Southside Electric Coop.

I)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Southside Electric Cooperative, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 467. Cases 5-CA 8983 and 5 CA 9213 July 11, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELI 1O AND TRUESDALE On December 20, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Almira Abbot Stevenson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief in response to Re- spondent's 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, to modify her remedy, and to adopt her recommended Order, as modified herein. The Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, as amply supported by the evidence herein, reveals that Respondent, following a Board-conducted election which resulted in the Union's certification, set out on a course of conduct deliberately designed to under- mine the very existence of the Union as the employ- ees' representative. To that end, as found by the Ad- ministrative Law Judge, Respondent bargained in bad faith with the Union in the certification year by, inter alia, limiting the frequency and duration of ne- gotiation meetings and by refusing for 7 months to submit an economic proposal in response to that to the Union. Thereafter, Respondent unlawfully with- drew recognition from the Union, unilaterally granted increases in wages and benefits to unit em- ployees, threatened employees that if they supported the Union they would not receive wage increases, and discharged a leading, if not the leading, union adher- ent because of his union activities. Because of the fla- grant nature of these violations, the Administrative I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad- ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing her findings. We do note that the Administrative Law Judge found that a staff meeting which Respondent held. and at which the Union was discussed, had occurred on June 7. 1976. That meeting occurred on June 11. 1976. Law Judge recommended, inter alia, that the Union's initial certification year be extended for an entire year and that Respondent be required to make whole the unit employees for the losses they have suffered by reason of Respondent's refusal to bargain in good faith with their certified representative. We adopt the Administrative Law Judge's recommended extension of the certification year,2 and we also adopt, as modi- fied, her recommendation that the unit employees be made whole for Respondent's refusal to bargain in good faith. AMENDED REMEDY As background to our amending the make-whole portion of the remedy, we note that the Union was certified on July 28, 1976, and that negotiations be- tween it and Respondent began in late September 1976. The charge was filed on October 31, 1977. The Administrative Law Judge, therefore, found that Re- spondent had bargained in bad faith with the Union from on and after May 1, 1977, i.e., 6 months before the charge was filed. In devising a remedy to make the employees whole for losses suffered by them as a result of Respondent's refusal to bargain in good faith, the Administrative Law Judge recommended that the unit employees re- ceive the same percentage wage increase and benefits received by the nonunit clerical employees at Respon- dent's Alta Vista and Crewe locations at times when the unit employees3 were receiving no benefits. Spe- cifically, Respondent's nonunit employees had re- ceived a pay increase of 6.72 percent, three additional holidays, and an increased insurance contribution on November 1, 1976, and a 7-percent pay increase in November 1977. The unit employees received no in- creases from November 1, 1975, until February 25, 1978, when (after withdrawing recognition from the Union) Respondent inaugurated the same kind of job reevaluation plan for unit employees which it had earlier established for nonunit employees and gave the unit employees a new wage scale resulting in wage increases which averaged approximately 24 percent.4 While we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that the employees in the bargaining unit-but for 'See. e.g.. Glonac Plastics. Inc., 234 NI.RB 1309 (1979), enfd. 592 F.2d 94. (2d Cir. 1979). 1 The unit in which the Union was certified was all construction and main- tenance employees at Respondent's Alta Vista and Crewe Virginia, facili- ties. 'Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge awarded the unit employees the following items: from May 1, 1977. the date from which the refusal to bargain was alleged, until February 25, 1978, when the unit employees were given the increases noted above, wages equal to an increase of 6.72 percent, three additional holidays a year, and an increased insurance contribution; and from November 1. 1977. until February 25. 1978, and additional pay increase of 7 percent. As noted, these benefits were the exact benefits ac- corded the nonunit employees at relevant times. 243 NLRB No. 59 390 SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE Respondent's unfair labor practices-would have re- ceived wage and benefit increases similar to those re- ceived by the nonunit employees, the record is not as clear as the Administrative Law Judge indicated that the unit employees would have received the same per- centage wage increases as the clerical employees. However, we conclude that the record does allow us to make the following modifications to the recom- mended remedy. We note first that the initial increase for nonunit employees in November 1976 was awarded in accord- ance with the recommendation of a reorganization and job evaluation study by Richard Ritscher, a con- sultant who was an expert in drafting wage plans for electrical utilities. The study commenced in the spring of 1976 and was finished on October 21, 1976. The second increase, given to the nonunit employees in November 1977, was also pursuant to the formula established by Ritscher. The record further shows that on February 9, 1977, Ritscher, in a letter to Respondent, submitted a wage scale and ranges for each classification of the unit em- ployees which was very similar to the wage plan im- plemented for nonunit employees in November 1976.5 Respondent recognized that this wage plan could not be unilaterally instituted while Respondent was en- gaged in collective-bargaining negotiations, and it was not willing to negotiate about the plan or about wages at all when it commenced bargaining. It, there- fore, iced the wage plan until November 1977, when Respondent finally made a wage proposal to the Union. At that time it informed the Union about an earlier 1971 job classification plan and invited the Union to participate in modifying it. At that time Respondent estimated that revision of the plan would take as long as 2 years. That estimate was merely another bad-faith attempt to delay agreement, how- ever, for, as found by the Administrative Law Judge, Respondent had a completed job classification plan only 22 days after it requested one from Ritscher. It made that request after it had withdrawn recognition from the Union. The February 1977 plan prepared for the unit em- ployees was essentially the same as the one given them in February 1978. The 1978 plan was different only in that the percentage of the wage increase was greater-to reflect the delay in the increase--and there were some changes in classifications to alleviate employee complaints. The plan also included the same holidays and insurance benefits which have been given to the clericals in November 1976. 5The wage scale. which Ritscher denominated as H I to H 28, is the same for unit and nonunit employees. The ranges for the classifications dif- fer, in accordance with differences in the various jobs. From this evidence, we find that but for Respon- dent's bad-faith bargaining, it would have agreed to implement for the unit employees the wage plan sub- mitted to it in February 1977 by Ritscher. This find- ing is further buttressed by the record evidence which shows that Respondent, on other occasions, uni- formly approved all of Ritscher's recommendations, including the one for the nonunit employees and a recommendation for an average increase of 24 per- cent for the unit employees in February 1978. More- over, Respondent wanted a wage plan which dealt with all employees similarly, in order to assure that all employees were in relative parity. Thus, Respon- dent intended to implement an updated version of the February 1977 plan throughout its negotiations with the Union. It merely delayed the implementation of this plan as a means to destroy support for the Union. We also find that the Union would have agreed to the February 1977 wage plan, since (l) it had no ob- jection to a wage plan when it was mentioned in No- vember 1977, and (2) its own final wage proposal was for increases in line with those given to the nonunit employees. Thus, we award the unit employees a monetary amount equal to the amount they would have received pursuant to the scale established by Ritscher for unit employees in February 1977, includ- ing holidays and insurance benefits, to run from May 1, 1977. the date from which the unfair labor prac- tices were found, until February 25, 1978, with inter- est. With respect to the increases given to nonunit em- ployees in November 1977, we agree with the Admin- istrative Law Judge that the unit employees would have received increases of 7 percent. That this is the case is shown by Ritscher's recommendation of Feb- ruary 1978, wherein he computed the unit employees' new wages based on the rates (H-I-H-28) then in effect for clerical employees. These rates reflected the 7-percent increase which the clerical employees re- ceived in November 1977. Thus, when Respondent finally gave the unit employees a raise, it did so in accordance with the overall wage plan, wherein the jobs of both unit and nonunit employees are keyed to the same wage scale. Accordingly, the unit employees are to receive a 7-percent increase based on the wage scales in the February 1977 letter, with interest, for the period of November 1977 (when the nonunit em- ployees received the increase) until February 25, 1978, when Respondent gave the unit employees their first increase in 2-1/2 years.6 b It is, of course, at the compliance stage that the exact dollar liability of Respondent will he computed. We have only established a framework by which actual liabilit) will he determined. If Resrondent can demonstrate that the unit employees were, to a certain extent, compensated for the 2-1/2- year wage freeze by the large increase of February 1978, then any monetary liability should be reduced by the amount which represented compensation for the 2-1/2-)ear freeze 391 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Finally, we note that this remedy is necessary in order to make the employees whole-as nearly as possible-for the losses suffered by them as a result of Respondent's hostility to, and refusal to bargain with. the Union. Thus, this remedy does not penalize Re- spondent, and it does not conflict with Section 8(d)'s restriction on the Board's authority to compel a party "to agree to any substantive contractual provision .... " To the contrary, it merely restores the status quo ante that would have existed had Respondent bargained in good faith. And, because Respondent had a specific wage plan, which it was intent on insti- tuting, that status quo ante is not speculative.7 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or- der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be- low, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Southside Electric Cooperative, Inc., Alta Vista and Crewe, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order, as so modified: Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b): "(b) Make whole the employees in the unit found appropriate herein for the monetary losses they suf- fered as a result of Respondent's refusal to bargain in good faith with the Union as required by the section of the Board's Decision entitled 'Amended Rem- edy.' " 7 It is the factor which distinguishes the instant case rom Winn-Diusi Stores, tc., 224 NLRB 1418 (1976), wherein the Bioard awarded a similar remedy, which the Fifth ('lrcuit declined to enforce See Winn Divi Stores. In,.. v. N.L R B. 567 F.2d 1343 (Sih Cir. 1978) While the Board ordered retroactive wage increases based on a wage rate paid to Winn-Dixie ware- house employees elsewhere. the court found that measurement too specula- tive. Here. however. the record reveals Resrndent's own wage delermina- lion for the very employees at issue which was withheld because of Respondent's refusal to bargain in good faith DECISION SIA'IliMINI 0() III CASI AIMIRA ABOI Srt Vl NS()NS Administrative Law Judge: A hearing was held before me in this consolidated proceed- ing in Lynchburg, Virginia, April 3-6, 1978. The original charge was filed October 31 and served on Southside Elec- tric Cooperative, Inc. (hereafter called Respondent). No- vember 1, 1977, and amended December 19, 1977: the com- plaint was issued December 22, 1977, and amended at the hearing. The charge in Case 5-CA 9213 was filed February 13 and served on Respondent February 14. 1978: the com- plaint was issued March 14, 1978. An order consolidating cases was issued March 14, 1978. The amended complaints were duly answered by Respondent.' I The General Counsel and counsel for Respondent filed a joint motion to correct Iranscript and request to place the motion in the official exhibit folder as Ji. Exh. . The molion and request are granted in the absence of objection. The issues are whether or not Respondent refused to bar- gain in good faith with International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers Local Union 467 (hereinafter called the Union), in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to sub- mit a timely counterproposal, limiting the frequency and duration of collective-bargaining meetings. failing to desig- nate a bargaining representative with authority to agree to the terms and conditions of an initial contract with respect to economic issues, and withdrawing recognition from the Charging Party Union and thereafter refusing to meet and bargain with the Union, and thereafter unilaterally reclas- sifying employees, increasing wages, holidays, and Respon- dent's contribution to employee insurance coverage; whether or not Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act by threatening employees while negotiations were in progress: and whether or not Respondent violated Section 8(a)( I ) (3), and (5) of the Act by discharging union leader and member of the negotiating committee Michael Reid while negotiations were in progress. Also at issue is appropriate remedy. For the reasons given below, I con- clude that Respondent committed most, but not all, of the violations alleged and recommend a remedy uniquely tai- lored to effectuate the policies of the Act in this proceeding. Upon the entire record. including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by Respondent and the General Counsel. I make the following: FINDIN(; S ()IF A('I AND CO()N(I.SlSONS OF LAW I. J RISI)I( IION Respondent is a Virginia corporation engaged in the sale and transmission of electrical energy to customers from its facilities in Alta Vista and ('rewe. Virginia. During the past 12 months Respondent received gross revenues in excess of $250,00() and purchased and received in interstate com- merce materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points located outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. I find that at all times material Respondent has been, and is, an em- ployer as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in com- merce and in operations affecting commerce as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. AB()R OR(;ANIZAIION The Charging Party Union is a labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. UNfAIR L.AB)R PRA(I( is A. R/itsal To Bargain I. The issues The complaint alleges and the answer denies that Re- spondent has refused to bargain in good faith by the follow- ing conduct since May I, 1977: (1) Refusing to submit a written economic proposal until November 21, 1977: (2) limiting the frequency and duration of bargaining meetings: 392 SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE and (3) failing to designate a bargaining representative with authority to agree to economic issues. It is also alleged and denied that Respondent further refused to bargain in good faith on January 31. 1978. by withdrawing recognition and on February 22, 1978, by unilaterally reclassifying employ- ees and increasing wages, the number of holidays, and Re- spondent's contribution to employee insurance coverage. 2. Background Respondent is an electric utility cooperative with offices in Alta Vista and Crewe, Virginia. Respondent admits and I find that the following individuals were at material times its supervisors and/or agents: C. S. Hooper. Jr.. manager (Manager Hooper): S. D. I.eftwich, supervisor: C. S. Hoop- er 11, assistant supervisor (Supervisor Hooper): and Her- bert W. Larrabee, chief negotiator. A petition was filed with the National Labor Relations Board by the Union in Case 5 RC 9730 for an election among Respondent's outside employees, and the minutes of a staffing meeting held by Manager Hooper on June 7. 1976. during the organizing campaign, show' that Hooper's discussion of the Union included, among other items, an admonition that "from now on we should stop trying to be so good to the employees" and that they would no longer be allowed to take junked or discarded materials home or allowed to wash their personal cars or repair their CB ra- dios on company time with company equipment. The minutes for a July 19, 1976, staff meeting held just before the election reflect that Hooper announced that if the Union won, no unit employee would be allowed to work until the union representative signed an agreement to the effect that the employees were "willing to work before a contract is agreed upon" and would not require the co-op to "accept as minimum conditions of the labor contract" existing wages, fringes, or other conditions of employment. Hooper testified that this threat was not carried out, be- cause counsel advised him it was illegal. A Board election was held, the Union won by a vote of 40 to 14, and on July 28, 1976. the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: All construction and maintenance employees em- ployed at the Respondent's Alta Vista, Va. and Crewe. Va. facilities including servicemen-working foremen, first class linemen, second class linemen, apprentice linemen, groundmen, warehouse clerks, auto mechanic helper, annex janitors, electrical technician, radio-me- ter technician, truck driver, work order construction clerk, night dispatchers, and right of way inspector: but excluding all part-time day dispatchers, office cleri- cal employees, engineers, guards and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. In the past Respondent had given general pay increases to all its employees on January I and July . 1974. and January I and November I, 1975. Therefore. when negotia- tions began, the unit employees had not received a pay 2 I accept the minutes of staff meetings as accurate reflections of what was said at the meetings because they were produced by Respondent from Man- ager Hooper's files. increase since November 1, 1975. Respondent had, how- ever, commissioned Richard Ritscher, of the National Ru- ral Electric Cooperative Association (NRE('A), to conduct a study and produce a reorganization plan including job descriptions and reevaluations and recommended pay scales for all its employees. When the Union was certified. however. Respondent. without advising the Union. in- structed Ritscher to discontinue work on the job reevalu- ation and pay scale plan for unit employees, but to continue work on those programs for nonunit and management em- ployees and on job descriptions for all employees. Respondent declined the Union's suggestion that nego- tiations begin on August 16. 1976, and the first meeting took place September 22. 1976. From then until May I, 1977. all negotiating sessions were conducted at a motel in Crewe. Virginia. At the September 22, 1976. meeting the Union presented a noneconomic contract proposal. and the parties agreed to defer economic issues until noneconomic matters were disposed of. Three negotiating sessions were held during September, and seven were held during Octo- ber 1976. On October 21. 1976, Ritscher submitted to Respondent his completed reorganization plan and a job reevaluation plan for nonunit employees. Based on his conclusion that the pay and benefits of Respondent's employees were below those of the current labor market, he recommended a 6.72- percent wage increase, 2 full- and 2 half-day additional holidays, and that Respondent increase its contribution to those employees' hospital insurance from 50 to 75 percent. Ritscher's recommendations were approved by Respon- dent's board of directors and went into effect November , 1976. Two bargaining sessions were held by the Union and Re- spondent in November. and three in December, 1976. State and Federal mediators joined the sessions at the request of the nion over the objections ot' Respondent December 14, 1976: the Virginia mediator attended a total of two meet- ings, and the Federal mediator attended all subsequent bar- gaining sessions. In 1977 the parties met three times in January and twice in February. After meeting once in March. on the 27th, they agreed to drop the few unresolved noneconomic issues and take up economic matters. No meeting was held in April, and economic issues were the main subject of discus- sion at 12 subsequent meetings held over the next 9 months beginning May 1. 1977. 3. Conduct in issue' May 1, 1977. The Union presented its first economic de- mand at this meeting-wage increases for all employees which the Union estimated as somewhat less than 20 per- cent above the highest rate in each classification. Respon- dent to pay for tools and equipment necessary to perform Where accounts differ. the facts with regard to the bargaining sessions in issue are based mainly on the testimony given by International Representa- tive Lawrence Hogan and Local 467 Business Manager Roy Keatts, whom I credit over Respondent's chief negotiator and Atlorney John Boswell. The General Counsel's witnesses appeared t be persons of tenacious integrity. while Respondent's witnesses appeared to tailor their testimony to fit Re- spondent's cause. 393 Dt('CISIONS OF NATIONAL ILABOR RELATIONS BOARD the job, 3-1/2 more holidays, vacations, and union dues checkoff. The Union spent some time explaining its propos- als, which were based on the concept that all employees doing the same work should receive the same pay. Respon- dent's representatives retorted that the proposals were ri- diculous and would bankrupt the co-op. International Rep- resentative Hogan explained that this was the Union's first demand, that it was negotiable, and asked for a counterpro- posal. Larrabee replied that he would study the Union's demand. Larrabee also announced that Respondent would no longer pay for the motel space in which the parties had been meeting; the Union suggested moving to Lynchburg, where it could provide facilities: Respondent refused to meet there; and the parties (the Union, temporarily) ac- cepted an invitation to meet in the mediator's headquarters in Richmond, where all subsequent negotiating sessions were held. May 9, 1977. Respondent's representatives asserted that the union proposal would cost the Company $250.000, which was unrealistic because the co-op was having trouble collecting old bills and had operated at a loss in March and April. They also disagreed with the concept inherent in the union proposal that employees doing the same work should receive the same pay, preferring the graduated scale based on seniority then in effect. Hogan suggested a probationary period, and equal pay thereafter, but Larrabee still dis- agreed. Hogan passed Larrabee a note proposing that bene- fits for union employees be the same as those of the nonunit employees. Larrabee announced his intent to meet with representatives of NRECA in Washington, D.C., with re- spect to pensions and hospitalization insurance. I-logan re- peated that the Union's proposal was just that, a proposal, that it was negotiable, and again requested a counterpro- posal, but .arrabee replied he needed time for study. Mal 16, 1977. At Respondent's request, Hogan gave ur- ther explanation of the Union's proposals. Respondent's representatives said the co-op was in poor financial condi- tion and could not afford such wage increases. Hogan asked why, if that was so, they had given nonunit employees a raise, and the reply was that all those personnel deserved a raise. June 11, 1977. This meeting began with additional objec- tions to the Union's May I proposal, which Larrabee esti- mated would amount to 19 53-percent increases for various employees, whereas settlements in the Virginia electric companies were running at 7 7.8-percent wage increases. He went on that Virginia Electric and Power Co. (VEPCO) was proposing 22 26-percent wholesale rate hikes for power supplied to this and other Virginia and North ('aro- lina co-ops, which would have an adverse impact on the co- op's financial status. Larrabee said he was unable to make a counteroffer, but had scheduled meetings on pension and health-and-welfare plans in July with representatives of NRECA and as a result would have additional data to re- view with co-op Manager Hooper for presentation at the co-op board of directors meeting (as the board of directors met every third Thursday, the reference presumably was to the meeting scheduled for July 21). June 21, 1977. This meeting consisted almost entirely of a long talk by a representative of Respondent about various factors which were said to have had a possibly adverse ef- fect on the economic future of the co-op. June 22, 1977. Larrabee informed the union representa- tives that the co-op had lost 4,000 customers, that the em- ployees' pay was already in line with that of employees of other co-ops. and that Respondent could not afford to give an increase in pay, but would come up with a counterpro- posal soon.4 July 29, 1977. The company representatives provided more details about the business problems of the co-op at this meeting. L.arrabee also made an oral counterproposal, stating he was thinking along the lines of a 5-year contract with a 5-percent increase the first year, 3 percent the sec- ond, 2 percent the third, and no increases the final 2 years, with no wage reopener or cost-of-living increases: continu- ing the present hospitalization insurance plan; and continu- ing the present pension plan with a I-percent reduction in the amount contributed by the co-op. Hogan rejected the 5- year-contract proposal with what he considered such low increases. September . 1977. Hogan made the Union's second economic proposal as a package: a 2-Near contract with a 10-percent increase for the highest paid employees in each classification and 14 percent for those receiving less than the highest rate the first year and 8 and 12 percent, respec- tively, the second year and tools expenses, holidays. dues checkoff; and continuation of' present fringe benefits as pre- viously proposed. Respondent voiced its continued objec- tion to the concept of striving for equal pay for equal work, and ogan responded that he would not insist on this as- pect of the proposal. I.arrabee charged that the proposal amounted to a 50-percent increase in wage costs. No agree- ment was reached. The minutes of Hooper's September 29, 1977. meeting with his staff reveal that Supervisor Leftwich asked if the co-op would be able to give the men a raise this year, and 1looper replied, "W]e could not give them a raise unless we go to the Union, and then the men would be getting what they want." .ceftwich reported being told the men would quit if the, did not get a raise this year. to which Hooper responded. "[11 f they quit, we will just advertise for more help." It was then announced that the employees who did not want the Union knew they could then call for a vote, but they had obtained onlN 14 of the 17 signatures needed. Hlooper then said that "he certainly hopes all of the other Ithan the negotiating team] staff members will start working on this Union situation immediately. The) can tell the em- ployees that it looks like this thing is going to affect them this year and they want something done about it." It was not long after this, as found below, that Supervisor Left- wich informed employees they would not get a wage in- crease until they got rid of the Union. On October 24, 1977, employee Michael Reid, a member of the union negotiating team, was terminated under circumstances described below. On November 1, 1977, another wage increase, this time of 7 percent, went into effect for nonunit employees. October 27, 1977. Larrabee reviewed the Union's second proposal in detail, terming it totally unrealistic. requiring 19-50-percent increases for various employees. Larrabee promised a written counterproposal for November 21. I find, contrary to the testimony of Larrabee, that there was no negotiat- ing session on June 29, 1977. 394 SO ll HSISl[): FIECTRI(' COOPERATIVE November 21. 1977. At this meeting Respondent pre- sented its first written economic proposal. The proposal was for a 5-year contract. It set forth objections to the Union's proposal, which did not. however. include inability to pay. The written proposal stated, among other things: The Union's proposal fails to take into consideration the amount of longevity paid to long-time employees under the established plan of Cooperative or the eco- nomic relationship of' pay rates to the marketplace. Respondent's proposal also stated. "The Cooperative pro- poses establishing a new job classification reevaluation plan." and offered a wage increase of 5 percent the first year. 4 percent the second, 3 percent the third, and zero increases the fourth and fifth years of the contract. By way of explanation, arrahee said he had obtained job classifi- cation reevaluation plan from Richard Ritscher of NRECA, but the plan was outdated and must be brought up to date, and he hoped to present an updated plan soon. Hogan expressed surprise at the sudden proposal of a job reevaluation plan, but said he had no objection, as reevalu- ation was a managements prerogative. On November 28. 1977, the VEPCO request for a 22 26- percent hike in the wholesale rate for power supplied to the co-op for resale was settled for 16 percent. Hooper testified that, in any event, since early 1977 the co-op has had au- thority to automatically adjust the retail rates it charges to its customers to reflect wholesale rates charged by VEPCO. but that the co-op has not increased its retail rates for power since 1974. December 16. /977. Larrabee gave the Union a copy of a 1971 uniform job evaluation program he had obtained from NRECA. explained it was not up to date, and informed them that the unit jobs would have to be reevaluated before there could be any further discussion of wages. The Federal mediator asked now long an update would take, and Larra- bee said he was trying to get Management Consultant Rit- scher to do the work, and it could take 2 months to 2 years. Larrabee asked whether the Union would like to participate in the reevaluation process, and Hogan repeated that the Union was not interested, as it considered employee evalu- ation to be a management prerogative. Larrabee said he would select a committee of employees to assist in the pro- gram. and Hogan told him to get on with it. Hogan then put forward a proposal, which he said would remain out- standing until February 1978, for a I-year contract with a 15-percent across-the-board wage increase, which he under- stood to approximate the increases already given to nonunit employees since negotiations began, with the noneconomic provisions already agreed to and checkoff. Larrabee agreed to think it over, but specified that nothing would be done until the reevaluation plan was completed. Although Larra- bee did not wish to meet with the union representatives again until his reevaluation plan was completed, the parties did arrange to meet on January 16. 1978, the next date Larrabee was available. January 16. 1978. This was the last negotiating session. Larrabee announced that Ritscher of' NRECA had agreed to draw up a reevaluation plan and invited the Union to participate in the selection of employees to take part in the process. Hogan merely responded that the Union had ex- pressed no objection to any reevaluation if the parties would get on with their negotiations. In his opinion, giving the unit employees a 15-percent increase, as proposed, would have no effect on such a plan. Larrabee stated that 15 percent was out of the question because the reevaluation plan might entail some wage increases. and until Respon- dent knew what they would be, it could not commit itself' to any other increases. Larrabee said that in fact he wished to reduce the number of holidays enjoyed by the unit employ- ees by I- I /2 days (even though he revealed he did not know how many holidays were presently enjoyed). Hogan again pointed out that the Union's proposal conformed to Re- spondent's treatment of nonunit employees, and Larrabee responded that the Union did not represent those employ- ees, and what Respondent did about them was its own busi- ness. The mediator inquired again why it would take so long to reevaluate the employees, and arrabee estimated this time that the job would be completed in about 45 days. Although Larrabee again voiced his opinion that it would be futile for the parties to meet again until his reevaluation plan had been completed. he agreed to convene on Febru- arv 21. On the same date, January 16, 1978 a decertification petition was filed.5 Jonuarl 31, 1978. Manager Hooper addressed the follow- ing letter to Union Representative Hogan on this date: This is to notify you that we, in good faith, doubt that you and the I.B.E.W. continue to represent a ma- jority of our employees in the collective bargaining unit. We base this belief on the following: (1 A decertification petition has been filed and we were notified of that fact by an NLRB agent last week. (2) We have had substantial turnover in the bar- gaining unit since the certification. (3) We have heard numerous complaints from the employees concerning your failure to adequately represent them. (4) Your bargaining position has weakened con- siderabls inasmuch as you previously withdrew sub- stantially all demands placed on the bargaining ta- ble. and (5) Employees in the unit have ceased attending the bargaining sessions. Accordingly, since this question concerning repre- sentation has arisen, we will no longer deal with you as a representative of our employees until ou establish your majority status. We hereby cancel the planned meeting date of February 21. 1978.6 February' 22, 1978. Richard Ritscher submitted his com- pleted reevaluation plan to the board of directors in a memo which began as follows: On January 31, 1978, Mr. Hooper wrote to the rep- resentative of the International Brotherhood of Electri- cal Workers informing him that the Cooperative felt ' The decertfication petiion was dismissed by the Regional Director on Ma 4 or 5, 1978 6 On Februar) 9, 1978. Hogan protested the withdrawal of recognition in a letter to tlxooper and requested continuation of negotiations. 395 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the union no longer represented a majority of the Cooperative's outside employees. Because of this opin- ion, it was determined that the Cooperative would go ahead with a planned reevaluation of all positions which had been included in the bargaining unit toward the end of establishing new wage rates within a system- atic pay plan such as the one covering the rest of the Cooperative's employees .... The plan made some changes in classifications, designed chiefly to meet, at least to some extent, a request by the employee committee that all employees doing the same work should receive the same pay by consolidating jobs and narrowing the difference between the highest and lowest rate for each job: the plan also substituted for the previous single apprentice classification four progressive apprentice classifications leading to journeyman lineman. In addition. the plan placed all job classifications into graduated pay scales which had been established in the nonunit plan which went into effect November 1, 1976. It recommended pay increases for all unit personnel, depending on classifica- tion and scale, based on "the latest Labor Market informa- tion . . within the Co-op's ability to pay," which amounted to a 19.65-percent cost increase overall for wages alone, in addition to the 5-percent cost of the increases offered by Respondent to the Union. Some employees received as much as 40-percent wage increases, the average being 24 percent. In addition, the plan recommended 2 full- and 2 half-day additional holidays and an increase in the Compa- ny's contribution from 50 to 75 percent of hospital insur- ance costs for each employee, benefits which nonunit em- ployees had received previously.7 Hooper approved the plan and assigned individual em- ployees to classifications and to appropriate pay rates within the wage scale. The board of directors adopted the Ritscher plan on the same day it was submitted, February 22, 1978, effective February 25, 1978. March 15, 1978. Manager Hooper addressed a letter to each unit employee, all of whom received pay and benefit increases, advising him of his new classification and in- crease in pay and other benefits and cautioning: You must realize that any future negative rulings by the National Labor Relations Board may force the Co- operative to withdraw this pay increase. 4. Conclusions I do not credit Larrabee's testimony that the infrequency and short duration of the meetings which the record estab- lishes were due largely to unavailability of the mediator. It is clear that Larrabee all along resented the participation of the mediator, whose presence Respondent's brief implies was disruptive, and sought to justify this attitude by shifting the blame to him in this respect. On the contrary, I credit International Representative Hogan and Local 467 Busi- ness Manager Keatts that it was primarily Larrabee who was unavailable, resulting in so few meetings being held at such long intervals, and that it was Larrabee who arrived No change was recommended in the unit employees' pension plan, which Respondent had improved for nonunit employees only on January , 1978. late, interrupted meetings for reasons unconnected with the negotiations, and called prolonged caucuses during which it is obvious that neither offers nor counteroffers were consid- ered or discussed. Indeed, Respondent's attorney, John Boswell, admitted that the union representatives continu- ally pressed for more frequent meetings. Moreover, this en- tire record supports the likelihood that the Union represen- tatives would have considered their best interests to lie with speedy arrival at a mutually satisfactory collective-bargain- ing agreement. The Board has held there to be no legal acceptance in the explanation that a party's representative is a busy consultant with many clients and demands on his time, as it is a party's obligation to furnish a representative who can be available to negotiate at reasonable times with- out inordinate delays, as the statute requires.8 The record herein, however, justifies the conclusion that Larrabee's un- availability, lateness, and interruptions were part of a delib- erate policy by Respondent of delay and discouragement leading to no agreement at all and indicative of its refusal to bargain with the Union in good faith, in violation of Section 8(a)(5). Respondent denies that it refused to submit an economic proposal until November 21, 1977. insisting that it made a good-faith offer on June 29, 1977. Although I have fbund that no meeting was held on June 29, I take this to be a reference to the oral offer which I have found Larrabee made on July 29, 1977. 1 find, however, that this was not a good-faith offer. In the first place, Larrabee phrased it in terms of his "thinking" only. In addition, Manager Hooper testified that he had his first discussion of economics with Larrabee in mid-July, but failed to mention authorizing this offer: and although Respondent's board of directors meets every third Thursday, and presumably therefore met on July 21, there is no hint that he cleared this offer at that time. On the contrary, Hooper indicated that no proposal was firmed up as a result of his discussions with Larrabee until November 21. 1977, because of some alleged long- range operating projections which he had to complete be- fore he could construct a counterproposal. I find, therefore, that Larrabee's July 29 offer did not have the required ap- proval of Manager Hooper and the board of directors, al- though if it had been accepted by the Union, they no doubt would have jumped at the chance to approve anything so disadvantageous to the Union and to the unit employees. I thus find that the first authoritative economic counterpro- posal was made by Respondent in its written offer of No- vember 21, 1977, which had the necessary assent of the manager and the board. It is thus plain that despite the Union's repeated requests for a counterproposal, Respondent's first genuine counter- proposal was not put forward until more than 6 months after the parties by agreement began negotiating economic issues. Respondent accounts for the delay by its allegedly unfa- vorable financial condition and the need for a job reevalu- ation plan. Indeed, Respondent's representatives took up practically the entire time of six of the nine meetings follow- ing May I detailing the co-op's purported financial dis- tresses. The truth of the matter was, however, that the co- I Inter-Polymer Industries, Inc., 196 NLRB 729. 760 (1972). 396 SOUTHSID)I ELECTRIC (OOPEiRATIVE op's financial condition was not relevant to any counterpro- posals it could have made. This is clearly shown by its fail- ure to include it among Respondent's stated objections to the Union's proposals in its written offer of November 21 and the absence of the ability-to-pay factor in Ritscher's recommendations of pay increases for nonunit employees which were implemented in the fall of 1976 and the fall of 1977. And although Ritscher asserted, in his subsequent recommendation of' increases for unit employees (which were immediately approved), that the co-op had the ability to pay, there is no evidence whatsoever that Ritscher was familiar with or took into consideration Respondent's fi- nancial condition. Moreover. Respondent's plea of the damaging financial effects of VEPCO's request for an in- crease in the wholesale power rate was clearly false in view of IHooper's admission that the co-op had authority auto- matically to make adjustments in the retail rates it charged if its wholesale rate was raised and his concession that the co-op has not raised its retail rate despite the subsequent VEPCO increase. In view of Ritscher's pay and benefit in- crease recommendations, quickly adopted by Respondent. in 1976 and 1977 for nonunit employees and in 1978 for unit employees, based on the proposition therein, and his testimony. that Respondent was paying considerably less than the labor market rate. Larrabee's declaration, at the June 11. 1977. negotiating session, that the pay of unit em- ployees, who had not received any increases since 1975, was already in line with that of employees of other co-ops and that Respondent could not afford to give them any in- creases was patently deceptive. In these circumstances Re- spondent's charge, in its November 21, 1977. counterpro- posal, that the Union's proposal failed to take into consideration "the economic relationship of pay rates to the marketplace" can only be regarded as cynical. Similarly deceptive were Respondent's repeated asser- tions of the necessity of delaying a counterproposal until Larrabee could arrange consultations with NRECA offi- cials on pension and hospital insurance benefits. Although Larrabee told the union representatives on June I 11. 1977. that his meeting with NRECA officials would provide him with data to review with Manager Hooper and the board of directors at their meeting, there is no indication that any such data were presented at the directors' meeting of June 23 or July 21 or at any time before Respondent's November 21 proposal was approved, if then. In any event, the Union had proposed only the same fringe benefits already ex- tended to nonunit employees, and Respondent was aware of those costs, based on Ritscher's prior nonunit report. Further evidence of Respondent's bad faith was revealed in the minutes of the staff meeting of September 29. 1977. when Hooper strongly implied that no increases would be given until the employees abandoned the Union: and if they did not like it, they could quit, as Respondent would merely replace them, followed by Supervisor Leftwich's re- laying this information to the employees, as found below. Finally, despite the lengthy and detailed evidence of al- leged financial difficulties, there is no substantial evidence of any change in Respondent's financial condition to ac- count for either its counterproposal of November 21, 1977, or the dramatically more substantial increases given to unit employees after recognition was withdrawn from the Union. With regard to the job reevaluation plan, the record shows that Respondent conlmissioned Ritscher to reeval- uate the jobs of all its employees in 1975 and that it told him to cease work on the unit jobs when the nion was certified. As Respondent therefore merely interrupted an ongoing program of its own device, I do not credit I.arrabee that the only reason he undertook the program was to pla- cate International Representative Hogan's predecessor as chief union negotiator. who complained there were too many job classifications. Nor do I credit I.arrabee and At- torney Boswell that L.arrabee raised the subject of job re- evaluations off and on throughout the entire negotiations Boswell having admitted anyway that the subject was not mentioned as related to wage and benefit increases. On the contrary, I credit Hogan and Keatts, as I have above, that the subject of job reevaluations was not raised by Larrabee until November 21. 1977. when it appeared in Respondent's first written counterproposal. Hooper's testimony that L.ar- rabee reported that from May . 1977. on, he requested permission to proceed with the plan, but that the Union was adamantly opposed to it. is therefore not true. Indeed, from the time the subject was raised, on November 2 I, the Union never objected, repeatedly maintaining it was a man- agement prerogative. This is not to say that the lnion gave Respondent carte blanche to effect any wage or benefit in- creases without obtaining the Union's agreement in nego- tiations. as the Union was firm on exactly the opposite proposition. So what really happened was that the co-op unilaterally called a halt to its previously inaugurated job reevaluation program, without so informing the Union, and for 16 months after the Union's certification prevented Rit- scher from continuing with his assignment, without saying one word on the subject to the Union. Then, after spending over 6 months of economic negotiations engaging in delay- ing tactics. it suddenly resurrected the idea and told the Union it could negotiate no further on economic issues for a period of up to 2 years, until the plan was completed. As was revealed in Ritscher's February 22. 1978. memo to Manager Hooper. Respondent did not in fact give Ritscher the go-ahead until after it withdrew recognition and refused to bargain further with the Union altogether, and Ritscher then completed the plan in 22 days. I accordingly find no merit in Respondent's defense based on the alleged financial condition of the co-op or the need for a job reevaluation plan. The above-detailed conduct by Respondent was wholly inconsistent with the exchange of proposals and counter- proposals by parties endeavoring in good faith to reach agreement on the terms of a collective-bargaining agree- ment. as the Act visualizes. I therefore conclude that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by lim- iting the frequency and duration of bargaining meetings and refusing to submit a written economic proposal until November 21, 1977. as alleged in the complaint.' The following evidence relates to Manager Hooper's withdrawal of recognition on January 31., 1978: (a) Decerification petition. Hxooper testified that his only knowledge of the petition was that he received a copy from the Board 2 or 3 days after it was filed on January 16. 1978. 9 Inter-Polymer Indueries. Inc., supra, 761. 397 IDF9( ISIONS ()I NATIONAL I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARI) (b) urnovcr vince certification. Nine employees. includ- ing Michael Reid, had left the unit tfr one reason or an- other. and five new employees had been hired. (c) Emplovee omplaints that the Ul1 ion ailed t ade- quatel/v represent them. According to ooper, this statement was based on his conversations with five employees who asked him what was going to happen. "when we would sign a contract with the union," and why the employees could get no raises, as "[tlhey was hurting for pay raises." and told Hooper "the union hadn't done anything or them." (d) Weakened bargaining position of the U /nion as reflhcted in its withdrawal of'substantialiv all demands. No justifica- tion ftr this assertion was presented by Respondent. but the record shows that although the Union had modified its de- mands in the face of Respondent's intransigence, it had not withdrawn substantially all its demands. (e) Unit emploveev had cettsed attending hargaining ser- sions. Manager Hooper testified that Larrabee reported that no employees were attending the negotiating sessions, and they appeared to have lost interest in them. The record shows, however, that employee attendance was high during the first 8 months the negotiating sessions were held in Crewe, Virginia: indeed, Larrabee objected to the attend- ance of so many employees on several occasions and tried unsuccessfully to get the Union to limit the number permit- ted. It was only after Respondent refused to meet in Crewe any longer--- and also refused to meet in Lynchburg, where the Union could provide meeting space and the meetings were moved to Richmond that employee attendance fell off because of the distance involved. Larrabee thereafter con- sistently refused the Union's repeated requests to move the meeting to Lynchburg. It is well established that where, as here, an employer has engaged in unlawful conduct which directly affected all unit employees and which could have reasonably been predicted to cause disaffection, it cannot rely on the filing of a decer- tification petition to justify withdrawal of recognitions Nor can it, in such circumstances, rely on turnover." Moreover, although new employees are presumed to support the union in the same ratio as those whom they have replaced,' the Union would not have lost its majority status even if all five replacements had been antiunion. Similarly, even if the five employees who allegedly complained to Hooper about the Union were different individuals from the five replace- ments, the Union still would not have lost its majority. In any event, it was Respondent's unlawful conduct, as found, and no lack of diligence on the part of the Union, which lay at the bottom of employee complaints and the other consid- erations enumerated by Manager Hooper in his letter of January 31, 1978. 1 conclude that the withdrawal of recog- nition and refusal to bargain on and after January 31, 1978, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.'" With regard to Respondent's unilateral increase in wages, holidays, and contributions to employee insurance cover- age, it never submitted these increases to the Union as pro- 'Autoprod Inc., 223 NLRB 773, fn. 2 (1976). "James W Whitfield db/a Cutten Supermarket, 220 NLRB 507, 508 (1975). ' Id at 509. ' See Cornell of California, Inc.. 222 NLRB 303 (1976). posals, and the Union never acquiesced in any of these uni- lateral changes. On the contrary, the benefits unilaterally given far exceeded any proposals offered to the Union. Moreover, Respondent accompanied its largesse with, as I find below, a threat to rescind the increases granted if the unfair labor practice charges against it were proved. The Supreme Court held in N.L. R.B. v. Benne Katz, etc., d/h/a Williamshurg Steel Products Co., 369 U.S. 736, (1962). that an employer violates Section 8(a)(5) if it makes unilateral changes in wages, hours, or working conditions without first bargaining to an impasse with a majority rep- resentative of its employees, regardless of its motive in mak- ing such changes. There is no contention, and no evidence, that the parties here had reached an impasse. But the evi- dence is overwhelming that Respondent's motive was to undermine the Union and win the employees' allegiance by a dramatic demonstration that it was to their benefit to place their reliance not in the Union or the Board but in Respondent alone. I conclude that the unilateral increases in wages benefits, effective February 25, 1978. were viola- tive of Section 8(a)(5) and ( I ) of the Act. Summarizing, in making the findings herein of unlawful conduct, I have taken into consideration the background and context in which the conduct occurred. Manager Hooper announced before the election his intention of de- priving employees of some of the benefits they enjoyed in retaliation against the advent of the Union and his inten- tion of conditioning further employment, if' the Union was elected, on a union representative's signing a contract agreeing in effect not to strike and not to permit the mini- mum demand of continuation of present benefits, intentions which were not carried out only because of advice of coun- sel. After the election, Respondent unilaterally and secretly discontinued its job reevaluation program for unit employ- ees and 16 months later used the purported need for such a program to justify its refusal to engage in further discus- sions of' economic issues. It failed to make any preparations for economic counterproposals during the 9 months after the Union's certification, during which period it gave two increases to nonunit employees, each of which exceeded the single counterproposal it eventually offered the Union. It spent meeting after meeting discussing allegedly poor finan- cial conditions which it knew had no bearing on its negotia- tions with the Union. Soon after the certification year ex- pired, Respondent's manager clearly implied to his staff that the unit employees would receive no wage increases until they abandoned the Union and urged the staff to fa- cilitate the decertification petition. As found below, it inter- fered with its employees' rights under Section 7 of the Act and discriminatorily discharged the leading employee union adherent. In these and all other circumstances described herein, I conclude that Respondent on and after May 1, 1977, failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Union as the certified representative of its employees in an appropriate unit by failing and refusing to submit a valid economic proposal until November 21, 1977: limiting the frequency and duration of collective-bargaining meetings; withdrawing recognition from the Union on and after Janu- ary 31, 1978, and thereafter refusing to meet and bargain; and on February 25. 1978, unilaterally increasing wages, holidays, and Respondent's contribution to employee insur- 398 SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ance coverage. all for the purpose of undermining employee support of the linion and avoiding reaching agreement, in violation of Section 8(a) 5) of the Act. ' B. Inlerfi'rence The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that an admitted supervisor, S. D. Leftwich. in October 1977 told employees they would not receive a wage increase until they got rid of the Union and in November distributed let- ters which encouraged employees to get rid of the Union and implied employees would not get a raise until they abandoned the Union; that another admitted supervisor. C. S. Hooper Ill, in November 1977 encouraged employees to read the same letters: and that C. S. Hooper. Jr.. in March 1978 distributed a letter which threatened employ- ees with loss of a pay increase if the Board found merit in the charges filed in these cases. As found above. Manager Hooper told Supervisor left- wich at the September 29. 1977. staff meeting in effect that Respondent could not give the employees a raise without going through the Union: that if it did that, the men would be getting what they wanted: and that the staff should en- courage the men to support the decertification petition. Employees Woodrow Mason. James Scruggs, Travis Johnson, Bobby Wayne Ashwell. and Michael Reid testi- fied that in mid-October Leftwich told a group of employ- ees they would not get a pay raise as long as they had the Union. or until the, got rid of the Union.'" On October 24. 1977, Franklin Pond. a unit employee employed at Crewe. typed. made copies of. and distributed an unsigned open letter to employees stating in part: What is preventing us as a group, from receiving a pay raise? By this time it should be obvious to all that it is management's resentment of unionization that's to blame.... Management is not going to give even one inch on this issue. They are only obligated to bargain in good faith, and in good faith they will bargain until dooms- day.... But no one is going to get a raise until the union is disposed of to management's liking ... Alta Vista employees Robert Blankenship. ('lifford Lee. and James Wolfe testified that in early November Supervi- sor Leftwich handed them copies of this letter, saying that he had left additional copies on a table for employees to pick up. Blankenship testified he had no knowledge of Pond's connection with the letter, and Lee was not ac- quainted with Pond. Employees Ashwell and Johnson testi- 4 Based on the corroborative undisputed estimony oi Manager Hooper and Chief Negotiator Larrabee. find. Im agreement with Respondent. that Larrabee was given full authonty to agree to economic issues, subject only to clearance with Hooper and Respondent's hoard of directors. I conclude that the record fails to support the allegation that Respondent failed to designate a representative with authority to agree to economic issues In iew of the Union's consistent position. on and after November 21. 1977, when the Re- spondent first raised the matter of reevaluating the employees. that it had no objection and considered the matter to he a management prerogative. no finding can be based on Respondent's unilateral reevaluation of unit jobh I therefore conclude that these allegations should he dismissed. l I credit this mutually corroboratise testimony .eftst ich admitted telling employees something to this effect fled that when they saw copies of the letter on the table in the linemen's room. Supervisor Hooper told them that Left- wich had brought them to Alta Vista from Crewe. Alta Vista employee Mason testified Supervisor looper told him that "there were some papers on the desk there that would he interesting to me. e said, 'I think it would be worth- while for you to look at them.' ' Mason also had no knowl- edge that Pond had drafted the letter.'" I find no merit in Respondent's contention that the conduct of Leftwtch and Hooper should be discounted because it was ,e nnimis, and they were low-level supervisors. Although the' were first-level supervisors, and employees on occasion kidded Hooper about signing a union card. Hooper is the son of the co-op manager, and eftwich was following through on the manager's policy statement made at a staff meeting. The employees could therefore reasonably assume that the supervisors were reflecting company policy, as indeed they were. Nor in the circumstances do I consider Supervisor Hooper's statement to two employees that he had nothing to do with the letter or that he wanted to remain neutral in the union matter to constitute adequate disavowal by him or by Respondent of his conduct. Moreover. it does not signify that employee Pond made no secret that he was antiunion and the author of the letter or that he isited the Alta Vista premises a month or so later. in l)ecember 1977. to gage employee sentiment for abandoning the I nion. By that time the two supervisors had already impressed the employees with the necessity of getting rid of the I nion in order to get a pay raise. Accordingly, I find that in mid-Octoher 1977 Supervisor I.eltwich told employees the! would not receive a wage in- crease until they got rid of the nion. I also find that in early November 1977 Supervisors I.eftwich and tHooper adopted and sponsored statements to the same etfhct in Pond's letter. I conclude that Respondent thereby inter- fered with its emplo'ees' Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)( I and made clear to the emplo, ecs its deternii- nation not to hbargain n good faith with the Ulnion. i vio- lation of Section X(a)(5). as alleged in the complaint.l ' As stated above. Manalger looper included in his letters of March 15. 1978. infornling all unit employees of the pay and benefit increases unilaterally granted a paragraph to the effect that ''an' future negative rulings by the National Labor Relations Board lmay force the Cooperative to with- draw this pay increase." As no explanation for this asser- tion has been offered by Respondent, and as the Board has never been known to penalize employees for unfair labor practices committed by their employer. it can only be as- sumed this remark was intended as a threat to rescind the increases granted if Respondent was found to have violated the Act and thereby to intimidate employees and dissipate support for the Union. I conclude that the statement was a violation of Section 8(a)( I) and (5).'" " I credit this mutually crroborative testimony by the General ( ounsel's witnesses and discredit L.eftwlch's denial that he ever saw this letter. Super- visor Hooper did not estit' I have read with interest 1. R B s Re,nolds Intrnaiionai Pen (nm- panm. 162 F.2d 680 (7th ('ir 19471); Neada Tan, and (asing. 144 NL.RB 123 (1963)1: and The Brden (companv,. 142 NlRB 364 11963). to, which the Re- spondent has directed ma attention. hut find that those cases are distinguish- ahle on their facts. ' See ega Indusrie.s, Inc-. 207 Nl RB 14 (1973) 399 DECISIONS ()F NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. ermination of Michael Reid The complaint alleges that Reid was terminated on Octo- her 25,. 1977, because of his leadership of employee union activities and to undermine support for the Union. Respon- dent contends he was terminated because he refused a pro- motion and was insubordinate to Manager Hooper.'" Respondent hired Reid on October 27, 1970, as an ap- prentice lineman. It promoted him and granted him wage increases on a regular basis until September 15. 1976, when he was made a serviceman-working foreman at Alta Vista. Reid made the initial contact with the Union and passed out authorization cards among the Alta Vista employees. At the eligibility hearing held on the petition in the RC case, Reid told Manager Hooper he had started the Union campaign and would see it through. At about the same time, at a meeting the hoard of directors held with the em- ployees "to find out how the employees were thinking" about the Union, Reid announced that he knew he would be fired for it, but he was the one who started the Union. Reid served as the union observer in the Board election. Alter the certification he was a member of the union nego- tiating team and attended all sessions held in Crewe. After the sessions were transferred to Richmond, he attended only one. as it was too far for him to travel. At a stafll meeting held on August 27. 1976, Manager Itooper made the statement that Reid and several other named employees were not to he entrusted with collecting proxies for a forthcoming annual meeting when some of the members planned to try to oust the management and direc- tors, because Reid "had not been representing manage- ment" in that he had made comments that employees were not treated fairly and admitted he started the Union. At another staff meeting held over a year later, on September 29, 1977. referred to above. Hooper expressed regret that few if any Alta Vista employees had attended the annual meeting that year, and "he feels that the attitude of the men up there will remain the same as long as Mr. Reid has the control that he now has." In October 1977 Reid had been a serviceman-working foreman for about I year, with the lowest pay rate, while others had been in that classification 20 to 25 years. On October 11, 1977, Reid reported to Manager Hooper's of- fice in Crewe as instructed by Supervisor Leftwich. When he arrived, Hooper informed him the superintendent of construction at the eastern division, Crewe, was retiring; Frank Cassada was being moved up to that position: and promotion to Cassada's job of assistant supervisor of the eastern division was being offered to Reid. Hooper ex- plained some aspects of the job, one of which was that Reid would have to move to Crewe. Reid asked if he had a choice in the matter, and Hooper said he did, and although Hooper felt he should accept the position, he would not be fired if he did not accept it. Reid responded that he did not want the job, as he had no wish to move his family. Hooper 1' Where accounts differ, I credit Reid over Manager Hooper and Assist- ant Manager Southworth, as his demeanor was that of more trustworthy witness I have heretofore credited employees over Manager Hooper. His and Southworth's accounts of these events were inconsistent and contradic- tory. said if he turned the job down, it might never be offered him again. Reid remarked it was just as well, as he was satisfied with the job he had and was not overly ambitious and did not want to be a supervisor. Reid added that he felt the men would lose respect fbr him if' he left them without any union leadership to better himself. Hooper advised Reid not to decide that day, but to discuss it with his wife and let him know the following Monday. October 17. Reid thanked Hooper for the offer and promised to think it over, but said he did not think he would change his mind. There- after, on Thursday, October 13, Reid asked General Super- intendent Ferrell to tell Hooper he had thought it over and discussed it with his wife, and they had decided it was best for him to stay where he was, and he did not want the job. The following Monday, October 17, Reid stayed home sick. Manager Hooper telephoned him there during the day and said he had caught hell for offering Reid the supervi- sor's job without considering anyone else, and he had de- cided to train three men for 60 to 90 days for the job and then choose a supervisor from the three. Reid said he could see no point in taking the training, as he would not accept the job, but Hooper told him the decision stood. Reid thereafter consulted an agent of the Board, telling him Reid felt he was being promoted to get him out of the bargaining unit and to bust the Union. of which Reid was the leader among the employees, and asking whether he could refuse the promotion without being fired. The agent advised that the (Company could force him to take the training, and he should notify' them he would not refuse to do so and keep notes on what happened. and if he was fired he probably would have a case. Reid thereupon addressed a letter to Manager Hooper, dated October 17. 1977. in which he declared that he would take the training under protest, as he had no intention of accepting a promotion to assistant supervisor. Reminding Hooper of his promise not to fire Reid for refusing the pro- motion, Reid wrote he thought it was offered for the wrong reasons; that "I can't agree with the way management oper- ates and I want no part of it, regardless of the money"; and that it would be a waste of the cooperative's time and money to force him to take the training. Hooper's reply was dated October 19. 1977. Asserting management's right to make employee job assignments. Hooper wrote, in part: Accordingly, if you are unwilling to accept the assign- ment which was addressed with you it will be neces- sary for us to accept your resignation. While I realize that I did tell you that you would not be forced to accept the position, I feel that it is totally appropriate for me to require you to take the training program. I must also add that I find your comments about man- agement offensive and detrimental to the interests of the Cooperative. Because of your feeling about the Co- operative and your attitude toward taking this train- ing, the best interests of the Cooperative and all con- cerned would be best served by your resignation. If you remember we have previously accepted resigna- tions from employees who has refused assignments to take training programs, therefore, this action is not in- consistent with any previous management decisions. 400 SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC ('(X)PLRATIVE Reid's second letter to Hooper was dated October 20. 1977, and stated. in part, as follows: First. let me say that I have not refused to take the training program you suggested. and I fully intend to complete the training. I just do not want a promotion out of the bargaining unit. I am ready to start the training as scheduled on October 31st. I feel that the only reason I was offered this job was to set me up to be fired at a later date, and to break up the union, since I was mainly responsible for organiz- ing the union and am on the negotiating committee. I cannot understand why you would even want me on your management staff. I have always enjoyed the work that I have done here, and have never worked with a finer group of men. I like my job so much that I don't want to give it up for a supervisory job. I'm sure you will agree that I have always done a good job. As far as me having a had attitude toward the Coop- erative, if you will check the area around Brookneal, Appomattox, Gladys and the other areas I work. I am sure you will find I get along with the consumers quite well. I had always thought you were a man of your word and when you said I didn't have to accept the promo- tion and wouldn't be fired, I took you to mean it. Finally, let me say, I am not going to resign: now or ever. Hooper wrote as follows in his final letter to Reid. of October 24, 1977: After analyzing your letter of October 17 again and since you refuse to accept the assignment and use the training afforded you to help the Cooperative I have no other alternative but to accept your resignation. Since you have so emphatically stated that you will not resign. I am terminating your employment as of Octo- ber 25 with pay through November 3 which is two weeks notice from the date of may letter of October 19. I am having this letter delivered to you by Mr. Southworth and Mr. Ferrell a I see no reason to pro- long this any longer as we have to make other arrange- ments by your not accepting your responsibility. Hooper testified that he urged Reid to take the promo- tion at the initial interview and during the subsequent tele- phone conversation, even though Reid had been tight, trembling, and shaking. "just like a blownup bull frog," at the interview and had told him to his face Reid did not like Hooper personally; that even after receiving Reid's first let- ter saying he did not want any part of management and did not agree with management, no final decision had been made; and that when Hooper wrote his first letter to Reid, Hooper was expecting Reid to accept the assignment, and Reid still could have accepted the job and could have avoided being fired by doing so. Hooper also testified that he had in mind all along training three to five people for the supervisor position, but that Reid was so upset at the inter- view that Hooper did not tell him about that until the tele- phone conversation. The day Hooper sent his first letter to Reid, he sum- moned another Alta Vista employee, named Eades, as one of the others to be trained. telling ades the training swas for the job of assistant supervisor in either Crewe or Alta Vista, Hooper testified. Hooper continued that Fades ex- pressed willingness to accept any training or any position offered, so Hlooper abandoned the idea of training any other employees and selected Eades as the man for the training course and the job even though lhooper had been told ades had accompanied Reid when he made the initial contact with the Union. ades was eventually assigned as assistant supervisor at Alta Vista, and Hooper's son was transferred to the assistant supervisor position at ('rewe, where his home was. looper declared that although he never told Reid about it. he intended all along the place Reid in Alta Vista, and not in Crewe as he told Reid, i he had proven satisfactory in the job. When asked pointblank the reasons tor Reid's ternlina- tion, Hooper responded, Well, in the first letter, that paragraph where he said he didn't want any part of management, didn't agree with management, and such as that, and that he would not accept the assignment, and if trained. he would not accept the assignment. He didn't want that. And I de- cided I would ask him for his resignation on insubordi- nation and refusing to accept the assignment . . and my interpretation of the [letter] is that he told me where to go and he didn't want any part of manage- ment and the Co-op and that's what I consider to be insubordination, plus his conversation. Hooper claimed he had previously fired an apprentice named Elwood Dalton for refusing to take tramiing and an employee named West for heckling the instructor in a train- ing class. Assistant Manager R. V. Southworth. whom Hooper claimed to have consulted along with other staff members about Reid, testified it was company policy to discharge any' employee who refused a position, although the policy had not been previously invoked during the 7 years he had been assistant manager, as there had been no occasion to invoke it. When asked about West and Dalton, Southworth said West had been discharged. without giving a reason, but he could not identify Dalton. When asked about Howard Scruggs, a 30-year employee who Reid testified had turned down several offers of a supervisory position without being disciplined, Southworth agreed that Scruggs had been asked if he was interested in a promotion and had replied he was not, as he did not want the responsibility. South- worth distinguished Scruggs' situation from Reid's on the ground that Scruggs was not asked to take any training. Conceding that Reid had not refused to take training, Southworth pointed out that Reid said he would take the training only under protest. Southworth then indicated that the Scruggs offer may only have been proposed by a super- intendent and that Hooper may have overruled the sugges- tion before the offer was made. Southworth testified Reid's demeanor was insubordinate in his intitial interview with Hooper and that he was insubordinate in making the charge in his October 20 letter that he was offered the pro- motion to break up the Union and in commenting in one of his letters that he was selected because of his union activi- ties. 401 DI)('ISIONS OF: NATIONAI. LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD Although the co-op claimed before the Virginia Employ- ment Commission that Reid was discharged for insubordi- nation in refusing to take advancement. Reid was not dis- qualified for unemployment compensation. He credibly testified that the commission's ruling on the co-op's objec- tion was the first time he heard of insubordination as the reason for his termination. Respondent contends that in view of its knowledge of Reid's union leadership. it could have discharged him fo)r that reason, had it wished to do so, during the summer of 1977, when it suspected him of being the leader of an em- ployee movement to refuse to answer emergency calls, and points out that it did not discharge him then, but on the contrary promoted him in September 1976. Respondent also relies on Hooper's testimony that when Reid refused the position. he assigned Eades to the assistant supervisory job knowing of his union activity. It insists Reid was se- lected for promotion on the basis of merit, that it was obvi- ous to management that his acceptance of' the training while refusing the promotion was a ruse, and that he was fired for this conduct and for making insubordinate re- marks. I find no merit in these contentions. Initially, Reid was an unlikely choice for supervisor in view of his junior status on the serviceman-working tbre- man seniority roster and pay scale, Hooper's refusal to en- trust the collection of proxies to him because of his champi- onship of employee complaints and initiation of the union campaign. and Hooper's criticism of his control over the Alta Vista employees. Reid was nevertheless selected, and Hooper's conduct toward him thereafter continued to lack rationality. Thus, Hooper insisted that if Reid had accepted the pro- motion, he intended all along to station Reid in Alta Vista, near his home, so he would not have to move his family, but Hooper led Reid to believe that promotion would entail a move to Crewe even after Reid expressed his disinclina- tion to move. I find this inconsistent with any real desire or intent to have Reid accept the position. Similarly inconsis- tent with any such intent was Hooper's assuring Reid he would not be fired if he refused the promotion, thereby lulling Reid into believing he could decline with impunity, and then demanding his resignation for declining. Hooper also claimed that he planned from the first to make the same offer to several other employees, in addition to Reid, and send them all through a training course and then choose a supervisor from the group based on perform- ance and training. And yet, here again, he led Reid to be- lieve, in the interview, that he was the final and only choice and took no steps toward selecting anyone else until several days later, after Reid had three times refused the supervi- sory position despite Hooper's pressuring him to accept it. As this is so improbable, and as no group training was ever actually carried out, I do not believe there ever was such a plan. It appears more probably an afterthought to justify the unlikely choice of Reid for supervisory status. In addition, Hooper's explanation of his motives for the termination were wholly inconsistent and confused. He claimed that despite what he considered to be Reid's insub- ordination at the interview and in his October 17 letter, and despite Hooper's request for Reid's resignation in his own October 19 letter in which he referred to Reid's allegedly offensive comments, Hooper still at that time expected Reid to accept the promotion, and Reid could have even then avoided termination bh doing so. And yet Hooper in giving his reasons for terminating Reid 5 days later went back to the remarks made by Reid in their conversation, criticizing Reid's demeanor at the interview: remarks made in Reid's October 17 letter: and Reid's refusal to accept the assign- ment. In Hooper's letter of October 19, he implied that Reid had refused to take the training offered him, even though Reid had never refused to take it. and then in Hoop- er's final letter of termination, he based his action on Reid's "refusal to accept the assignment and use the training af- forded," thereby impliedly acknowledging that Reid did not refuse the training. No reference was made to Reid's alleged insubordination. offensive comments, or demeanor in Hooper's termination letter. Southworth's description of Reid's alleged insubordination was, of course, inconsistent with Hooper's. In any event, insubordination was never mentioned to Reid, who first heard of this charge through the unemployment compensation commission. In addition. Hooper's and Southworth's attempts to es- tablish a prior practice and like treatment of other employ- ees in Reid's situation failed. Thus, the alleged discharge of West, for heckling an instructor, does not appear to be ap- posite, and the discharge of Dalton, for refusing training, was quite different, as he was an apprentice. In any event, I do not understand Respondent's contention to be that Reid was discharged for refusing to be trained, and he clearly did not refuse. It is equally clear that employee Scruggs' situ- ation was similar to Reid's and that he was treated differ- ently by not being disciplined when he refused to accept a promotion to supervisor. I therefore find that Reid was not terminated fr the rea- sons advanced by Respondent. Why, then, was he termi- nated? The record is replete with evidence of Respondent's hos- tility toward the unionization of its employees, its resent- ment of its obligation to bargain, and, as I have found. its fixed determination not to consummate a collective-bar- gaining agreement. Also, Respondent admits being well aware of Reid's outstanding position as the union leader among the employees. By contrast, even if Hooper knew that Eades had accompanied Reid when he made the first contact with the Union, which I doubt. there is no indica- tion that Eades took an active part in the union activity after that: he certainly was not a member of the employee negotiating team, as Reid was. Nor is Respondent's previ- ous failure to treat Reid unfairly and in his compelling sig- nificance, as it was not until the fall of 1977 that union- management relations began to approach a crisis, brought on by the Respondent's continued delaying tactics and pro- longed bad-faith refusal to make a counterproposal and the attempts by supervisors, at the prompting of' Manager Hooper. to coerce the employees into abandoning the Union. The discharge of the union leader undoubtedly was timed to coincide with Respondent's other actions in dero- gation of the Union. In view therefore of Reid's leadership in the union ac- tivity and negotiations, the disparate treatment afforded him, Respondent's antiunion animus, the timing of the ter- mination for maximum impact on employees' support for the Union, and the falseness of the reasons given by Re- 402 SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC (X)PERAFIVEt spondent, I find that the reasons were a pretext to conceal Respondent's true motive in terminating Reid. which was to discourage union activity among the employees and un- dermine their support of the Union. I conclude that Re- spondent thereby violated Section 8(a)( 1. (3). and (5) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint. IV. RM:Ii)Y Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la- bor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1). (3). and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there- from and. in view of the nature and extent of the violations. from any interference with the rights of its employees guar- anteed by Section 7 of the Act20 and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). (3), and (5) by terminating Michael Reid. I shall recom- mend that it offer him immediate, full, and unconditional reinstatement to his former job or, if his job no longer ex- ists, to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered on and after October 25. 1977, in the manner described in F W Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest.2' Having found that Respondent engaged in bad-faith bar- gaining on and after May I, 1977. by limiting the frequency and duration of negotiating meetings. refusing for 7 months to submit an economic proposal, withdrawing recognition. and unilaterally granting increases in wages and benefits. I shall recommend that it recognize the Union and upon re- quest bargain in good faith and execute a written contract incorporating any agreement reached. As requested by the General Counsel, I recommend that the initial certification year be extended for an additional year, from the com- mencement of bargaining pursuant to this recommended Order.22 In addition, in my view the recommendations detailed above are really inadequate remedies for violations of the law as flagrant as those committed by Respondent and tend to unjustly reward Respondent for its unlawful delaying tactics at the unit employees' expense. Unlike other cases.2 here there is evidence specifically showing the extent of Re- spondent's gain and the employees' loss as a result of Re- spondent's refusal to bargain in good faith with the Union. Thus, the evidence shows that Respondent effected pay in- creases of 6,72 percent, a total of three additional holidays, and an increase in Respondent's contribution to employees' hospitalization benefits from 50 to 75 percent on November 1, 1976, for nonunit employees and that it effected addi- tional pay increases of 7 percent on November 1, 1977, for nonunit employees. Without doubt, Respondent, had it not determined against bargaining in good faith with the "2N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co. 120 F.2d 532 (4th Cir 1941\. 2' See Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977), and Isis Plumbing d Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 22 Glomac Plastics, Inc., 234 NLRB 1309 (1978). 2 Winn-Di.xie Stores. Inc., 224 NLRB 1418 (1976), enfd. as modified 567 F.2d 1343 (5th Cir. 1978); Tiidee Products. Inc.. 194 NLRB 1234 (1972). enfd. as modified 502 F.2d 349 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Union. would have had its job reevaluation program and pay scale in place by May 1. 1977. when economic issues sere scheduled for negotiations, and would have offered the Union at least as much as it had previously granted nonunit employees and raised its offer to match the increase granted nonunit employees on November 1,. 1977. 1 shall theretiore recommend that in order to effectuate the policies of the Act and insure good-faith bargaining in the uture, Respondent make all unit employees whole for the losses they suffered by reason of Respondent's refusal to bargain in good faith with their certified representative. hb paOling each of them an amount of money representing pa min- crease of 6.72 percent, giving them three additional holi- days a ear, and increasing Respondent's contribution to their hospitalization insurance from 50 to 75 percent. from Ma I,. 1977. until February 25, 1978: plus an amount rep- resenting an additional pas increase of 7 percent rom No- vember 1, 1977. until February 25, 1978: plus interest. 4 Comparable amounts shall be added to the backpay paid to Michael Reid. Nothing in my recommended remedy shall be taken as justification foir reducing the wages or benefits presently enjoyed by any of Respondent's employees or as requiring Respondent to make any concession or agree to any proposal, in compliance with the bargaining order rec- ommended herein. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section I(c) of the Act. I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 2' The Respondent, Southside Electric C(ooperative. Inc.. of Alta Vista and Crewe, Virginia, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers Local Union 467. or any other labor organizatlon, by discharging or otherwise discriminat- ing against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employ- ment or any other term or condition of employment. (b) Telling employees they will not receive a wage in- crease until the) abandon the Union. (c) Threatening to withdraw benefits enjoyed by employ- ees if the Board finds that Respondent has violated the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended. (d) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain collec- tively in good faith with International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers Local Union 467 as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the appropriate unit described below, by limiting the frequency and duration of bargaining meetings, unreasonably delaying the making of counterpro- posals, withdrawing recognition from the Union, unilater- ally increasing wages and benefits, threatening employees. or discharging union leaders: ,4 See Florida Steel Corporation, uprau, and Isis Plumbing & Heatung (om pan, supra. 25 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided b Sec 124 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Latxr Relations Board, the findings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided n Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. b) adopted h the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 403 )l.( ISIO()NS OF NATIONAL LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARI) All construction and maintenance employees em- ployed at the Respondent's Alta Vista, Va. and Crewe, Va. fcilities including servicemen-working foremen. first class linemen, second class linemen, apprentice linemen, groundmen, warehouse clerks, auto me- chanic, auto mechanic helper. annex janitors, electrical technician, radio-meter technician, truck driver, work order construction clerk, night dispatchers, and right of way inspector; hut excluding all part-time day dis- patchers, office clerical employees, engineers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of' the rights guaran- teed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the bllowing affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Michael Reid full, immediate, and uncondi- tional reinstatement, and make him whole with interest, in the manner described in the remedy section of this Deci- sion. (hb) Make whole the employees in the unit fobund appro- priate herein fr the monetary losses they suffered as a re- sult of Respondent's refusal to bargain in good faith with the Union as required by the remedy section of' this Deci- sion. (c) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively in good faith with the above-named labor organization, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the above-de- scribed appropriate unit, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such un- derstanding in a signed agreement. (d) Preserve and upon request make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all time- cards; payroll, social security, and personnel records and reports: and all other records necessary to determine the amount of backpay due under this order. (e) Post at its places of business in Alta Vista and Crewe, Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."26 Copies of the notice, on fo, ins provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 5, shall be signed by an autho- rized representative of Respondent, posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places where no- tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, 26 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 Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board." within 20 days from the date of' this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. Ir IS FIt RIER (}RI)RI) that all allegations not specifi- cally found herein are dismissed. APPENDIX NOI( l ITo EMPIo YI tIS PosItii) BY ORDE)R O()F 11 NAII()NAI l.ABOR RIL.AII()NS BOARDI) An Agency of' the United States Government WtI Will N discourage membership in Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 467. or any other labor organization, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. Wi Wn.l. Not tell employees they will not receive a wage increase until they' abandon the above-named Union. Wt wiL. Nt threaten to withdraw benefits enjoyed by employees if the National l.abor Relations Board finds that we have violated the National Labor Rela- tions Act. Wt Wil.. NOI fail or refuse to recognize and bargain collectively in good faith with International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers Local Union 467, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our employees in the appropriate unit, by limiting the fre- quency and duration of bargaining meetings, unrea- sonably delaying the making of counterproposals, withdrawing recognition from the Union, unilaterally increasing wages and benefits, threatening employees, or discharging union leaders. WL wNi. NO] in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of' the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE wi.L. offer Michael Reid full, immediate, and unconditional reinstatement and make him whole, with interest. W winL.t. make whole the employees in the appro- priate unit for the monetary losses they suffered as a result of our refusal to bargain in good faith with the above-named Union. WE WiLt recognize and, upon request, bargain col- lectively in good faith with the above-named labor or- ganization, as the exclusive representative of our em- ployees in the appropriate unit, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and condi- tions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. SOUITHSIDE ELE(CTRIC COOPERATIVE. IN(C. 404