Para-Chem Southern, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1982

260 N.L.R.B. 1031 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

PARA-CHEM SOUTHERN, INC.
Para-Chem Southern, Inc. and John H. Lunsford.
Case II -CA-8997
March 17, 1982
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
By MFNIBFRS FANNING, JFNKINS, AND)
ZIMMF RMAN
On October 23, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Supple-
mental Decision in this proceeding.' Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
the General Counsel filed an answering brief, and
Charging Party filed a brief in support of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge'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 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, 2 find-
ings,3 and conclusions 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 Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Para-Chem
Southern, Inc., Simpsonville, South Carolina, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
'The underlying Decision and Order Remanding Proceeding appears
at 258 NLRB 265 (1981)
2 We reject Respondents' request that ce recerse the Adminlstratlve
Law Judge and admit into evidence a transcript of certain surreptiilously
tape-recorded conversations In suppolrt of its request. Respondent asserts
that the transcript contains numerous instances that ywould impeach testi-
mony adduced at the hearing h) the General Counsel's kcy witness Re-
spondent ignores the fact that it used the transcript for crioss-examination
purposes at the hearing in an attempt to impeach the swilness According-
ly, those portions of the transcript deemed material bs Respondent in its
attempt to impeach the .itntess ,ere considered by the Administrative
Law Judge in resolving credibility Thus, no reversible error was conm-
milled by the Administrativse I as. Judge in rejecting the inlroduction of
the transcript into evidence
3 Respondent has excepted to certain credibililt findings made b, the
Administrative Law Judge II is the Board's established policy not Io
overrule an administratie law judges', resoltiohlns V ith respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderatnce of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolulions arer incorrect Standard Dr' Hball Productv,
Inc. 91 Nl RB 544 (q195011 eifd 18 F [2d 32 lid (ir 19511 Vie have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for rxeersing his findings
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
TtioSi\ S I) JOHINSION, Adminislrawtpcc I .;is Judge: ()O
September 24, 1'X81. the Naluit.il I.abot Relaliotts Hloard
260 NLRB No. 142
ist'sucd it's l)cstlot ;IItI ()[ it ci Rctlandtlllg iLroceedittnl to
tilte A\itlllllttltl\.l1\ g I lls preoceII ling ill
\hlic.ll It tlx\.C.L 1! tIilln(lM I pt'l.tIInIn 1 Iht C il IlpCrXi-
sH, \ stMlls td Jiohntt I tIltsftottl h,\ ltinttwi Jotll ] unlsfiTrdi
to 1hC ;tl ctiii rlOi ' \ itIlll ti Ili rili;llClg ! t SCiillll i 2) of
lilt, iCt. ;l d tl l ,i c lpsl\t s i>\i, \\ittie, Ihcl 111Ciltltlge of Sce-
t l1l 211 I11 I lit.' \c II lclltllilticCl li. ti CsL'. Ito Iic f r fur
tIhtL t]II.hllzlS' Js to~ Illc C UIlIISIMICCS stIIl -LCtllll ilg Lulls-
fot i' s'lcti.tic. ol cttilio\ttctill \tilil Rcspoldctetl. atld
tl0 Ih e'pr llll artc i 1%.liu II ttt it' ssuaitcc ti ' Slipple lltletl ).cci-
sl]ot c.OlitAlilt0tllli.'i s orf {;'el. ctlCllisCIIMO% 0* 1;]\. n;MlldU
cCuOlIltltltlcIttilis ill :.ICCOrItlcc' \ ill lt lC I)ctsiotl and
()rdcri Rclni.ticittg
The issue to be resolved as framed by the pleadings
and the Board's remand is whether Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (herein called the Act), by discrimina-
torily discharging and refusing to reinstate John Luns-
ford because of his union membership and activities or
whether he quit by abandoning his job as Respondent
contends.
Upon the entire record in this case' and from my ob-
servations of the witnesses2 and after due consideration
of the briefs previously filed by the parties, I hereby
make the following:
A. Jtohn Il.it/ u/ord'( liJ'rinati/tt
John I unsrlstld \\a s emploh cd bh Respondileni front
I)01 until No\tnihcr 26. 1079.:' fie \oorked in hlie ship-
pilig ulild r.ccC\ilisg dcP;ll-tImTlt ulider the slper\isiotn oI
I'ralfic Nitlltcir aild PtIrcha;iltg AgeCtI Jnrlic's \\'lters4
luItil Nou\tertc' 14 \'h en -tcirr ITylor replaedet \\aters
as traflTict Illanlt.t r illld Ct .became I utillsford inmmcdiatc sh4l-
per isor W'aters who, like Taylor. \oals a super'isor
utinder the Actl itontinued as purchasing agent.
Lunstord's testimony establishes that during the last
couple of weeks of his employment 5 he had discussions
on the telephone and on Respondent's premises with ap-
proximately 12 or more employees, including Wesley
Hinson, Jr., concerning how they felt about having a
union. He also mentioned to Purchasing Agent Waters
that he had had such conversations with employees,
however, Waters had informed him it was the wrong
thing to do and that he thought the Company did not
need a third party to come in and to make their deci-
sions. Both Hinson and Waters corroborated Lunsford's
testimony about his union activities, which I credit.
Waters, who was also a personal friend of Lunsford,
Unless other¥sise indicated the findings are based on the pleadings.
admissions, stipulations, and undisputed evidence contained in the record.
w hich I credit
Credibility resolutions imade in my original decision has been corsid-
ered in resolsntg credibility here
: All dates referred to are in 1979. unless stated otherwise
' Waters. who w as cermanaled on April 16. 1980. was not emnplosed by
Respondent Iat he time of the hearing
While L unsfoird Inltialls countended such discussions about the IUnion
began approximately 2 months prior to his termination, he acknowledged
having indicated ill an affidasit given to a Board agent and in prior
s.orn testitiony that his ulnion actlitlies ornl began about 2 weeks prior
Io his terminatiotn Iis explanation for this difference in time vsas the
latter 2 secks wuas the ionl period in hich he " as heavily inolr.ed in
ulnion activities
1031
I t'CISI()NS ()F NATIONAL IABO30R RELAT IONS BOARD
denied divulging his conversation with Lunsford to
anyone else.
Although L.unsford discussed the Union with other
employees prior to his termination he acknowledged no
union was actually involved in organizing Respondent's
employees at the time and that it was more than a month
after his termination before he contacted a union himself.
The first notification Respondent had from the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Local 28 (herein
called the Union), was by letter dated March 5, 1980,
when the Union notified Respondent that it had formed
an organizing committee.
On November 21, which was the day before Thanks-
giving, Lunsford did not go to work. Instead, he went to
Columbia, South Carolina, to see about his driver's li-
cense after receiving a notice about it in the mail late the
previous evening. Prior to leaving for Columbia that
morning for his 9 a.m. appointment he contacted Pur-
chasing Agent Waters at a restaurant before work 6 and
requested him to notify Respondent that he had to go to
Columbia and to find out for him whether the plant
would be working on the Friday after Thanksgiving.
Waters agreed to do so.
The procedure for employees who are going to be
absent from work as described by both Waters and Luns-
ford is for those employees to call in and leave word.
However, according to both Traffic Manager Taylor and
Plant Manager James Kerr,7 Lunsford should have con-
tacted Taylor about his being absent.
Following his arrival at work that morning Waters re-
layed Lunsford's message about being absent that day to
Plant Manager Kerr. Kerr acknowledged receiving the
message but admitted he forgot at the time to inform
Traffic Manager Taylor that Lunsford would be absent.
While Waters placed his conversation with Kerr as oc-
curring about 8:45 a.m. or 9 a.m. Kerr said it was about
10 a.m. Both Kerr and Taylor stated it was not until that
afternoon before Kerr gave Taylor the message.
According to Taylor, when Lunsford did not report to
work that day upon his asking Waters whether he knew
if Lunsford was coming in Waters informed him he was
not and mentioned Lunsford had gone to Columbia to
take care of his driver's license.
Waters also testified that he informed Plant Manager
Kerr that Lunsford wanted to know whether the ship-
ping and receiving department would work that Friday
and to let Waters know. However, after Kerr did not get
back to him he asked Traffic Manager Taylor who in-
formed him the department would not work. While
Taylor admitted Waters had asked him whether the
department would work that Friday and if Lunsford had
to come in, his version was that he informed Waters he
was not sure because they had to wait and see the pro-
duction schedules. However, Taylor acknowledged his
department did not operate that Friday and it would not
have been necessary for Lunsford to work.
Both Lunsford and Waters stated that evening Waters
informed Lunsford he had relayed Lunsford's message
about not working that day to Respondent and that the
'This was before Respondent's switchboard opened at 8 a.m.
' Kerr is also the executive ice president of production.
shipping and receiving department would not be work-
ing on Friday.
Lunsford did not call in or report to work on Friday.
On Monday morning, November 26, Lunsford was in
Waters' office talking to him when Traffic Manager
Taylor came in and told Lunsford he wanted to see him.
Lunsford accompanied Taylor to the adjoining office of
Vice President Dennis where the two of them' had a
conversation with the door closed.
Lunsford testified that Taylor started out by telling
him in a loud voice that he was out on Wednesday and
Friday without calling in and was unexcused. When he
tried to explain where he was on those days Taylor
would not let him finish his sentences. Taylor then said,
"Furthermore, you have been going around through the
plant discussing with other employees about forming a
union, and by no means will we let this happen." Taylor
added, "As far as I am concerned, Para-Chem doesn't
need your kind." Upon asking Taylor if that meant he
was fired, Taylor replied, "Absolutely."
Waters, who remained in his own office during the
conversation, stated he overheard the conversation be-
tween Taylor, who raised his voice, and Lunsford in
Dennis' office next door through the dividing wall be-
tween the two offices and corroborated Lunsford's testi-
mony about his being discharged. Waters, who described
Taylor as appearing upset when he asked to see Luns-
ford, stated he intentionally listened in on the conversa-
tion for that reason.
Taylor denied firing9 Lunsford or mentioning the
Union. His version was without raising his voice he
asked Lunsford where he had been on Wednesday and
when Lunsford told him about going to Columbia he in-
formed Lunsford that he did not let him know what he
was going to do and did not call his supervisor, and said
that can be unexcusable. After mentioning Lunsford had
not been there Wednesday to find out about the schedule
for Friday, Lunsford commented he guessed Taylor
needed a third unexcused absence. He told Lunsford he
did not know what the policy was on absenteeism but all
he wanted to do was to straighten it out on who Luns-
ford had to call when he was not going to be there or be
late. Lunsford indicated he did not feel like he had to do
that and mentioned as the reason their duties had not
changed in the meeting held on November 14 ,'
° Taylor
agreed their duties had not changed but said it was clear-
ly pointed out Lunsford had to call him on absences or
tardiness and was to report to him as his supervisor.
Upon telling Lunsford he needed to know where Luns-
ford and Templeton were since they ran the department
and it did not suit him to send word by someone else be-
cause he did not get it in time, Lunsford stood up, asked
him when he wanted the third unexcused absence, and
walked out the door.
Although during the conversation Vice President Dennis entered the
office momentarily. he denied hearing anything discussed
Taylor, although a supervisor under the Act, claimed in order to fire
someone he would have to go to Plant Manager Kerr, Chairman Jordan,
or Vice President Dennis
'0 This was the meeting at which Taylor's appointment as traffic man-
ager sas announced
1032
PARA-CHEM SOUTHERN, INC
Lunsford corroborated Waters' testimony that conver-
sations can be overheard between the two offices. Vice
President Dennis, who occupied the office next to
Waters' office, did not testify on the issue. Although
Taylor acknowledged voices could be overheard, he
denied the words said could be distinguished. Plant Man-
ager Kerr denied conversations could be overheard be-
tween these two offices.
I credit the testimony of Lunsford, which was cor-
roborated by Purchasing Agent Waters, concerning his
discharge conversation rather than Traffic Manager Tay-
lor's. Besides my observations of the witnesses in dis-
crediting Taylor on this issue, his version which implies
Lunsford quit does not appear plausible. For instance,
Taylor at the time of their conversation was fully aware
by his own admissions Lunsford had gone to Columbia
on November 21 to see about his driver's license and had
so notified Respondent and also that Lunsford was not
required to work the Friday after Thanksgiving. Without
any showing as here under Taylor's version that he
threatened to actually give Lunsford two unexcused ab-
sences there was nothing to provoke the alleged response
by Lunsford about Taylor needing a third unexcused ab-
sence. Prior to this incident there was no evidence that
Lunsford, who was considered by Respondent to be a
supervisor, had ever been warned about his work. More-
over, Lunsford, an employee of approximately 18 years'
standing, had never informed Respondent he was quit-
ting his job and that very day, as discussed infra, Pur-
chasing Agent Waters, an admitted supervisor under the
Act at the time, confronted Taylor with having fired
Lunsford.
Waters testified that later that morning after he ob-
served Lunsford leave the parking area Taylor came in
his office whereupon he asked him why he had fired
Lunsford. Taylor just looked at him, shrugged his shoul-
ders, and left. Taylor acknowledged Waters had asked
him if he fired Lunsford but stated he denied it and said
Lunsford had just walked out and he had not seen him
since. Taylor further testified, contrary to Waters' denial,
that Waters accused him during the same conversation,
which he placed as occurring that afternoon, of letting
the Company use him to get rid of Lunsford and said if
he did not see that he was dumber than hell and after
mentioning he was a top candidate for s.o.b. of the year
ordered Taylor out of his office. I credit Waters rather
than Taylor concerning this conversation for reasons
previously given.
Taylor also stated that, following his conversation
with Lunsford that morning, Vice President Dennis re-
ported to him that Lunsford had driven off in Waters'
car and inquired where he was going, " whereupon
Taylor then said he had asked Waters who mentioned
Lunsford had probably gone to the post office. Waters
credibly denied having such a conversation with Taylor
and both Waters and Lunsford denied Lunsford had left
in Waters' car.
Waters also stated that the same afternoon he asked
both Vice President Dennis and Plant Manager Kerr sep-
arately what they thought about Taylor firing Lunsford.
" Vice President Dennis corrobohraled Tailor's testimons
Dennis' response was that he had heard something to
that effect but he could not comment on it at the time
while Kerr denied having any information on it and said
he could not discuss it. Waters also said as he was leav-
ing Dennis' office he heard Dennis pick up the telephone
and ask for Chairman Jordan who was out of town. Both
Dennis and Kerr denied having such conversations with
Waters, and Dennis, whose testimony was corroborated
by Chairman Jordan, denied calling Jordan.
I credit these denials by Dennis, Kerr, and Jordan
rather than the uncorroborated testimony of Waters
whose testimony on occasions was contradictory.
According to both Waters and Lunsford that evening"2
Waters contacted Lunsford and informed him he had
heard Traffic Manager Taylor terminate him and indicat-
ed to Lunsford he was going to wait until Chairman
Jordan returned to town and see what happened.
According to Taylor after he became traffic manager
Lunsford would avoid him and once accused him of
opening his personal mail. Taylor also testified Waters
had informed him that Lunsford had been in the shipping
and receiving department longer and had been passed
over before and was upset because he did not get the job
as traffic manager.
Both Waters and Lunsford credibly denied making
such statements.
Jerry Templeton, a witness presented by Respondent,
stated that Lunsford told him he was not going to coop-
erate with Taylor or give him any kind of information
about shipping and receiving and traffic. Lunsford
denied making such statements and there was no evi-
dence to show he either refused to cooperate with or to
give such information to Taylor.
On November 29, a meeting was held by Chairman
Jordan and attended by Purchasing Agent Waters, Traf-
fic Manager Taylor, and Plant Manager Kerr at which
time Lunsford's termination was discussed. 13 During this
meeting Waters accused Taylor of firing Lunsford which
Taylor denied, claiming Lunsford had left. Jordan ac-
knowledged stating it was his conclusion Lunsford had
left without giving notice and making the statement,
using profanity, that if Lunsford came back he would
fire him and he had had enough of it. Waters admitted
he did not tell them about overhearing the discharge
conversation or give his reason for saying Taylor had
fired Lunsford. His explanation at the hearing for not
doing so was because Jordan had made it clear at the
meeting that their position was Lunsford had quit and
was not fired. Jordan, whose testimony was corroborated
by Kerr and Taylor, credibly denied telling anyone what
their position had to be on Lunsford's separation and
stated Waters had the opportunity to give his reason for
saying Taylor discharged Lunsford.
" WVaters acknovledged having stated in an affida itt gl,'en to a Board
agent he did not talk to W'aters until 3 days or so after Lunsford's termi-
nation w hich he nosu says is incorrect
o Acc rding to Chairman Jordan and traffic Manager Ta'lor they
had discussed l.unsford earlier that morning because on November 21.
after Ta;lhr mentioned to Jordan that lI.nsford had not come io w ork.
Jordan has inistriucied him to let his emplosee, knos. who they had to
reporl to andi haie Ihe reason, they , nere not there
1033
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Both Waters and Lunsford stated after work that day
Waters informed Lunsford what had happened at the
meeting, including Chairman Jordan's statement about
firing Lunsford if he came back.
Following his termination Lunsford filed a claim con-
taining an effective date of January 6, 1980, for unem-
ployment benefits with the South Carolina Employment
Security Commission listing as the reason for his termi-
nation "was dismissed because of union activity (talking
union with other employees)." A hearing on his claim
was held on March 5, 1980. Waters did not testify at this
hearing. However, Lunsford mentioned at that hearing
that Waters had overheard the discharge conversation.
The South Carolina Employment Security Commission
rendered its decision on June 13, 1980, which became
final when it was affirmed by the Court of Common
Pleas for the County of Greenville, South Carolina, by
order dated November 3, 1980, finding Lunsford had
quit his work without good cause. The decision as ex-
pressed in the court's order shows, in part, that it was
based on the absence of any evidence to support Luns-
ford's sole claim he engaged in any union activity.
Subsequent to the March 5, 1980, South Carolina Em-
ployment Security Commission's hearing at which Luns-
ford brought out that Waters had overheard the dis-
charge conversation, Respondent's representatives in-
cluding Chairman Jordan, Vice President Dennis, Plant
Manager Kerr, or Attorney Suggs, met with Waters on
March 10 or April 16 concerning Lunsford's termination.
However, Waters at these meetings also did not inform
them of overhearing the discharge conversation and de-
clined to give a statement about it as requested by them.
Chairman Jordan, Vice President Dennis, Plant Man-
ager Kerr, and Traffic Manager Taylor all claimed they
had no knowledge of Lunsford's union activities or of
any union activities at the time of Lunsford's termina-
tion.
Waters testified in early January 1980 that Chairman
Jordan mentioned to him the union problem was resur-
facing and said the Company would not tolerate a union
and there was no price too great to pay to keep the
Union out even if it meant shutting the plant down.
Jordan, who acknowledged he did not want a union at
the Company, did not deny making such statements at-
tributed to him by Waters whose undenied testimony I
credit.
Waters also testified on another occasion which he ac-
knowledged probably occurred after Lunsford's March
5, 1980,'4 hearing before the South Carolina Employ-
ment Security Commission that Chairman Jordan asked
him whether he knew about the Teamsters Union
coming in or Lunsford trying to bring it in which he
denied. Jordan stated in the March 10 meeting Waters
had informed him he had discussed the union with Luns-
ford on previous occasions and Jordan admitted he may
have asked Waters if he had knowledge about Lunsford
trying to bring in a union.
' This was the same date as set forth, supra, the Union sent Rcspond-
ent a letter about Its organi7ilg committee
B. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by discriminatorily
discharging and refusing to reinstate Lunsford because of
his union membership and activities, while Respondent
denies having violated the Act and asserts as its defense
Lunsford quit by abandoning his job.
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act prohibits an employer from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act. Section 8(a)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part:
"It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . .
by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment to encour-
age or discourage membership in any labor organization
The law is well established that to discharge an em-
ployee for engaging in union activities violates Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The findings, supra, establish that shortly before his
termination Lunsford engaged in union activities by
having discussions with other employees concerning how
they felt about having a union to represent them which
included discussions occurring on Respondent's premises.
Respondent was not only admittedly opposed to having
a union represent its employees but Chairman Jordan
said the Company would not tolerate a union and no
price was too great to pay to keep it out even if it meant
shutting the plant down. This statement as well as Traf-
fic Manager Taylor's statement to Lunsford at the time
of his termination described infra, and which also reveals
knowledge of Lunsford's union activities, clearly estab-
lishes Respondent's union animus.
The evidence supra establishes on November 26, Traf-
fic Manager Taylor accused Lunsford of going through
the plant discussing with other employees about forming
a union and informed him they would not let that
happen and the Company did not need his kind. Pursuant
to Lunsford's inquiry, Taylor acknowledged to Lunsford
he was firing him for that reason. While Taylor, an ad-
mitted supervisor, claimed he did not possess the authori-
ty to fire Lunsford himself without going to Respond-
ent's officials Chairman Jordan, Vice President Dennis,
or Plant Manager Kerr, such contention is not persuasive
especially since this was never made known to Lunsford,
who acted upon Taylor's statement he was fired, and the
discharge action itself was never retracted but rather was
confirmed by Chairman Jordan who personally threat-
ened to fire Lunsford if he returned to work. Thus, the
evidence refutes Respondent's defense Lunsford quit by
abandoning his job.
Based on the foregoing evidence including Lunsford's
union activities about which Respondent had knowledge;
Respondent's union animus; and the discharge conversa-
tion itself in which Lunsford was informed by Traffic
Manager Taylor he was being discharged because of his
union activities; and having rejected Respondent's de-
fense Lunsford quit his job instead; I am persuaded and
find that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Luns-
ford on November 26, 1979, and thereafter refused to re-
1034
PARA-CHM SO()UTHERN. INC.
instate him because of his union activities and thereby
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.'"
THE EiL:i: Ci OF T I H UNFAIR LABOR PRAc-ricl s
UPON COMMI RCE
The activities of Respondent as set forth above, found
to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent, have a close, in-
timate, 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.
AMEINI)EI) CONCI USIONS o0 LAW
1. Para-Chem Southern, Inc., is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 28, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. John Lunsford is an employee within the meaning
of Section 2(3) of the Act, and is not a supervisor wvithin
the meaning of Section 2(11).
4. By discriminatorily discharging John Lunsford on
November 26, 1979, and thereafter refusing to reinstate
him because of his union activities, Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Timt Ri:MEtDYi
Having found Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Accordingly, Respondent shall be ordered to offer
John Lunsford immediate and full reinstatement to his
former job or, if that job no longer exists, then to a sub-
stantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his senior-
ity and other rights and privileges and to make him
whole for any loss of earnings and other compensation
he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him herein found by discriminatorily discharging
him on November 26, 1979, and thereafter refusing to re-
instate him. Backpay shall be computed in the manner
prescribed by the Board in F U` 1W4olworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in Florida
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).'";
Upon the foregoing findings of fact. conclusions of
law, and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
" The declsion rendered hb the South Carllina tlniploimenti SicCllr!,
Comlmissilon o l .Jinsford, termliiiron, hicih Is nol hilillig lipil the
Board, is alsoi nli persuasive ill tile illsatit -.awe ille I' urihaliilg Agerl
Waters 1did nit tesiis in ihat proceeding l d there , ,ai a],l e, , clricc
presented here io slippirl I ullstolrd's cliaii he l iglged In litlltlln act i Itlc
r See. gencrails I/I Plimbihnm, I& lhua r g (o, 1IAi NI RH 'I t) 1]lh2)
ORDER'7
The Respondent, Para-Chem Southern, Inc., Simpson-
ville, South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging union activities of its employees by
discharging, refusing to reinstate or in any other manner
discriminating against employees in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to John Lunsford immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
him whole foir any loss of pay and other compensation
he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him herein found by discriminatorily discharging
him on November 26, 1979, and thereafter refusing to re-
instate him, in the manner set forth in that section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze and determine the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Simpsonville, South Carolina, facility
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""
Copies of said notice, on forms furnished by the Region-
al Director for Region II11, shall after being duly signed
by Respondent's authorized representative, be posted im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region II, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith
I-r I F R rHi R ORI) RI I) that the amended consoli-
dated complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as
it alleges unfair labor practices not specifically found
herein.
I' Ir thti I ellit ir cxcepilon, arc Filed as proided h SeAe 10(2 46 of
the Rule, and.i Rcgulattlimlls of tie It the Naiinill L.ahboir RelalloliS tiLrd,
the findinigs, conhililS, i and ieconmenmcied Order. herciil shall. .is pro
,ided il S;ec 10(2 48 ilf the Rules ant Rcgulatlirln, he adoplted h5 Ihe
I/.-iri .Lil hc, lni its fililiilg,. coiIi lsiii s, arlid ()rd.tr, ;ld all ohlbjction,
thcrci- sh1ill Te deeierldl .ii',d i -r all plurp',scs
I in (tic ces llm iliiIt till, ()rder is n f, rciiced h a Jludtlm eint of t lltUied
StIatOC C'iTl iat Appails ti ( 'hse td iI tihe nIotie rea.ding "'it'-.id h'
()rdcr iof tie N.ill. eil I Lhi)r Rctl.lionl u Iii rd' hi all rci l t "PI)scdi }tuLsl-
1llt h LI JItlu oif iit t' I'/ il c li
t
S'iltc, C itilr iof Appe.ls fill'irLil.g a.l
Order '1I tll Nllll ulll I t li r RcllitllonI s hi;lrt '
1035
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAI LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage union activities of our
employees by discharging, refusing to reinstate, or
in any other manner discriminating against our em-
ployees in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL offer to John Lunsford immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job, with-
out prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges, and WE WILL make him whole for any
loss of pay and other compensation he may have
suffered by reason of our discrimination against
him, with interest.
PARA-CHEM SOUTHERN, INC.
1036