Sossamon Electric Co.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sossamon Electric Company and Sossco Building Sys- tems, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electri- cal Workers, Local Union 116. Cases 16-CA-7011 and 16-CA 7546 March 21, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE On October 13, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Michael O. Miller issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Sossco Building Systems, Inc., filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers filed a brief in answer to Respondent's ex- ceptions. 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 and to adopt his recommended Order. Director for Region 16 of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board) on June 30 and November 30, 1977, respectively. The amended complaint alleges that Sossamon Electric Company and Sossco Building Systems, Inc.,' as "alter egos" of the same business enterprise, vio- lated Section 8(a)(1), (3). (4), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (herein the Act). Respondents' timely filed answers denied the substantive allegations of the complaint. All parties were given the opportunity to appear, to ex- amine and to cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Based upon the entire record in this proceed- ing, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE RESPONDENTS' BUSINESSES AND THE UNION'S LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS Both Respondents, the record establishes, are Texas cor- porations engaged in Forth Worth, Texas, in the building and construction industry. Jurisdiction is not in issue. The complaint alleges, Respondents admit, and I find, that they are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The complaint alleges, Respondents admit, and I find, that the Union is a labor cganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts 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 and hereby or- ders that the Respondent Sossamon Electric Company and Sossco Building Systems, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the said recom- mended Order. I Respondent Sossco has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibil- ity unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Producrs, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MICHAEL O. MILLER, Administrative Law Judge: These consolidated cases were heard in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 13 and 14, 1978, based upon unfair labor practice charges filed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 116 (herein called the Union), on February 7 and October 12, 1977, and a complaint and amended consolidated complaint issued by the Regional Sossamon Electric Company (herein Sossamon) has been engaged as an electrical contractor for more than 20 years and during this time maintained a collective-bargaining re- lationship with the Union. At the time of the events herein, it was party to collective-bargaining agreements between the Union and the North Texas Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association. The contracts provide for the employer to recognize the Union as the exclusive representative for collective-bargaining purposes of all of its employees performing work within the jurisdiction of the Union and for the Union to be the "sole and exclusive source of referral of applicants for employment." George Sossamon, Sr., is Sossamon's president. He claimed to have overall supervision of that Company. Until November 23, 1976, his son, George Sossamon, Jr.,' was Sossamon's vice president. George, Jr., was Sossamon's general manager for day-to-day affairs and was the overseer of its construction projects. George, Jr.'s wife, Connie, was Sossamon's secretary-treasurer. In July 1976, George Jr., entered into another business, Sossco Building Systems, Inc. (herein Sossco), with the in- tention of engaging as a general contractor for the erection of metal buildings. George, Jr., was the sole owner of Sossco. His efforts to become a general contractor were 'The name of Respondent Sossamon Electric Company appears as amended at hearing. 2 To differentiate between them, they will be referred to herein as George, Sr., and George, Jr., respectively. 241 NLRB No. 47 324 SOSSAMON ELECTRIC COMPANY unavailing. He was unsuccessful in securing work for his new venture. In about October 1976. George. Jr., decided that Sossco would enter the electrical contracting business on a non- union basis. Pursuant to the advice of counsel (Respondent Sossamon's attorney herein), both he and his wife resigned their corporate offices in Sossamon and George, Jr.. de- clared that he would take no further active role in Sossa- mon's management. However, he retained his 52 percent ownership interest therein. George, Sr., then close to 70 years old, claimed to assume full control of Sossamon. In December 1976, the Union was notified that George. Sr., was Sossamon's "chief executive officer . . . responsible for all labor and management relations." The Union's business agent, Jack Scott, was requested to consult with George, Sr., on any questions he might have. Although Sossamon and Sossco had different mailing ad- dresses, they operated out of the same building. Initially, Sossco leased 720 square feet from Sossamon, pursuant to a lease executed on November 23, 1976, for a 5-year term at $100 per month. Sossco subsequently purchased the build- ing and leased space back to Sossamon. Sossco also purchased and leased most of its equipment from Sossamon, including trucks and trailers. Two invoices in evidence indicate such transfers on January 4, 1977, with payments made subsequent thereto. There was no evidence that the transactions were for less than fair market value. Susan Sechrist had been Sossamon's bookkeeper and of- fice clerical employee since 1974. She performed such tasks as assisting in the estimating of jobs and change orders and communicating with the Union when additional employees were necessary. Upon the resignation of Connie Sossamon from the Sossamon board of directors, Sechrist was elected secretary-treasurer to take her place. Sechrist went on the Sossco payroll as bookkeeper on January 2, 1977. The rec- ord does not indicate that she terminated her Sossamon employment. In addition Sossamon's shopman, Jerry Hall, left the Sossamon payroll on October 7, 1977, and on the following Monday became an employee of Sossco. While still on Sossamon's payroll, he had performed some work for Sossco, for which Sossamon was paid. Both Sechrist and Hall were outside the Union's bargaining unit. The only other employee to go from the Sossamon payroll to that of Sossco was George, Jr.'s son, George Ill, who left Sossa- mon on September 23, 1977, and on that same date became an employee of Sossco. Around early January 1977, according to the testimony of long-term Sossamon employees Ivy Buckingham and David Stewart, George, Jr., spoke to them about his inten- tion to run a nonunion electrical contracting business. Ac- cording to their essentially consistent testimonies, George, Jr., told them what he intended to do and stated that if the Union did not like it, he would take the Sossamon business down to "zero, zero." He also offered them each an oppor- tunity to accept supervisory positions with the new Com- pany: the)' both declined his offer on the basis that they did not wish to work nonunion.' 'I credit this testimony. George, Jr., did not specifically deny that such a conversation took place: he testified only that he did not recall it, and that. to his knowledge. the conversation could not have occurred. His denial was less convincing than the affirmative testimonies of Buckingham and Stewart. George. Sr., who was placed in this coversation by Buckingham but not by Stewart subsequently spoke with George, Jr., concerning George, Sr.. pointing out that George, Sr., was approaching retirement age and was not actively working to build the business. George, Jr., told Stewart "not to worry about it for all practical purposes, that he would be running both of them." In November of 1976. Sossco bid successfully for two contracts as an electrical subcontractor. Sossco performed one, the Northeast National Bank project, with its own nonunion employees commencing January or February 1977. On the other contract, the University of Texas at Ar- lington (UTA) bookstore and student center, however, there was an alleged misunderstanding between the bidder, Sossco, and the general contractor, Walker Construction. George, Jr., testified that he submitted the bid, intending it to be on Sossco's behalf. James Walker, president of Walker Construction, however, not having any knowledge of a firm called Sossco, and knowing of George, Jr.'s role in Sossamon, he assumed that Sossamon was the bidder. He so indicated on his list of principal subcontractors furnished to the project owner on November 19, 1976. Within about I month, it came to Walker's attention that the successful bidder for the electrical subcontract was Sossco. Walker Construction then communicated with George, Jr., and specified that the work had to be done with union contrac- tors. On January 10, 1977, Sossco and Walker Construction executed a subcontracting agreement for the electrical work on the UTA project. On January 20, 1977, Sossco subcon- tracted that same work to Sossamon at its original contract price, less 5 percent payable to Sossco. Sossco did not seek other bidders; Sossamon did not question or separately esti- mate Sossco's price. On January 21, 1977, a preconstruction conference for the UTA project was held, attended by "Representatives of the Owner ... Contractor, and major subcontractors .... " Present were George, Jr., and Ivy Buckingham. They intro- duced themselves as representing Sossamon and the min- utes of that meeting prepared by the owner's representative so list them. Ivy Buckingham was Sossamon's jobsite foreman on the UTA project. He credibly testified that with regard to those with whom he dealt at Sossamon for supervision and direc- tion, he could discern no difference between the UTA proj- ect and prior projects on which he had been Sossamon's foreman. Thus, he testified, before any work was done on that project, he participated with George, Jr., in reviewing the blueprints of the work to be done for the purpose of estimating the job and was sent to inspect the jobsite by George, Jr. He began working on the project with one other employee, immediately following the preconstruction con- ference, and his crew was gradually built up to about eight electricians. Each time he determined that an additional Stewart, denied being present when any such statement was made by George, Jr. It may have been that he was not present when the remark was made; it is also possible, in view of the state of his health, other testimony indicating that his memory was not complete as to all events, and inconsis- tencies in his testimony that he simpl) did not remember it. 4This uncontradicted testimony is credited. Stewart was no longer em- ployed by the Respondents at the time he testified. He had voluntarily quit and was not alleged as a discriminatee. He therefore had little interest in the outcome of these proceedings. 325 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD worker was required, he called George, Jr., and would be told either to call the union hall himself or that George, Jr., George, Sr., or Susan Sechrist would call. Buckingham saw George, Jr., on the UTA jobsite once or twice a month and communicated with him by telephone an average of a cou- ple of times a day concerning problems encountered in the work. He sought and received guidance from George, Jr., regarding those problems. For example, when he found that he could not properly supervise both parts of the UTA project, he spoke with George, Jr. Subsequently, another union member was sent to the jobsite and, pursuant to a discussion between Buckingham and George, Jr., that indi- vidual took over the bookstore. He also discussed change orders with George, Jr., and occasionally with George, Sr. Monthly progress conferences were held at the jobsite; George, Jr., and Buckingham attended them. Buckingham did not see George, Sr., in the building at anytime while he worked there and seldom spoke with him in regard to the work. On prior projects, George, Sr., had similarly seldom visited the jobsites; that had been George, Jr.'s responsibil- ity. The Union had filed its initial charge herein, alleging a refusal to bargain by Sossamon and Sossco, on February 7, 1977. It was served on February 9. On February 10, George, Jr., spoke to Buckingham about the charge.6 George, Jr., told Buckingham that the Union was 'doing it all wrong" and "had the NLRB doing their work for them." He also told Buckingham that he would have to be a con- sultant to his father on the job, that Buckingham would tell him of his problems and he would take the problems to George, Sr., who would then call and instruct Buckingham what to do. There was no change, however, in the persons with whom Buckingham discussed job problems following this conversation; he continued to discuss them with George, Jr. George, Jr., contended that his role on the UTA project was simply that of prime subcontractor, principally liable to the general contractor for completion of the work. He de- nied that he was functioning in any capacity for Sossamon. George, Sr., was hospitalized and underwent surgery on September 19, 1977. He was incapacitated thereafter for at least I month. On October 7, 1977, he called Buckingham at the jobsite. According to Buckingham, George, Sr., told him, "You know the Union is suing us and we are going to have to lay you off." Buckingham asked and was told that the layoff was of all Sossamon employees The eight Sossa- 5 Buckingham believed, but admitted that he was not sure, that he was so instructed on one occasion. 6 Buckingham's initial testimony was confused as to the date, placing this conversation in August 1977. An affidavit he gave in February of that year, however, places it on February 10. The context of the conversation, particu- larly the reference to a letter from the Board, supports a finding that it took place in early February. 7 George, Sr., did not recall saying anything to Buckingham in regard to a lawsuit and testified that he had no reason to do so because he had heard about the lawsuit "about a year ago before that" and there was no reason to bring it up. However, at the time of this conversation, there was reason to be thinking of it, as the hearing on the original complaint issued June 30, 1977, was scheduled for October 18, 1977, only 11 days away. George, Sr., also specifically testified that the decision to terminate business operations and layoff the employees flowed from his doctor's orders, received that morning, that he could no longer engage in business. That testimony is contradicted by a letter from George. Sr.. to Geroge, Jr., dared October 6, 1977, wherein he stated, "Effective this date, October 6, 1977, this is formal notice that I will cease business operations at UTA as of the close of business October 7, mon employees received their paychecks and were laid off that afternoon.s Buckingham testified on cross-examination that all of the Sossamon employees on the UTA project, except possibly one, were members of the Union. Following the layoff of the Sossamon employees, Sossco took over performance of the UTA contract. It replaced the Sossamon employees with its own nonunion employees, did not recognize the Union as the employees' collective-bar- gaining representative, and did not apply the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement (between Sossamon and the Union) to them. George, Jr., testified that he did not offer any of the Sossamon employees jobs with Sossco be- cause he knew that union members would not accept em- ployment with a nonunion firm. Other than the testimonies of Buckingham and Stewart (who had quit in September 1977) that they would not accept nonunion employment and the fact that union members accepting such employ- ment were subject to union sanctions, there is no evidence to indicate that the remaining Sossamon employees would not have accepted employment with Sossco. The record contains further evidence of George, Jr.'s continued role with Sossamon. Sossamon checks for pay- roll, union benefit funds, and other items, dated January and February 1977, were signed by George, Jr. On one occasion in 1977, George, Jr., directed Sossamon employee Stewart to a job at a customer's home (the Neeley job). When Stewart reported that the job would take longer than expected and would interfere with other work to which he had been assigned, George, Jr., reassigned the work to a Sossco employee. Sossco also sought out and took over a service account that Sossamon was on the verge of losing because of high prices. A trailer bearing the Sossamon name was used on the Northeast Bank project until shortly before the hearing. At the time of hearing, according to George, Sr., Sossa- mon remained a viable, though dormant, business entity. The UTA job was its last venture as an electrical subcon- tractor. B. The Issues The principal issue herein is whether Sossamon and Sossco are "alter egos" of the same business enterprise and/ or constitute a single employer for purposes of the Act. Upon resolution of that issue, there arise the questions of whether Respondent discriminated against the Sossamon employees by laying them off and replacing them with non- union employees of Sossco because of their union member- ship or the filing of charges under the Act and whether, by failing to apply the terms of the collective-bargaining agree- ment to the Sossco employees, Respondents abrogated their bargaining obligation to the Union. 1977." In view of this inconsistent evidence, and noting George, Sr.'s failure to specifically deny the conversation as related by Buckingham, I credit Buckingham. 8 The record reflects that the following Sossamon employees were termi- nated on October 7, 1977: Ivy Buckingham, Jr.. Margaret Connell, James P. Davidson, Elmer C. Davis, Tom L. Harvey, Arnold D. Humphnes, Steven P. Sexton, and Thurman Watson, Jr. Some of these names vary, in spelling or in other ways, from those names alleged in the complaint. 326 SOSSAMON ELECTRIC COMPANY C. Anaolsis In determining whether one legal entity is the alter ego of another, the Board looks to the ownership, management, business purpose, operation, equipment, customers, and su- pervision of the two businesses. Generally, where these are substantially identical, the Board finds alter ego status. See, e.g., Crawford Door Sales Company, Inc.. 226 NLRB 1144 (1976) and Marquis Printing Corporation, 213 NLRB 394 (1974). Similarly, the Board finds that two legal entities comprise a single employer where there is common owner- ship and financial control, common management, interrela- tion of operations, and centralized control of labor rela- tions. See, e.g., Don Burgess Construction Corporation, 227 NLRB 765 (1977) and Western Union Corp., 224 NLRB 274 (1976). Clearly, Respondents herein satisfy both tests. Sos- samon and Sossco were engaged in the same business. George, Jr., was the majority stockholder of Sossamon and maintained that position even after he organized Sossco and ostensibly stepped out of Sossamon's management. Notwithstanding his stated intentions to the contrary, George, Jr., remained in very substantial control of Sossa- mon's business. With regard to the UTA project, he held himself out as representing Sossamon and, at least insofar as both the general contractor and the employees were con- cerned, continued to manage the operation for Sossamon in virtually the same manner that he managed other projects prior to Sossco's creation. He assigned employees to work (as when he directed Sossamon employee Buckingham to assist him in estimating the UTA job and sent another Sos- samon employee, Stewart, to the Neeley job), reassigned work from Sossamon to Sossco (the Neeley job), and signed payroll and other checks. Sossco's customers, including Walker Construction, Trinity Valley, and Neeley were the same ones that Sossamon had serviced. When Sossco "sub- contracted" the UTA job to Sossamon, Sossamon took that subcontract with no independent evaluation of the bid price. Sossco operated from the same location as Sossamon, utilizing the same nonbargaining unit personnel (Sechrist and Hall). Most, if not all, of Sossco's equipment was pur- chased from Sossamon, transactions which, in view of George, Jr.'s financial stake in both companies, involved little more than the transfer of funds from one pockt to another. Finally, George, Jr. revealed his intention to oper- ate Sossco as a "disguised continuance" of Sossamon to Buckingham and Stewart when he told them that he in- tended to eliminate Sossamon's business and told Stewart that he would run both businesses. I further find that Sossamon-Sossco discriminatorily dis- charged the Sossamon employees on October 7, 1977, in violation of Section 8(a)(l), (3) and (4) of the Act, when George, Sr., told Buckingham that all of the Sossamon em- ployees were being terminated because of the union filed legal action.9 Moreover, it is evident that this layoff was but I do not doubt that George, Sr.'s physical incapacity played a role in this decision. However, it is evident from George, Sr.'s statement when terminat- ing the employees that the pending complaint was a substantial motivating factor. Included within those found to have been unlawfully discharged is Ivy Buckingham. Even if Buckingham were deemed to be a supervisor, his termi- nation would violate Sec. 8(aX I) of the Act because it was "an integral part of a pattern of conduct aimed at penalizing employees for their union activl- part of George, Jr.'s plant to eliminate the unionized Sossa- mon and replace it with a nonunion Sossco. George, Jr.'s admission that he did not offer any of the Sossamon em- ployees positions with Sossco because he did not believe that union members would accept work with a nonunion company, without ever asking the employees whether they would, evidences this intent and, independently, constitutes discrimination in violation of Section 8(a)(3). Finally, it is undisputed that George, Jr., applied none of the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement to which Sossamon had been bound to the Sossco employees. By thus abrogating the contract, to which Sossco as a single employer with Sossamon and/or as its alter ego, was bound, Sossco has failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Union and has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. CONcI.USlONS OF LAW I. Respondent Sossamon and Respondent Sossco consti- tute a single employer and are alter egos of the same busi- ness entity and, at all times material herein, have been an employer, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All employees of Sossamon and Sossco working within the jurisdiction of the Union, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. The Union at all times material herein was and is the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. 5. By failing at all times to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees on the Sossco payroll in the above-described unit, by failing to honor the collective-bargaining agreement with respect to such employees, and by failing to apply to such employ- ees the terms and conditions of that agreement, Respon- dents have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act. 6. By discharging the employees on the Sossamon pay- roll on October 7, 1977, because of the pending unfair labor practice complaint, because of their union membership and in order to avoid dealing with the Union, and by failing to consider them for employment on the Sossco payroll for the same reasons, Respondents have violated Section 8(aXl), (3), and (4) of the Act. 7. The above-described unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth in section 11, above, occurring in connection with their operations de- scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub- ties." Pioneer Drilling Co., Inc., 162 NLRB 918, 923 (1967), enfd. in pertinent part 391 F.2d 961 (10th Cir. 1968); Krebs and King Toyota, Inc., 197 NLRB 462 (1972). 327 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com- merce. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l), (3), (4) and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir- mative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Sossco and Sossamon comprise a sin- gle employer and that Sossco has continued to operate as the alter ego of Sossamon but has failed and refused to recognize the Union as the collective-bargaining representa- tive of its employees, or to apply the terms of the contract between the Union and Sossamon to those employees, I shall recommend that Sossco be required, upon request, to recognize the Union as the representative of its employees and to honor and apply that agreement to all of its employ- ees working within the jurisdiction of the Union. Having further found that Sossamon discharged its em- ployees on October 7, 1977, because of their union member- ship and because of the pending complaint, and that Sossco refused to consider those employees for employment be- cause of their union membership and in order to avoid deal- ing with the Union, I shall recommend that Sossco be re- quired to offer the employees named in footnote 6, supra, immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equiv- alent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, dismissing if necessary any em- ployees hired by either Sossamon or Sossco in the interim, and make them whole for any loss of pay, including fringe benefits, that they may have suffered by reason of the dis- crimination against them. The backpay provided herein shall be computed with interest, in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Flor- ida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB (1977).'10 "A violation of Section 8(a)(3) goes to the very heart of the Act." It therefore warrants that Respondent be further required to cease and desist from infringing in any other manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by §7 of the Act. Pan American Exterminating Co., 206 NLRB 298, foot- note 1 (1973); Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 23 NLRB 1058, enfd. as modified, 120 F.2d 532 (4th Cir. 1941). Upon the basis of the entire record, the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER" Respondents, Sossamon Electric Company and Sossco Building Systems, Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 10See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 116, or any other labor organization, by laying off, discharging, re- fusing to consider for employment, or in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ- ment because the Union which represents them has filed charges under the Act or because of their union member- ship, activities and desires, or in order to avoid dealing with the Union. (b) Abrogating the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement which was binding on Respondent Sossamon and therefore upon Respondent Sossco as a part of a single integrated enterprise comprising both Respondents. (c) Refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appro- priate unit, described above, with respect to the wages, hours, working conditions, or other terms and conditions of employment of said employees. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form, join, or assist the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 116, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Ivy Buckingham, Jr., Margaret Connell, James P. Davidson, Elmer C. Davis, Tom L. Harvey, Arnold D. Humphries, Steven P. Sexton, and Thurman Watson, Jr., immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earning and benefits they may have suffered by reason of the dis- crimination against them, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Upon request, recognize and bargain with the Union with respect to the wages, hours, and conditions of employ- ment of Respondents' electricians who are represented by the Union, are covered by the aforesaid collective-bargain- ing agreement, and who constitute an appropriate bargain- ing unit under the Act. (c) Upon the Union's request, give retroactive effect to the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement and apply that agreement to the electricians in the employ of Sossco, and make them whole for any wage and benefit losses they may have suffered by reason of Respondents' failure to ap- ply the contract to them, with interest computed in the manner previously described. (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records, and reports, and all other documents necessary and relevant to analyze and compute the amount of backpay due under this Order. (e) Post at its offices copies of the attached notice 328 SOSSAMON ELECTRIC COMPANY marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondents' authorized representatives, shall be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days there- after, in conspicuous places, including all places where no- tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith. 12 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 Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 116, or any other labor organization by laying off, discharging, refusing to consider for employment, or in any other manner discriminating against employ- ees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because the union which represents them has filed charges against us under the National Labor Relations Act or because of their union membership, activities and desires, or in order to avoid dealing with the Union. WE WILL NOT violate the terms of the collective-bar- gaining agreement which was binding on Sossamon Electric Company and therefore binding also upon Sossco Building Systems, Inc. as part of a single inte- grated enterprise comprising both Respondents. WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with the Union with respect to the wages, hours, working conditions, or other terms and conditions of employ- ment of the electricians employed by us. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing, to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re- quiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL offer Ivy Buckingham, Jr., Margaret Con- nell, James P. Davidson, Elmer C. Davis, Tom L. Har- vey, Arnold D. Humphries, Steven P. Sexton, and Thurman Watson, Jr., immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi- leges, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings or benefits suffered by reason of the discrimi- nation against them. WE WILL at the Union's request, give retroactive ef- fect to the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement and apply the agreement to the electricians in the em- ployment of Sossco Building Systems, Inc. and make them whole for any wage losses they may have suffered by reason of our failure to apply the contract to them, with interest. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 116, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(aX3) of the Act. SOSSAMON ELECTRICAL COMPANY AND SOSSCO BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. 329