does, however, except to
other Section 8(a)(1) findings by the Trial Ex-
aminer on the grounds that they were not specifi-
cally alleged in the complaint and are not sup-
2Ingelwood Park Cenietary Association, 147 NLRB 803, Funeral
Directors of Greater St. Louis, Inc, 125 NLRB 241, enfd. as modified 293
301
ported by record evidence. Although Respondent is
correct that some of the Trial Examiner's 8(a)(1)
findings were not specifically alleged in the com-
plaint, they were all fully litigated at the hearing.
Further, we find that the record evidence supports
the Trial Examiner's findings. Accordingly, we
adopt all of the Trial Examiner's Section 8(a)(1)
findings.
4. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent
violated 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging Patterson
and constructively discharging Moyle and Weinrick
on May 18, 1966. The Respondent does not except
to such findings, and they are hereby adopted.
However, in connection with the constructive
discharges of Moyle and Weinrick, Respondent ex-
cepts to the Trial Examiner's further finding that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by
terminating its embalmer-apprentice program.
Respondent contends that there is no allegation in
the consolidated complaint to this effect and,
further, that the finding is not supported by record
evidence. We disagree. Paragraphs VII(b) and IX
of the consolidated complaint clearly allege that the
termination of the embalmer-apprentice program
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1). Further, we find
that the record evidence supports the finding of the
Trial Examiner to that effect, and it is hereby
adopted.
5. Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's
finding that it violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by
discharging employee Snyder on November 5. In its
brief, Respondent argues at length that Snyder was
discharged, not because of his union activities, but
because of his numerous errors and omissions as
demonstrated by the memoranda of reprimand is-
sued to him. The Respondent argues further that
General Manager Hocking, who initiated Snyder's
discharge, had no knowledge of Snyder's union ac-
tivities. We find these exceptions to be without
merit . Before becoming the general manager,
Hocking was a-vice president of Respondent and a
member of Respondent's board of directors; he oc-
cupied these positions when the union campaign, in
which Snyder was very active, commenced and
when Respondent committed the numerous other
unfair labor practices found herein. Also, Hocking
admitted that he knew of the union activity at
Respondent's establishment. Further, before
Hocking recommended to the board of directors
that Snyder be discharged, he consulted Supervisor
Callaway who not only knew of Snyder's union ac-
tivities but who also illegally interrogated Snyder
F.2d 437 (C A 8), W. W. Chambers & Co., 124 NLRB 984, Riverside
Memorial Chapel , 92 NLRB 1594.
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
about his union activities and committed other un-
fair labor practices found herein..
In all the circumstances , and in light of Respon-
dent's hostility to union organization as reflected by
the numerous unfair labor practices committed by
Respondent , we find, in agreement with the Trial
Examiner , that Snyder would not have been
discharged but for his union activities , and that his
discharge was therefore violative of Section 8(a)(3)
and` (1) of the'Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Oak Hill Improvement
Company, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegation of the
complaint found by the Trial Examiner not to con-
stitute an unfair labor practice be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES R. WEBSTER, Trial Examiner: This case,
with all parties represented, was held in San Jose,
California, on June 28, 29, and 30, 1967, on a con-
solidated complaint of the General Counsel and
answer of the Oak Hill Improvement Company,
herein called Respondent. A complaint was issued
in Case 20-CA-4086 on July 21, 1966, and on
March 21, 1967, a consolidated complaint was is-
sued in Cases 20-CA-4086 and 20-CA-4298. The
consolidated complaint was issued on charges filed
on May 23, June 13, and November 8, 1966, and
alleges that Respondent discharged two employees
and changed job assignments of two other em-
ployees and interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act, herein called the Act, thereby violating Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The General Counsel and Respondent have filed
briefs herein and they have been carefully con-
sidered. Upon the entire record and the observation
of witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a California corporation with its
place of business in San Jose, California, and is en-
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaged in the operation of a cemetery under the
name of Oak Hill Memorial Park and a mortuary
under the name of Oak Hill Mortuary. During the
past year Respondent made the following gross
sales of goods and services: preneed property sales,
$149,815; cemetery property and services,
$398,631; mortuary services, $245,703; monument
shop, $90,461; totalling $884,610. During the same
period, Respondent made purchases from outside
the State of California of marble, bronze, and
caskets totalling $18,702.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Professional Embalmers ' Union No . 9049 of San
Francisco , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
1. Whether Respondent discharged Jean Dennis
Patterson on May 18, 1966, because of his union
activities.
2. Whether Respondent terminated its embalmer
apprentice program on May 18, 1966, and changed
the job assignments of Robert Weinrick and Lynn
Moyle because of their union activities.
3. Whether Weinrick and Moyle were construc-
tively discharged on May 20, 1966.
4. Whether Respondent discharged Forrest C.
Snyder on November 5, 1966, because of his union
activities.
5. Whether by statements of supervisors of
Respondent, Respondent interfered with,
restrained, or coerced the employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
B. Sequence of Events Prior to May 18, 1966
1. The organization of the employees
In April 1966, employees in Respondent's mor-
tuary made contact with the Union. At that time
there were five employees-two embalmer-coun-
selors and three apprentice embalmers. The em-
balmer-counselors - were Bill Ray and Forrest
Snyder, hired July 1960 and July 1962, respective-
ly; the apprentices were Jean Patterson, Robert
Weinrick, and George Hansen, hired May 1964,
July 1964, and February 1965, respectively. On or
about May 1, 1966, Lynn Moyle, a former ap-
prentice embalmer of Respondent, originally em-
ployed in 1962, returned from military service and
was reemployed, and George Hansen was ter-
minated.
OAK HILL IMPROVEMENT COMPANY 303
On April 25, 1966, Jean Patterson contacted a
union representative. A meeting of the five em-
ployees was held on April 27, 1966, in the apart-
ment of Weinrick to ascertain if all were in accord
on the matter of union representation. A union
representative was not present. The employees
agreed on the matter, and on May 2, 1966, Patter-
son called Union Representative Porter regarding a
meeting. A meeting was held on May 4, 1966, in
Weinrick's apartment with Respondent's five em-
ployees attending, except that at this meeting
Moyle was present rather than Hansen. At this
meeting all five employees signed union authoriza-
tion cards.
A third meeting was held on May 9, 1966, and
employees of other mortuaries were invited to at-
tend.
In the middle or latter part of April 1966, Wein-
rick and Respondent's Assistant General Manager
Richard Callaway had a conversation in Respon-
dent's lunchroom regarding unions; they were
discussing the matter relative to Respondent's yard-
men, gardeners, and gravediggers. Callaway stated
that he had heard about a union and that he felt
possibly Jean Patterson, apprentice embalmer in
Respondent's mortuary, would be the one who
would introduce it if it happened; he told Weinrick
that if he heard anyone mention union he would
personally see that they were out the door.'
2. The Union 's request for recognition ; May 12,
1966
Lynn Moyle and asked him if he was in this also,
and Moyle replied that he was. Lee stated as they
filed out the door, "Thanks for your loyalty."
Later that morning Callaway called Weinrick
into his office and asked him if there was something
he wanted to talk to Callaway about. Weinrick
replied in the negative and asked Callaway what the
question had been that Lee had asked. Callaway re-
peated the question and Weinrick replied that he
felt the same as the other employees. Callaway told
Weinrick that he could not understand how he
could belong to such a godless organization that
was communistic inspired. As Weinrick left, Cal-
laway told him that his office was open if anyone
else wanted to talk to him.'
Lynn Moyle was employed by Respondent from
July 19, 1962, until approximately May 1, 1964, at
which time he left to enter military service. He
returned to employment with Respondent on ap-
proximately May 3, 1966. He attended the union
meetings of May 4 and 9, 1966. Moyle was an ap-
prentice embalmer, and on ' his return on May 3,
1966, he had 2 months remaining in his apprentice
program. On the afternoon of May 12, 1966, Moyle
met Callaway in the parking lot of Respondent.
Callaway called him over to his car and asked him
if he had anything to talk to him about. Moyle
asked about what and Callaway replied, "About
what had happened today." Moyle replied in the
negative and Callaway told him that he thought he
(Moyle) should talk to him and that his office
would be open until 5 p.m.
On May 11, 1966, the Union, by its Attorney Ed-
ward Pinkus, wrote Respondent that the Union had
written authorizations from each of Respondent's
five embalmers and that the Union requested
recognition and a meeting for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining. This letter was received by
Respondent on May 12, 1966. At or about 9 a.m.
that morning the four employees on duty were
called into the office of General Manager Berwyn
Lee; Snyder was off duty this day. With Lee in his
office were Assistant General Manager Callaway
and Wayne Wade, mortuary manager. Lee in-
formed the employees that he had received a letter
from the Union stating they had authorized the
Union to represent them, and he wanted to know if
this were true. Each of the employees except Wein-
rick answered that it was. Lee replied, "Well, that
is all I wanted to know. Thank you. You can go
now." As they started out the door he pointed to
' Snyder corroborates the testimony ; he entered the lunchroom on the
occasion during the conversation and heard Callaway's concluding remark.
Callaway does not make a direct denial and I credit Weinrick 's testimony.
Callaway testified that their conversation did not involve the Embalmers'
Union. He was asked.
Q Did you tell Mr Weinrick that you would dis6harge anyone that
joined the union?
A. No. In the first place, I don't have that power.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Weinrick that you knew Mr. Patterson was be-
hind the Embalmers ' Union coming to Oak Hill and that you would
3. May 13, 1966
On May 13, shortly after 9 a.m., Snyder and
Weinrick were called into Callaway's office. "May
12 had ,been Snyder's day off. Callaway was very
upset on this morning as he had learned that a
union meeting had been held at the apartment of
Weinrick on the same evening that a Bible study
was scheduled to be held in Callaway's home.
Weinrick and Snyder and other employees usually
attended. Weinrick or his wife had called Callaway
and told him that their children were sick, that
Weinrick would sit with them and that his wife
would attend the Bible study.
Callaway stated to Snyder and Weinrick, "Why
would you two want to join a godless organization
like the Union, communistic-inspired?" The em-
ployees replied that they did not feel that this was
so. Callaway continued, "Well, you will be asking
discharge Mr Patterson if the union came in?
A. I had no knowledge of the union This conversation with Mr
Weinrick was a long time before we ever got involved with a union
2 Regarding his reference to the Union as a godless organization and as
communistic inspired , Callaway testified that "We had that conversation
and that term was used but not in that context. It was a religious conversa-
tion." Callaway 's testimony on this conversation is not clear and direct and
I credit Weinrick's testimony Other witnesses on other occasions at-
tributed similar comments to Callaway.
304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for , something that doesn't belong to you,
something 'beyond Oak Hill's ability to pay."
Snyder then stated, "Since you brought religion
into this I will tell you that my Bible says that the
laborer is worthy of his hire," also, "The ox that
treads the mill shall not be muzzled." Callaway
asked what he meant by this and Snyder replied
that a man should be able to seek or expect a living
from what he does, and he asked if it were right for
two of the men to be receiving $600 a month and
another man receiving $400 a month for the same
work. Callaway then jumped to his feet and hit' his
desk with his fist and said, "That Jean Patterson:
Call him in here." Weinrick stated that Patterson
was off that day. Callaway started to cry, and as he
walked but of the room he stated, "You fellows
have until noon to make up your mind. "3
Snyder and Weinrick then met with Lynn Moyle
and Bill Ray, and they discussed what they should
do. They decided to talk to Lee about the matter.
Ray, Weinrick, and Snyder went in to see Lee and
Moyle came in later. Snyder started the conversa-
tion by telling Lee that there was nothing personal
in what they were doing and that because Lee had
been so friendly with them it had made their deci-.
sion to ask for union representation very difficult.
Lee told Snyder and Weinrick, "I thought I saw
faith in action in you two but this disappointment,
confidentially, makes me feel like throwing the
Bible in the trash can." The employees gave him
reasons why they had asked for union representa-
tion. Lee asked them why they had not come to see
him and stated that his door is always open. Snyder
gave reasons why they had not been in to see him.
Lee also told them, "Well, I need five embalmers
like I need a hole in the head. All we need is two
embalmers and cemetary counselors." He told
them that if they had a change of mind to come
back and see him. He also stated, "I wish I hadn't
listened to, Wayne Wade and let Mr. Hansen go in-
stead of Patterson."
One morning on or shortly before May 13, 1966,
Callaway spoke to Harold Moyle, father of Lynn
Moyle. Harold Moyle was employed by Respondent
in ground maintenance. Callaway asked him if he
was aware of the union activity that was going on
among the morticians, and if he felt that the Com-
pany had been fair to his son after his return from
the service in that it gave him his job back and gave
him a raise in pay. Callaway asked him if he could
talk to his son and impress upon him the mistake he
was making in getting involved with the Union.
Harold Moyle replied that his son was 21 years of
age and could make his own decisions.
4. May 16 and 17, 1966
On Monday, May 16, 1966, Lee asked Ray if
anyone had had a change of heart. Ray replied "not
' Callaway testified that, "Not to my knowledge" did he call the Union
an ungodly organization , but that he became upset on learning of the union
meeting on the night of the Bible study, and that "this is where the conver-
sation of ungodly action or unchristian" action occurred. I credit the
as yet." Lee told him that if there was a change, he
would like to know before that afternoon. On that
afternoon Ray went to Lee and told him that he
had decided to go with the Company. Lee said that
he was glad, that he could not promise him
anything but he would probably be better off, and
that if he (Ray) heard anything to let him know.
On Tuesday, May 17, 1966, Callaway called
Moyle into his office and told him that he could not
understand why he had done this; that since he had
returned from the Army they had treated him fairly
and this had more or less pulled the rug out from
under the Company; and that Respondent had
plans for Moyle and since he had done this, it had
shocked Respondent. He asked Moyle how he, a
Christian, could associate with an ungodly or-
ganization such as the Union which was com-
munistic inspired, and stated that he had never met
a union leader that was a Christian.
At about 4:30 that afternoon Callaway went to
Respondent's crematorium where Moyle was work-
ing and asked Moyle if he had changed -his mind,
and told him that he had 15 minutes to make up his
mind . During this conversation the telephone rang,
Callaway answered it, and informed Moyle that he
was wanted in Lee's office.
Lee called Weinrick, Moyle, and Snyder into his
office and asked them if they had changed their
minds. Each replied that he had not. Lee then
stated, "All right," and looked at Weinrick and
Moyle and said, "I want to see you two men in this
office tomorrow morning along with Jean Patter-
son."
C. May 18, 1966; the Discharge of Patterson and
Termination of the Apprentice Program - -
On Wednesday, May 18, 1966, Weinrick, Moyle,
and Patterson were called into Lee's office. Snyder
was not on duty this day. Callaway and Wade were
also present . Callaway asked who was in charge of
the crematorium and Moyle replied that he was.
Callaway then stated that a door and a window had
been left open on previous occasions and that this
should not occur. He mentioned that it had been
brought to the attention of management that the
men were not happy with their work at the crema-
torium.
Hansen had been running the crematory prior to
the return of Moyle. On Moyle's return on May 3,
1966, the three apprentices, Weinrick, Moyle, and
Patterson, were scheduled to work in the crema-
torium on a weekly rotating basis . Callaway had
told them that by doing this, Respondent could
avoid terminating one of them. The apprentice em-
balmers, however, preferred to' work in the mortua-
ry. -
The employees disagreed that they were
dissatisfied with the arrangment at the crematorium
testimony as quoted above.
4 Lee died on October 29, 1966 , testimony of statements by him has
been carefully scrutinized; as to some of his statements , other representa-
tives of management were present.
OAK HILL IMPROVEMENT COMPANY 305
as a temporary arrangement . Lee then entered the
conversation and stated that there is apparently a
problem , that the Company was going to bring in a
man to work full time in the crematory and bring
the apprentices back to the mortuary , and that this
would leave Respondent with a one -man surplus.
He informed Patterson that he was the surplus man.
Lee told Patterson that it was the understanding
when he was hired that he was taking Moyle 's place
because Moyle had gone into the Army and that on
Moyle 's return Patterson would be let go. Patterson
stated that that was not his understanding. Lee
replied "Regardless , this is the way it is going to
be." Both Weinrick and Hansen were hired after
Patterson , and Hansen , who worked in the crema-
tory, was terminated when Moyle returned.
Patterson was asked if he wanted to complete the
day or to leave at that time . He decided to
complete the day. Patterson -left the room . Lee then
informed Weinrick and Moyle that there were
going to be some policy changes and that as of 8
a.m. the following morning the embalmer ap-
prenticeship program was going to be terminated;
that they would not be discharged but would be
kept on as cemetary salesmen and would have
nothing to do with mortuary work . Lee told them
that Ray would - be the senior embalmer and that
they were to show him respect and any insubor-
dination would be cause for their immediate dismis-
sal; that they -were not going to be a big happy fami-
ly any longer, and that it was to be all work and no
friendship.
On Wednesday , May 18, 1966 , Lee told Ray
there were going to be a few changes made and that
Respondent was discontinuing the apprenticeship
program , and that he was going to see how loyal
Ray was.
At or about 11:30 that morning , Callaway came
into the ' office where Weinrick was -working and
asked him to fill out a cemetary salesman applica-
tion form because they wanted to have it in the
noon mail . Weinrick stated that he had an outside
service to bring to the cemetery and. that he could
not complete the form at that time . Callaway stated
that he would take over the service for Weinrick,
which he did . Later Callaway asked Weinrick if he
had completed the application form , and Weinrick
replied that he had not as he wanted to call the
union representative before signing anything. This
was Moyl®'s day off and he was called at home to
come , to the company office to complete the ceme-
tery salesman application form . Moyle looked at
the-form and told Callaway that he wanted to con-
tact the Union or someone first . Later Weinrick
and Moyle got together on the matter. Weinrick
told him that Union Representative Porter had ad-
vised him not to sign the form , and they so in-
formed Callaway . Callaway told them to take the
forms , home and think about it and bring them back
the next morning.
The next morning, Thursday, May 19, 1966,
Weinrick informed Callaway that he had not signed
the form and Callaway told him that, it was not
possible for him to work unless he completed the
form. Callaway told him "I am not firing you; if you
want to work, then this will have to be completed."
Weinrick stated that he was not quitting; Callaway
asked him if he would like to take the day off
without pay, and he and Moyle did this.
On Friday morning, May 20, 1966, Weinrick and
Moyle went to Respondent and asked for their
checks. Callaway asked them if they were quitting
and they replied that they were not. He stated that
they were not being fired and that they would be
paid on payday just like the other employees.
At this time both Moyle and Weinrick had about
2-1/2 to 3 months yet to serve on their 2-year ap-
prenticeship program.
When Snyder returned to work on Thursday,
May 19, 1966, after his day off, he ,met Lee, Cal-
laway, and Wade in the office. Callaway told him
that Weinrick and Moyle had refused to go to work
that morning and had refused to sign applications
for licenses as cemetery salesmen. Callaway asked
Snyder to sign an apprenticeship paper on Wein-
rick, as Snyder was Weinrick's supervising em-
balmer. Snyder was told that Respondent was
discontinuing the apprenticeship program, Snyder
said that he could not sign the paper until he talked
to his attorney. On the next morning Snyder re-
ported that he was ready to sign the paper.
On May 20, 1966, Lee told Snyder that Respon-
dent had just taken George Hansen back to work
and that he would appreciate it if Snyder would not
discuss the Union with him. Among other things
Lee told him that they had always been like one
happy family. He asked Snyder, "If this thing goes
through, do you think we can ever be like that
again?" He also stated that, "On one occasion we
made a personal loan to Mr. Weinrick and didn't
even charge him interest for it. Do you think we
could ever have relationships like this again? For
myself, and I can say it for my wife and family as
well, if you fellows go through with this I doubt that
we will ever darken the church door again."
D. The Discharge of Forrest C. Snyder
After the discharge of Patterson and after Moyle
and Weinrick were taken off the apprentice pro-
gram , Ray and Snyder had all of the embalming
work to do. Hansen was rehired on May 20, 1966,
and worked in the crematory and as `a funeral ar-
ranger ; Clarence Hamsher was employed on May
31, 1966, as a funeral arranger; and William Ginger
was employed on September 6, 1966, to work in
the crematory. Prior to this time Ray, and Snyder
had enjoyed every other weekend off, but following
May 18, Snyder and Ray did not have another
weekend off until Ray quit on September 5, 1966,
and Snyder was terminated on November 5, 1966.
350-999 0 - 71 - 21
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Also, at this time Lee commenced a practice of
giving employees written reprimands on all omis-
sions and ' errors. Throughout 1966 there is no
record of any Employee receiving a written repri-
mand , other than Snyder and Ray . An embalmer
was employed on October 17, 1966, and another
on November 21, 1966. Weinrick, Patterson, and
Moyle, who were terminated in May 1966, were
reinstated as apprentice embalmers in October or
November 1966.
Snyder was discharged on November 5, 1966,
and the reason assigned by Respondent was the er-
rors and omissions recorded against him during the
period of June to' November 1966, as follows:
1. June 7 , 1966-errors on funeral forms
On June 7, 1966 , Snyder received a memoran-
dum from Mortuary Manager Wade to the effect
that the family in a funeral case handled by Snyder
had ordered four certified copies of a death cer-
tificate and Snyder had specified only three on the
arrangement folder. He was reprimanded for this
error.
On the same day, June 7, 1966, Snyder received
his second memorandum . This memorandum was
from Callaway and called Snyder's attention to two
errors that he made on June 4 , 1966, in filling out
an authority-to-cremate form . One error was as to
the date of service and the other was as to the type
of service. Snyder testified that no inconvenience
was caused to the family involved or to Respondent
because of these two errors he made on the
authority-to-cremate form.
2. June 16, 1966-arrangement for minister
The next memorandum received by Snyder was
dated June 16 , 1966. In this memorandum he was
accused of failing to note in the funeral arrange-
ment papers in a particular case the fact that he
had made arrangements for a minister . During the
absence of Snyder from the premises of Respon-
dent , a call was received in connection with this fu-
neral and an inquiry made as to whether a minister
had been obtained . As the file indicated no ar-
rangements for a minister , the calling party was so
informed. Later Snyder told Callaway that a
minister had been contacted ; Callaway then called
back the person who had made the inquiry and-in-
formed him that this had been done.
Snyder testified -that a brother of the deceased
had made arrangements for the minister and had in-
formed him of this fact . Snyder had not made the
arrangements but had called the minister and told
him the time of the funeral service . The telephone
call made to Callaway was apparently from some
member of - the family other than the one with
whom Snyder had dealt. In this case the death and
the embalming occurred in the area of Reno or
Lake Tahoe and a funeral director there handled
the service . The burial was to take place in Respon-
dent 's cemetery with a commital service-that is a
religious service at the graveside.
3. July 18 , 1966-breakage of glass casket sealer
The next memorandum received by Snyder is
dated July 18, 1966, and is addressed to him and
Bill Ray. This incident involves the breakage of a
glass casket sealer . Snyder was helping Ray remove
a glass sealer from a coach for installation on- a
casket just prior to a funeral. Snyder heard a ping
and noticed a mark of about 2 inches on one side of
the glass . He considered this to be a scratch and not
a break. They took the sealer into the mortuary and
placed it in a small room next to the chapel.: After
the funeral and after the body had been viewed,
Snyder and Ray picked up the glass to put it on the
casket. As they did so it broke, but was retained by
a metal frame . Callaway was standing near the
casket and as they approached, Ray asked what
they were to do. They placed the glass on -the
casket and with Callaway's help were inserting
some of the screws. Callaway stated that they could
not use this glass and that they' had to get a new
one. He made a telephone call and arranged for a
new glass to be delivered . Snyder had nothing more
to do in connection with this funeral. About 4:45
that afternoon he received a memorandum criticiz-
ing him and Ray for not notifying management as
soon as they knew that the sealer for the casket was
damaged . He was informed in the memorandum as
follows: "Your attempt at -deception by proceeding
to install the broken glass, causes deep concern to
management . It was necessary to delay the burial,
take the sealer to the glass company for repair" and
hold up the work of the yard personnel. Oak Hill
cannot, and will not tolerate any type of cover-up,
procedure . Not bringing to the attention of
management this , or any other type of serious con-
duct, will be cause for immediate dismissal."
Upon receiving this memorandum Snyder went
to Wade and told him that it was absolutely wrong.
Wade told him not to talk to him but to talk to Lee
or Callaway. Snyder then went to Lee and Callaway
and told them what had happened. Lee told him,
"We will go by the chain of command. Don't come
to me with that . Why don 't you talk to Mr. Wade?"
Snyder then replied that he had spoken to Wade
and Wade had sent him to see Lee. Lee then- said,
"You have asked for this. Black is black and white
is white . From now on you fellows are going to
walk the straight and narrow chalk line." Snyder
stated that he had tried to be honest with Lee and
Lee replied, "You don't know what the word,
`honesty, ' means . From now on my office door is
closed to you." Thereafter, Lee would not speak to
OAK HILL IMPROVEMENT COMPANY
Snyder. On occasions when Snyder would greet
Lee, Lee would not respond:
4. August 3,-1-966-incomplete embalmment
On August 3, 1966, Snyder received his next in-
terdepartment memorandum. He was informed that
an extreme amount of abdominal gas had formed in
a case that he had embalmed and that if this condi-
tion had not been detected and relieved, purging
would have occurred. The presence of abdominal
gas indicates that the body has not been completely
aspirated during the embalming process. When gas
begins to form and the body distends, further
aspiration is necessary. If gases continue to form
without aspiration, purging can occur. Purging is
the flowing of embalming fluids from the body as it
is pressed out or forced out by the accumulation of
the gas. Incomplete embalming such as occurred
here is rare but can occur. In this case the gas was
discovered prior to the funeral and was removed
and there was no interruption in the funeral service.
5. September 7, 1966-casket too large for crypt
Snyder's next memorandum is dated September
7, 1966, and refers to an incident which occurred
on August 24, 1966. In this memorandum he was
informed that he had not advised the family of the
deceased that the Episcopal clergy prefers the
casket to be closed during and after the funeral ser-
vice and that he neglected to measure the size of
the family crypt, after being advised to do so, to be
sure that the casket would fit in the crypt. In this
case Snyder sold a casket to the family involved
and realized at the time that it might not fit in the
family crypt. He mentioned this to Wade and Wade
suggested that he measure the crypt. Snyder
became busy with other details. Bill Ray was en-
gaged in dressing the deceased; Snyder assisted him
and together they placed the deceased in the
casket. Then Snyder. realized that he had not mea-
sured the crypt. He immediately rushed down and
measured`the crypt and found that it was an eighth
of an inch too small to accept the casket. When he
returned to the mortuary he discovered that the
casket had been moved into the slumber room.
Snyder then reported to Callaway that they had put
the deceased in the casket before he had measured
the crypt. Snyder suggested that they call the
widow of the deceased about the selection of
another casket. Callaway replied that this would
violate state laws, having to do with the reuse of
caskets. Callaway stated that he would call the
widow of the deceased and get her approval for an
alteration on the top of the casket., After the fu-
neral and after the commitment service at the crypt
site and after the family and visitors, had departed,
it was necessary to take the casket back to the mor-
tuary, remove the top, send the top out for cutting
of the metal, and then pound it so that it would fit
307
into the crypt. There was a glass sealer over the
deceased.
Regarding the matter of Snyder's failure to in-
form the widow of the Episcopal clergy's practice
that the caskets be closed during afuneral service,
Snyder testified that he, had planned to call an
Episcopal minister who would conduct the service
with the casket open when desired by the family in-
volved. After Snyder notified Callaway of the fact
that the casket was too large for the crypt, Cal-
laway took over the handling of the funeral services
and made contact with an Episcopal minister to
conduct the service. At the, funeral service the
widow expected the casket to be open during the
service for viewing by the friends of the deceased.
The minister officiating refused to conduct the ser-
vice with the casket open; it was necessary then to
delay the funeral service until all had had an oppor-
tunity to view the deceased; the casket was then
closed and the funeral service conducted. At the
crypt site the Episcopal minister remained after the
family and visitors had departed, for the placement
of the casket in the crypt. When- he was informed
that it would be necessary to remove the top of the
casket, he became very upset as he adhered strictly
to the practice that.the casket not be opened after
the funeral service has begun and particularly not
opened after the final blessing.
6. October 28, 1966-error in removal charge
Snyder's next memorandum is dated October 28,
1966. In this memorandum he was referred to a fu-
neral arrangement that he made on August 9, 1966,
which involved the removal of a deceased from a
hospital in Sacramento, California. It was called to
Snyder's attention that he had made no removal
charge although Scaremento is beyond the 50-mile
no-charge removal limit. The charge for a service
of this kind is 15 cents a mile each way, or approxi-
mately $35 in this case.
7. November 4, 1966-no identification tags on
bodies
The next memorandum received by Snyder is
dated November 4, 1966. It reported that he had
failed to leave any identification on two bodies, and
that it was necessary to call him at home on his day
off and have him come to the, mortuary to identify
the bodies. One of the bodies was to be dressed and
made available for viewing by the family of the
deceased on the day that Snyder was to be off.
Snyder testified that on the day before his day off
he had discussed the identity of the bodies with
three persons, Callaway, Weinrick, and Wade. One
of the bodies had been autopsied and was to be
creamated.
General Manager Lee died on October 29, 1966,
and Arch Hocking became the general manager of
Respondent. Prior to that time he had been a vice
308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
president and a member of Respondent's board of
directors. Arch Hocking started working as general
manager on November 1, 1966. On assuming his
duties he called for all of the personnel files in
order to familiarize himself with the background of
the employees. He had had no business contact
with any of the employees and knew only Ray and
Patterson. In Snyder's file he found the numerous
interdepartment memorandums . While he was stu-
dying the files, the matter of Snyder's failure to
place identification tags on two bodies was brought
to his attention. Also on November 4, 1966, a
meeting of Respondent's board of directors was
scheduled, and Hocking brought the memorandums
on Snyder to the board's attention. Before doing
that, however, he had discussed the matter with
Wade and Callaway. Hocking recommended to the
board that Snyder be dismissed . The board read the
memorandums and approved a motion- that Snyder
be dismissed for his errors and omissions.
On November 5, 1966, Hocking called Snyder
into his office. Hocking told Snyder that his file
showed a disinterested attitude toward his work,
and that he had brought his file to the attention of
the board of directors, and that a decision had been
made that he be terminated. He told Snyder that if
he did not wish for these matters to be made public,
Respondent would accept his signed resignation.
Snyder replied that he would not resign. They
discussed some of the memorandums received by
Snyder, and on some he admitted his errors. Snyder
then asked if he was discharged. Hocking replied
that he left him no alternative. He handed Snyder
some insurance brochures and his check.
E. Conclusions
I find that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Jean Patterson on May 18, 1966, and
discriminatorily terminated the embalmer-ap-
prentice program at the same time, and changed
the job assignments of Weinrick and Moyle causing
them to quit their employment- on May 20, 1966,
thereby constructively discharging these two em-
ployees.
- I find that by the following acts and conduct
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act: Callaway's threat to
Weinrick, in April 1466, of termination of any em-
ployee mentioning the Union; Callaway's solicita-
tion of Weinrick and Moyle on May 12 to reveal
the union activities of the employees; Callaway's in-
terrogation of Snyder and Weinrick on May 13 and
his solicitation 'that they withdraw from the Union
with a warring that they had until noon of that day
to make u their minds; Lee's solicitation to
Snyder, Weinrick, and Moyle on May 13 that they
s Barker's East ¢latn Corporation, 142 NLRB 1194, N L R.B v. Firedoor
Corporation of America, 291 F 2d 328 (C A. 2); N.L.R.B v Overnite Trans-
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
withdraw from the Union coupled with statements
that he needed five embalmers "like I need a hole
in the head," and that he should have let Patterson
go instead of Hansen; Lee's interrogation of Ray on
May 16 to let him know if anyone had a change of
heart, and to let him know before that afternoon;
Lee's instructions to Ray on the afternoon of May
16 to report anything he might hear about the
Union; Lee 's interrogation of Weinrick, Moyle, and
Snyder on May 17, as to whether or not they had
changed their minds; Callaway's interrogation of
Moyle on the afternoon of May 17 as to whether or
not he had changed his mind and statement that he
had 15 minutes to make up his mind; and Lee's
statement to Snyder on May 20-and on July 18 that
there would be more stringent working conditions,
and his instructions to him on May 20 that he not
discuss the Union with Hansen; and Callaway's in-
structions to Harold Moyle, father of Lynn Moyle
and an employee of Respondent, on or about-May
12 that he try to persuade his son to withdraw from
the Union.'
I find no evidence to support the allegation in
paragraph VI(i) of the complaint to the effect that
on or about August 19, 1966, Respondent, by Cal-
laway, told an employee not to associate with other
employees who were supporters of the Union.
As to the discharge of Snyder on November 5,
1966, Respondent contends that the discharge was
caused by an accumulation of errors and ommis-
sions by Snyder, and that the discharge was made
by a new general manager on action by Respon-
dent's board of directors.
During the period from June to November 1966,
Snyder was issued a series of written reprimands.
Some of the matters complained-of were trivial in
nature and others I would classify as serious. As to
the one with the most serious consequences-the
one involving the wrong size casket-after Snyder's
initial error in failing to measure the crypt before
placing the body in the casket, Callaway took over
the funeral arrangements , made the decision to use
the same casket, and contacted an Episcopal
minister to officiate. Had Snyder's suggestion been
followed that the widow be called regarding a new
casket, and had he remained in charge of the fu-
neral arrangement, and called an Episcopal
minister who would have permitted the casket to
remain open during the service, then the con-
sequences of Snyder's delayed measurement-of the
crypt would, at most, have been the financial loss of
the value of the initial casket. Section 7702 of the
California laws on embalming provides:
Using any casket or part of a casket which has
previously been used as a receptacle for, or in
connection with the burial or other disposition
of, a dead body constitutes a ground for
disciplinary action; provided however, this sec-
portation Co., 308 F.2d 279 (C A 4); Capital Distributing Co , 147 NLRB
1138, Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 165 NLRB 989.
OAK HILL IMPROVEMENT COMPANY
tion shall not apply to exterior casket hardware
which is not sold to the purchaser, or where
the same is reserved by contract.
Thus, although Snyder's failure to measure the
crypt at the outset started a series of unfortunate
events, it was Callaway's decision as to how to
resolve the predicament that brought about the
consequences that did occur. Of course, the inabili-
ty to reuse an expensive casket, if this consequence
could not have been circumvented under the cir-
cumstances of this case, would also have made
Snyder's omission a serious one. `
As to the final reprimand regarding the failure to
place identification tags on two bodies before
Snyder's day off, Snyder testified that he had had
occasion to discuss the bodies with Callaway,
Wade, and Weinrick on the evening before and had
made known to them the identity of the two bodies;
furthermore, one of the bodies had been autopsied
and certainly could have been identified from his
file. Although some of the embalmers followed a
practice of placing identification tags on bodies,
there had been no instructions or standard practice
in this regard. I realize that verbal identification
made on one day is not as lasting and as positive an
identification as an identification tag, and certainly
tagging of bodies is a desirable practice.
But, the issue before me is not primarily and sole-
ly an evaluation of the seriousness of the errors and
omissions of Snyder or of the excuses or explana-
tions offered on each. Except for union activities,
an employer may discharge an employee for any
cause. The issue I have to determine is whether in
the absence of union activities, these incidents
would have brought about Snyder's discharge-
whether he was discharged for these reasons or
whether they were used as pretexes for a discharge
motivated by union activities. In reaching a deci-
sion on this issue, of course, it is necessary to deal
with and evaluate his conduct assigned as the
reasons for his discharge, and also with all state-
ments and conduct of Respondent and its agents
that tend to reveal "the causative factors in ,the
decision to discharge him. In so doing, I am con-
vinced that Snyder was discharged on November 5,
1966, because of his union activities. Shortly after
discriminatorily discharging Patterson and con-
structively discharging Weinrick and Moyle, Lee
commenced a policy of issuing written reprimands
to employees; Snyder and Ray were the recipients
of these memorandums. Ray quit his employment
with Respondent in September 1966, and Snyder,
who had been an embalmer-counselor with Respon-
dent since July 1962, was discharged on November
5, 1966, allegedly because of the- conduct set forth
in these memorandums.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
309
tions of Respondent described in section I, 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
thereof.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby
make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce and in a business affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Jean D. Patterson on May 18,
1966, and Forrest C. Snyder on November 5, 1966,
because of their union activities, Respondent did
discriminate against them in regard to hire and
tenure of employment, thereby discouraging- mem-
bership in the Union and thereby engaging in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. By terminating its embalmer apprentice pro-
gram, by changing the job assignments of Robert
Weinrick and Lynn Moyle, and by constructively
discharging these two employees because of their
union activities, Respondent did discriminate
against them in regard to hire and tenure of em-
ployment, thereby discouraging membership in the
Union and thereby engaging in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(I) and
(3)oftheAct
5. By threatening the discharge of any employee
mentioning the Union, by interrogating employees
regarding their union activities and the union activi-
ties of other employees, by soliciting employees to
withdraw from the Union, by instructing employees
to report the union activities of other employees, by
instructing employees not to discuss the Union with
other employees, by instructing one employee to
persuade another employee to withdraw from the
Union,_ by threatening employees with more strin-
gent working conditions because of their union ac-
tivities, Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees and thereby engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
7. Respondent did not instruct an employee not
to associate with other employees who were sup-
porters of the Union, as alleged in paragraph VI(i)
of the consolidated complaint.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that Respondent offer to
Forrest C. Snyder immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position
without- prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and to make him and Jean D. Patter-
son, Robert Weinrick, and Lynn Moyle whole for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered by
reason of the discriminations against them, by pay-
ment to each a sum of money equal to that which
he normally would have earned, absent said dis-
crimination, from the date of the discrimination
against him to the date of offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings during said period. Backpay
shall be computed in the manner described by the
Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
and with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum as
described in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716. Patterson, Weinrick, and Moyle were
reinstated to their former positions in October or
November 1966.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that Respon-
dent, Oak Hill- Improvement Company, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from: -
(a) Threatening employees with termination
because of their union activities, interrogating em-
ployees about their union activities or the union ac-
tivities of other employees, soliciting employees to
withdraw from the Union, instructing employees to
report the union activities of other employees, in-
structing employees not to discuss the Union with
other employees, instructing employees to persuade
other employees to withdraw from the Union, and
threatening employees with more stringent working
conditions because of their union activities.
(b) Discouraging membership in the Profes-
sional Embalmers' Union No. 9049 of San Fran-
cisco, AFL-CIO,, or any other labor organization of
its employees, by discharging employees, by discon-
tinuing the embalmer apprentice program, by
changing job assignments of employees, by con-
structively discharging employees, or in any other
manner discriminating against employees with re-
gard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment, except as authorized
in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise
6 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Forrest C. Snyder immediate' and full
reinstatement to his former position or substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniori-
ty or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed
by him.
(b) Make Forrest C. Snyder, Jean D. Patterson,
Robert Weinrick, and Lynn Moyle whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them in the manner set forth
in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Notify Forrest C. Snyder, if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of his
right to full reinstatement upon application in ac-
cordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(d) 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 under- the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(e) Post at its place of business in San Jose,
California, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after
being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.' It is recommended that paragraph VI(i)
of the complaint be dismissed.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we-hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
professional Embalmers' Union No. 9049 of
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith." -
OAK HILL IMPROVEMENT COMPANY
San Francisco, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, by discharging any of our em-
ployees, by changing their job assignments, or
by discontinuing the embalmer apprentice pro-
gram because of their union activities, or in
any other manner discriminate against them in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with
discharge because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees regard-
ing their union activities or the union activities
of other employees, nor will we solicit them to
withdraw from the above-named Union or any
other labor organization
WE WILL NOT instruct employees to solicit
other employees to withdraw from the Union,
or to report the union activities of other em-
ployees or not to discuss the Union with other
employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with more
stringent working conditions because of their
union activities.
WE WILL offer Forrest C. Snyder immediate
and full reinstatement to his former position or
substantially equivalent position, and will make
him and Jean D. Patterson, Robert Weinrick,
and Lynn Moyle whole for any loss of pay in-
curred by them as result of the discrimination
311
against each of them, with interest thereon at 6
percent per annum.
All of our employees are free to become or
remain , or refrain from becoming or remaining,
members of the above-named Union or any other
labor organization.
Dated By
OAK HILL IMPROVEMENT
COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
Note: We will notify the above-named employee
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Ser-
vice Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board' s Regional
Office, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102,
Telephone 556-3197.