SFS Painting & Drywall, Inc.

SFS PAINTING AND DRYWALL, INC. I I SFS Painting and Drywall, Inc.; James Seech d/b/a J. Seech Painting and Drywall and Internation- al Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades Local Union No. 159. Case 31-CA-9150 April 28, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND TRUESDALE On February 1, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Roger B. Holmes issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed limited exceptions. 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 has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclu- sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order as modified herein. The General Counsel contends that the remedy given by the Administrative Law Judge is inad- equate as it fails to make the employees whole by not requiring indemnification of medical expenses which would have been covered if Respondents had not untimely repudiated the collective-bargain- ing agreement.' It further contends that Respond- ents should be required to mail copies of the notice to all employees who were laid off and are no longer employed by Respondents.2 We find merit in these exceptions and shall order Respondents to take the action requested by the General Counsel. 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, as modi- fied below, and hereby orders that the Respond- ents, SFS Painting and Drywall, Inc., James Seech d/b/a J. Seech Painting and Drywall, Las Vegas, Nevada, their officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(f): "(f) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to those employees laid off by Respondents because of their union membership or activities, or other protected concerted activities, to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their se- ' Clear Pine Mouldings, Inc., 238 NLRB 69 (1978). 2 Creative Engineering. Inc., 228 NLRB 582 (1977). 249 NLRB No. 9 niority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed. Make whole those laid-off employees for their loss of earnings and benefits due to Respond- ents' unfair labor practices described previously, and pay to those employees appropriate interest on those amounts of money, as more fully described in 'The Remedy' section of this Decision." 2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(g): "(g) Make whole the employees of said unit for any medical expenses they may have incurred which would have been covered by the medical in- surance plan if Respondents had complied with the collective-bargaining agreement and paid into the contractual trust funds and pay to those employees appropriate interest on those amounts of money." 3. Substitute the following for existing paragraph 2(g) and renumber existing paragraph 2(h) as para- graph 2(i): "(h) Post at Respondents' plant in Las Vegas, Nevada, copies of the attached notice marked 'Ap- pendix.' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondents' representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition, copies of the notice, duly assigned by Respondents' representa- tives, shall be mailed to all employees who were laid off on or about June 15, 1979, who were mem- bers of the bargaining unit. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material." 4. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades Local Union No. 159, as the ex- clusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit described below, by repudiating our collective-bargaining agree- ment with the Union; by failing to comply with the hiring hall provisions of our agree- ment with the Union, and by failing and refus- ing to make contributions to the trust funds in accordance with the terms of our agreement 112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with the Union. The appropriate collective- bargaining unit is: All employees performing work of the types enumerated in section 2 of the Master Labor Agreement between the Painters and Decorators Contractors Association and the Union. WE WILL NOT lay off our employees from work and refuse to reinstate them because those employees join or assist the Union, or because they engage in other protected con- certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described above, and WE WILL embody in a signed agreement any understand- ing which may be reached. WE WILL honor and abide by the terms of the existing collective-bargaining agreement with the Union during the contract's effective dates. WE WILL make appropriate payments to the trust funds for the fringe benefits earned by our employees in accordance with the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement. WE WILL reimburse those employees in the unit who have lost wages and benefits because of our actions, with interest. WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstate- ment to those employees, who we laid off from work and refused to reinstate, to their former positions of employment, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. WE WILL make whole those laid-off employ- ees for their loss of earnings due to our ac- tions, with interest. WE WILL reimburse with interest those em- ployees in the unit for any medical expenses they may have incurred as a result of our fail- ure to make appropriate payments to the trust funds in accordance with the terms of the col- lective-bargaining agreement. WE WILL mail copies of this notice to all employees who were members of the bargain- ing unit at the time of the June 1979 layoff. SFS PAINTING AND DRYWALL, INC.; JAMES SEECH D/B/A J. SEECH PAINT- ING & DRYWALL DECISION ROGER B. HOLMES, Administrative Law Judge: The original unfair labor practice charge in this proceeding was filed on June 29, 1979, by International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades Local Union No. 159, herein called the Union. (See G. C. Exh. I(a).) The first amend- ed unfair labor practice charge in this case was filed on August 22, 1979, by the Union. (See G.C. Exh. I(c).) The Regional Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, who was acting on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board, issued on September 11, 1979, a complaint and notice of hearing against SFS Painting and Drywall, Inc., herein referred to as one of the Respondents. The hearing date set forth in the notice of hearing was for January 24, 1980. (See G.C. Exh. I(e).) SFS Painting and Drywall, Inc., filed on September 24, 1979, by its first at- torney in this case, its answer to the General Counsel's complaint. (See G.C. Exh. (g).) On January 4, 1980, the Regional Director for Region 31 of the Board, who was again acting on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board, issued an amended com- plaint and notice of hearing against SFS Painting and Drywall, Inc., and James Seech d/b/a J. Seech Painting & Drywall, herein referred to as the Respondents. The General Counsel's amended complaint and notice of hearing set the hearing date for January 24, 1980, which was the same date as stated in the original complaint and notice of hearing. (See G.C. Exh. 10(j).) The General Counsel alleges, inter alia, in his amended complaint that the Respondents are alter egos, and that they are a single employer within the meaning of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. The General Counsel further alleges in his amended complaint that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the Act. The Respondents filed no answer to the General Counsel's amended complaint. Instead, the Respondents filed on January 16, 1980, a motion seeking a postpone- ment of the hearing scheduled for January 24, 1980, to sometime after February 18, 1980. (See G.C. Exh. 1(1).) The pretrial motion was denied on January 17, 1980, by the Regional Director for Region 31 of the Board. (See G.C. Exh. (m).) The hearing opened before me as scheduled on Janu- ary 24, 1980, at Las Vegas, Nevada. James Seech was present, but his second attorney in this case, whom he had retained earlier in January 1980, was not present at the hearing. (See the affidavits attached to the Respond- ents' pretrial motion, G.C. Exh. 1(1), for the details.) Still another attorney appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Respondents' attorney and renewed the request made by SFS PAINTING AND DRYWALL, INC. 113 the attorney for the Respondents for a postponement of the hearing until sometime after February 18, 1980. Counsel for the General Counsel opposed the motion, and both attorneys ably argued their respective positions regarding the pending motion. After listening to the arguments advanced by both at- torneys, and after reviewing the formal documents, which were received into evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit , I denied the Respondents' motion primarily on the ground that the hearing date had been scheduled more than 4 months earlier. In my view, the Respond- ents had an obligation to arrange their business affairs and their legal affairs during those 4 months so that the Respondents would be prepared by the scheduled hear- ing date. In addition, the Respondents had failed to even file an answer to the General Counsel's amended com- plaint, which had been issued on January 4, 1980. Fur- thermore, counsel for the General Counsel stated that he had witnesses under subpena who were present at the hearing, and he pointed to the costs and inconvenience to other persons if the Respondents' motion for a post- ponement was granted. Finally, counsel for the General Counsel also pointed to his own commitments and prepa- ration for other cases, which had already been sched- uled, and which would necessitate the delay of this hear- ing for additional months, if the Respondents' motion was granted. Considering the foregoing matters and the arguments set forth in the record, I found that good cause had not been shown to support the Respondents' motion for a postponement of this proceeding. Accordingly, I denied the Respondents' motion made at the outset of the hear- ing. Counsel for the General Counsel then moved for a Summary Judgment based on the failure of the Respond- ents to file any answer to the General Counsel's amend- ed complaint, as required by Section 102.20 and Section 102.21 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. The Respondents were notified of the requirements of the Board's Rules and Regulations on page 8 of the amended complaint. (See G.C. Exh. 1(j).) As noted earlier, the General Counsel's amended com- plaint was issued on January 4, 1980, by the Regional Director for Region 31 of the Board. The affidavit of service of the amended complaint was received into evi- dence as General Counsel's Exhibit (k). That affidavit shows that the amended complaint was served on the same date. (See Sec. 102.111 and Sec. 102.113 of the Board's Rules and Regulations.) The Postal Service return receipt cards attached to General Counsel's Ex- hibit l(k) show that a copy of the amended complaint was received by the Respondents' representative of record at that point in time. Considering both Section 102.113 and Section 102.114 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, I find that the Respondents' answer to the amended complaint was due to be received by January 17, 1980. Counsel for the General Counsel represented on the record that he had spoken with the second attor- ney in this case for the Respondents, and that the attor- ney had advised him that no answer would be filed to the amended complaint unless the Respondents' motion to continue the hearing was granted. After considering the foregoing matters, I found that the filing of an answer by one of the Respondents on September 24, 1979, to the original complaint, which was issued on September 11, 1979, did not permit the Re- spondents to ignore the requirements of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and to fail to file any answer to the General Counsel's amended complaint, which was issued on January 4, 1980. Accordingly, I found that good cause had not been shown by the Respondents for their failure to file an answer to the amended complaint, and I further found that the General Counsel was enti- tled to have his Motion for Summary Judgment granted in these circumstances. Therefore, I granted the General Counsel's motion, and I advised the parties on the record at the hearing that I would prepare and issue this written Decision. Having granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, I find that the following facts, which are set forth in the amended complaint, are true: 1. (a) The original charge was filed by the Union on June 29, 1979, and a copy thereof was served on Re- spondent SFS by registered mail on or about the same date. (b) The first amended charge was filed by the Union on August 22, 1979, and a copy thereof was served on Respondent SFS by registered mail on or about the same date. 2. (a) Respondent SFS is now, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized and under existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Nevada, with an office and principal place of business lo- cated in Las Vegas, Nevada, where, either per se or through an alter ego, it is engaged in painting and con- tracting in the construction industry. (b) Respondent SFS, in the course and conduct of its business operations, annually sells goods or services valued in excess of $50,000 to customers or business en- terprises within the State of Nevada, which customers or business enterprises themselves meet one of the Board's jurisdictional standards other than the indirect inflow or indirect outflow standard. (c) On or about the beginning of 1978 James Seech d/ b/a J. Seech Painting & Drywall, a sole proprietorship with an office and principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada, hereinafter called Respondent Seech, was established by James Seech, then president and sole shareholder of Respondent SFS, to engage in the same type of business as Respondent SFS, with common man- agement, common direction, and common control of labor relations policies. (d) Respondent Seech, in the course and conduct of its business operations, annually sells goods or services valued in excess of $50,000 to customers or business en- terprises in the State of Nevada, which customers or business enterprises themselves meet one of the Board's juridictional standards other than the indirect inflow or indirect outflow standard. 3. (a) On or about June 15, 1979, Respondent Seech assumed and continued the operations of Respondent SFS described in subparagraph 2(a) above, for the bene- 114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fit of SFS, utilizing substantially the same capital and equipment, employing the same management and super- visors, and providing the same services to substantially the same customers as did Respondent SFS. (b) By virtue of the acts and conduct described in subparagraphs 2(c) and 3(a) above, Respondent Seech and Respondent SFS, hereinafter collectively called Re- spondents, are, and have been at all times material herein, alter egos and a single employer within the mean- ing of the Act. 4. Respondents collectively, in the course and conduct of their business operations, annually sell goods or serv- ices valued in excess of $50,000 to customers or business enterprises in the State of Nevada, which customers or business enterprises themselves meet one of the Board's jurisdictional standards other than the indirect inflow or indirect outflow standard. 5. (a) Each Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. (b) Respondents, collectively, are now, and have been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in com- merce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Union is now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 7. At all times material herein, James Seech occupied the position of president of Respondent SFS and sole proprietor of Respondent Seech, and has been, and is now, an agent of Respondents, acting on their behalf, and a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. 8. (a) On or about April 28, 1975, Respondent SFS voluntarily recognized the Union as the collective-bar- gaining representative of the employees employed by Re- spondent SFS in the unit described below in paragraph 10, by signing an Application for Shop Card with the Painters and Decorators Joint Committee, Inc., which application contained the provision that Respondent SFS comply with the terms and provisions of the master labor agreement between the Painters and Decorators Contractors Association and the Union, dated August 5, 1974. (b) On or about January 28, 1976, Respondent SFS reaffirmed that it agreed to be bound by the provisions of said labor agreement. (c) At times between April 28, 1975, and June 15, 1979, each specific date being unknown, and at all times material after April 28, 1975, a majority of employees employed by Respondent SFS in the unit described below in paragraph 10 were members of the Union. (d) In 1977, on a specific date being presently un- known, Respondent SFS signed a short-form agreement to comply with the wage rates contained in the new master labor agreement, effective from July 13, 1977, until June 30, 1980. (e) In January 1979, on a specific date being presently unknown, Respondent SFS renewed its Appliciation for Shop Card with Painters and Decorators Joint Commit- tee, Inc., thereby renewing its obligation to comply with the effective master labor agreement. 9. (a) Section 10 of the 1974-77 agreement and section 11 of the 1977-80 agreement described above in para- graph 8 have contained exclusive hiring hall provisions, requiring Respondents to obtain employees through the Union. (b) Said labor agreements have contained provisions requiring Respondents to make contributions on behalf of employees into health and welfare and other contractual- ly established funds. 10. The following described employees of Respondents constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees performing work of the types enu- merated in section 2 of the master labor agreement de- scribed above in paragraph 8(d). 1. At all times material since April 28, 1975, and con- tinuing to date, the Union has been the exclusive repre- sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining of the employees in the unit described above in paragraph 10, and , by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been, and is now, the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. 12. Commencing on or about April 28, 1975, and con- tinuing to date, and more particularly in January 1979 and on June 16, 1979, the Union has requested, and is re- questing, Respondents to bargain collectively with re- spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, as the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of all the em- ployees of Respondents in the unit described above in paragraph 10. 13. Commencing on or about May 22, 1979, and at all times thereafter, Respondents did refuse, and continue to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the ex- clusive collective-bargaining representative of all the em- ployees in the unit described above in paragraph 10 in that: (a) On or about May 22, 1979, Respondent SFS, by letter of its attorney, announced that it was withdrawing its 1979 shop card application, referred to in paragraph 8(e) above, thereby attempting untimely repudiation of its obligation to comply with the master labor agreement described above in paragraph 8(d). (b) Since on or about June 15, 1979, Respondents have failed and refused to comply with the contractual hiring hall provisions described above in paragraph 9(a), there- by engaging in untimely repudiation of the terms of said agreement. (c) Since on or about June 15, 1979, Respondents have failed and refused to make contributions into the various contractual trust funds described above in paragraph 9(b), thereby engaging in untimely repudiation of the terms of said agreement. 14. (a) On or about June 15, 1979, Respondent SFS laid off its employees in the unit described above in para- graph 10, and since that date, either per se or by its alter ego, Respondent Seech, has failed and refused, and con- SFS PAINTING AND DRYWALL INC. 115 tinues to fail and refuse, to reinstate them to their former positions of employment. (b) On or about June 15, 1979, Respondent SFS sub- contracted the work to be done by unit employees to Respondent Seech, a nonunion sole proprietorship of James Seech and an alter ego of Respondent. 15. Respondents engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph 14 because said employees joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other protected con- certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. 16. By the acts and conduct described in paragraph 13 above, and by each of said acts, Respondents did refuse to bargain collectively, and are refusing to bargain col- lectively, in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit described above in paragraph 10, and Respond- ents did thereby engage in, and are engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 17. By the acts and conduct described in paragraph 14 above, for the reasons set forth in paragraph 15 above, and by each of said acts, Respondents did discriminate, and are discriminating, in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of their employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, and did therby engage in, and are engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 18. By the acts and conduct described in paragraphs 13 through 17 above, and by each of said acts, Respond- ents did interfere with, restrain, and coerce, and are in- terfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and Respondents did thereby engage in, and are engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 19. The acts and conduct of Respondents described in paragraphs 13 through 18 above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondents described in para- graphs 2 through 5 above, have a close, intimiate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and have led, and tend to lead, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 20. The acts and conduct of Respondents described above constitute unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. SFS Painting and Drywall, Inc., and James Seech d/b/a J. Seech Painting & Drywall are alter egos and constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Respondents are an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. The following employees of the Respondents consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees of the Respondents performing work of the types enumerated in Section 2 of the Master Labor Agreement between the Painters and Decorators Contractors Association and the Union. 5. At all times material herein, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. 6. At all times material herein, the Union has requested the Respondents to bargain collectively with respect to the rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the unit described above. 7. By the acts described in paragraph 13 of the find- ings of fact in this Decision, the Respondents have en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 8. By the acts described in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the findings of fact in this Decision, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 9. By the acts described in paragraphs 13 through 17 of the findings of fact in this Decision, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 10. The unfair labor practices set forth above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Since I have found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend to the Board that the Respondents be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in those unfair labor practices. I shall also recommend to the Board that the Respond- ents take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Such affirmative action will in- clude the payment of backpay to unit employees who have lost wages, or who have been laid off from work, as a result of the Respondents' unfair labor practices. See Don Burgess Construction Corporation d/b/a Burgess Con- struction and Donald Burgess and Verlon Hendrix d/b/a V & B Builders, 227 NLRB 765 (1977). Backpay and inter- est on such backpay amounts will be computed in ac- cordance with the Board's decisions in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950); Isis Plumbing d Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962); and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). Such affirmative action to remedy the Respondents' unfair labor practices will also include the payments to the trust funds for the fringe benefits, which have been earned by the Respondents' employees, in accordance with the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement be- tween the Respondents and the Union. However, in ac- cordance with Board decisions, I shall not provide for 116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD interest to be added to such payments. See Fitzpatrick Electric, Inc., 242 NLRB No. 109 (1979). Finally, I shall recommend to the Board a narrow cease-and-desist order in this case. See Hickmott Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB No. 177 (1979). Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con- clusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER' The Respondents, SFS Painting and Drywall, Inc., and James Seech d/b/a J. Seech Painting & Drywall, Las Vegas, Nevada, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit described below by repudiating their collective-bargaining agreement with the Union; by failing to comply with the hiring hall provisions of their agreement with the Union, and by failing and refusing to make contributions to the trust funds in accordance with the terms of their agreement with the Union. The appro- priate collective-bargaining unit is: All employees of the Respondents performing work of the types enumerated in Section 2 of the Master Labor Agreement between the Painters and Decorators Contractors Association and the Union. (b) Laying off their employees from work and refusing to reinstate those employees because said employees joined or assisted the Union, or engaged in other protect- ed concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to employees by the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary in order to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit previously de- In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. scribed, and embody in a signed agreement any under- standing which may be reached. (b) Honor and abide by the terms of the existing col- lective-bargaining agreement between the Respondents and the Union during the contract's effective dates. (c) Make appropriate payments to the trust funds for the fringe benefits earned by the Respondents' employees in accordance with the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement. (d) Reimburse those employees in the unit who lost wages as a result of the Respondents' unfair labor prac- tices described above, and pay to the employees appro- priate interest on those amounts of money, as more fully described in "The Remedy" section of this Decision. (e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec- ords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (f) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to those em- ployees laid off by the Respondents because of their union membership or activities, or other protected, con- certed activities, to their former positions of employment or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiva- lent positions of employment, without the loss of their seniority or other rights and privileges. Make whole those laid off employees for their loss of earnings due to the Respondents' unfair labor practices described previ- ously, and pay to those employees appropriate interest on those amounts of money, as more fully described in "The Remedy" section of this Decision. (g) Post at it Las Vegas, Nevada, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondents' rep- resentative, shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respondents 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 them to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. 2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."