Hurd Corp.

306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights which you have under the National Labor Relations Act to join a union of your own choice and to engage in union activities, or not to join a union and not to engage in such activities. WE WILL offer Hilda Scott, Dolly Cooper, Pinkie Bradley, and Louise Cun- ningham reinstatement to their former jobs without loss of any rights, and we will give backpay to those four employees and to Grace Powell to cover the pay they lost when we discharged them or laid them off. HARVEY CARLTON, D/B/A CELLO-TAK COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (HARVEY CARLTON) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If the employees have any questions concerning this notice or whether the Em- ployer is complying with its provisions, they may communicate with the Labor Board's Regional Office, Fifth Floor, Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, 10022, Telephone No. Plaza 1-5500. Hurd Corporation and Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO William Puncke, George Loedisch , and John Connolley, Partners, t/a Maryland City Fabricators and Suppliers and Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council , AFL-CIO Maryland City Corporation and Baltimore Building and Con- struction Trades Council, AFL-CIO Krupnik Brothers, Inc. and Baltimore Building and Construc- tion Trades Council, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 5-CA-2158, 5-CA- 2159, 5-CA-2186, and 5-CA-2187. June 28, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On April 4, 1963, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Re- spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices sand recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter- mediate Report. Thereafter Respondents filed exceptions to the In- termediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in 143 NLRB No. 29. HURD CORPORATION 307 the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner.' ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner. 'As the general contractor, Respondent Maryland City, through its superintendent who was In charge of all operations at the project involved, including those of all sub- contractors, had a "hand" in the discharge of employees of its subcontractors, and thus participated therein, Member Leedom agrees that Maryland City, as well as the sub- contractors, is responsible therefor even though no employer-employee relationship existed between Maryland City and the discharged employees. However, in so finding, Member Leedom, unlike his colleagues, does not rely on Northern California Chapter, The Asso- ciated General Contractors of America, Inc., et al., 119 NLRB 1026, cited by the Trial Examiner. 2 Respondents contend that the Trial Examiner based his determination that Connolley's testimony is not credible, and thus his findings that the unfair labor practices, particu- larly the discriminatory discharges, were committed by Respondents Hurd, Fabricators, and Maryland City on statements made by Connolley in a speech on April 25, 1962, which statements were privileged under Section 8(c) of the Act Although the Trial Examiner did refer to Connolley's antiunion remarks in making certain of his credibility resolu- tions, it is plain that he gave the greatest weight to demeanor, corroboration by other witnesses, and the probabilities. Even assuming arguendo that a consideration of Connolley's antiunion attitude as reflected in his April 25 speech was improper, we find that the alleged error was not prejudicial. We believe that the Trial Examiner would have made the same credibility resolutions, as would we, even disregarding the April 25 speech. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding was heard by Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer on October 2 and 3, 1962, in Baltimore, Maryland, on the consolidated complaint 1 of the General Counsel and the answer of the Respondents, Hurd Corporation, William Puncke, George Loedisch, and John Connolley, Partners, t/a Maryland City Fabricators and Suppliers, Maryland City Corporation, and Krupnik Brothers, Inc., herein respec- tively called Hurd, Maryland Fabricators, Maryland City, and Krupnik. The issues litigated were whether Respondent Hurd discriminatorily discharged employees Ralph Moorhead and Roy Anderson, whether Respondent Maryland Fabricators discriminatorily laid off Harry E. Martin, and whether Respondent Maryland City discriminatorily caused such discharges and layoff, all in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. Also litigated was the question whether all the Respondents otherwise interfered with, restrained, and coerced em- ployees in the exercise of their statutory rights within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. At the close of the hearing the parties were given an opportunity to argue their positions orally. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondents filed briefs which have been carefully considered. The Respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint, on which I reserved decision, is now denied in accordance with my fiindings and conclusions set forth below. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS Respondent Maryland City, a Maryland corporation, is a general building con- tractor engaged in constructing a 5,000-home development near Laurel, Maryland. In addition to fabricating the house shell and erecting it in the field at this project, Maryland City employs subcontractors to perform other operations required in the 'The charges In Cases Nos 5-CA-2158 and 5-CA-2159 were filed on May 3, 1962, and In Cases Nos. 5-CA-2186 and 5--CA-2187 were filed on June 5, 1962., 717-672-64-vol. 143-21 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD construction of these homes . Among such contractors are Respondent Hurd, a Maryland corporation, which does clearing, earthmoving, and roadbuilding work; Respondent Maryland Fabricators, a partnership consisting of William Puncke, George Loedisch, and John Connolley, which manufactures prefabricated parts at the project for the homes being erected there; and Respondent Krupnik, a Maryland corporation, which performs the roofing work at the project pursuant to a contract with Corterfield Roofers, the roofing subcontractor. It was stipulated that during a representative 12-month period, each of the Re- spondents received at its respective place of business in Maryland, products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000; that a portion of these goods was shipped to each Respondent directly from points outside that State; and that the balance of said goods was obtained by each Respondent from other enterprises located in Maryland which, in turn, received such goods directly from sources outside the State. Accordingly, I find, contrary to the Respondents' contention, that each of the Respondents is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein? II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Question presented At the time of the events herein, Respondent Maryland City was in the early stages of building a 5,000 home development in Laurel, Maryland. In charge of the entire project is John F. Connolley, Maryland City's superintendent and a partner in the Respondent subcontracting firm, Maryland Fabricators,3 who supervises all the operations including those performed by subcontractors, and generally sees that the production schedule is met. This project is not unionized and, admittedly, Con- nolley preferred to keep it that way. Undoubtedly, such an attitude or even the vigorous expression of opposition to unionization is well within an employer's rights. It is only when this opposition takes the form of discriminatory or coercive action to deprive employees of their basic organizational rights, as is charged herein, that permissible statutory bounds are overstepped. The question here presented is whether the Respondents, through their respective officials or supervisors, whose supervisory authority is conceded, did engage in such prohibited conduct. WI turn to the testimony which is largely conflicting. B. The evidence 1. The Union's organizational drive and subsequent events On or about March 23, 1962,4 Harry E. Martin , an employee of Maryland Fabri- cators, took the initial steps to organize the employees at the Maryland City housing project. Because of dissatisfaction with certain working conditions , Martin enlisted the aid of the Union. After speaking to Charles Muntain , its president, he signed an authoriztion card and received 10 more cards to enroll other employees . There- after, Martin spoke to several employees on his own time about joining the Union, indicating that cards could be signed off the job. On March 26, while on the park- ing lot, he gave a number of cards to an unidentified employee who volunteered to sign up other employees. Martin testified that 2 days later (March 28 ) his foreman, Sidney E. Phillips, asked him for the union cards he was distributing , adding that Martin was reported to the "office" as having such cards. Martin further testified that he denied knowl- edge of any union cards, as he had been instructed to do (apparently by the Union). This ended the conversation. Phillips admitted mentioning the Union to Martin on one occasion about a month before Martin's layoff. He testified that James McDaniel, one of Martin's co- 2 N.L.R B v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corporation, 3'71 U.S. 224; Siemons, Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85. a According to Connolley, he Is an inactive partner in Maryland Fabricators, maintain- ing the same relationship to that firm as he does to any other subcontractor that "falls under . . . [his] direction and supervision." A All significant events discussed herein occurred within a 5-week period in 1962. HURD CORPORATION 309 workers, informed him that Martin had solicited McDaniel to join the Union and sign a card and that he (McDaniel) was afraid of conflict between union and nonunion employees. Phillips further testified that he thereupon summonded Martin and told him to keep his union activities out of the job and to discuss these matters elsewhere and not on Phillips' time because he (Phillips) had a deadline to meet. No evidence, however, was adduced that Martin had actually engaged in union activities on company time or had otherwise interfered with the work to warrant such admonition. James T. Pyles, who at the time of he hearing was still in Maryland Fabricators' employ, testified under subpena by the General Counsel that at a time before Martin's layoff 5 (which occurred on April 20), he and other employees stopped off at a restaurant for coffee before reporting for work, as they customarily did; that they were observed by Johnny Bell, another Maryland Fabricators' employee, as they were looking at some union cards; that after reporting for work, Foreman Phillips asked him if be, employee Wilson, or anyone else had signed a union card; and that, when he (Pyles) denied that he or the others did, Phillips stated that Johnny Bell had informed him to the contrary. Phillips testified that he remembered having had a conversation with Pyles con- cerning the Union wherein Pyles told him that he was approached to join the Union at the restaurant and that he (Phillips) might have then asked him whether he had signed a card. Considering Martin's and Pyles' entire testimony, their candor and demeanor on the witness stand, I credit their versions of their conversations with Phillips, which I find fit in with the pattern of events that followed. The Union's official organizers did not appear at the project until April 16 when Robert J. Brylke, field representative of the AFL-CIO, assisted by Vernon Baseman, George C. Burgan, Jr., and others, began soliciting memberships among the em- ployees and distributing organizational literature. At different times thereafter these organizers were ordered off the property. One of the critical events in the Union's organizational campaign occurred during the noon lunch hour on April 18 in a nonwork area of the project. At that time Brylke discussed the Union with four employees of Respondent Hurd, one of the subcontractors, and handed each of them cards authorizing the Union to be their collective-bargaining representative. Two of the employees, Ralph Moorhead and Roy Anderson, in the immediate presence of Brylke, then began to fill out au- thorization cards on the hood of an automobile parked nearby, while the other two employees sat on the door steps of a completed house about 30 feet away eating their lunch. At this point Maryland City Superintendent John Connolley drove up in his car and approached Brylke, Moorhead, and Anderson. According to Brylke, when he saw Connolley walking toward them, he told Moorhead and Anderson to hide the cards but it was too late. Brylke further testified that Connolley questioned him about his business on the property and, when he replied that he was talking to the employees and was within his rights to do so, Connolley, who identified himself as superintendent of the project, stated that he did not want Brylke to talk to his employees on working time and ordered him off the property. Brylke thereupon left. Connolley's version of this encounter is not at variance with Brylke's in any sig- nificant respect. He testified that he first became aware of the Union's organizational activities on the morning of April 18 when a number of people informed him that union men were on the job. He further testified that about lunch time, while driv- ing around at the project, he spied Brylke, a stranger to him, talking to two men, one of whom was Moorhead, an employee of Respondent Hurd; that he then got out of his jeep, walked over to the group, and asked Brylke what his business was on the property; that Brylke responded that he was interested in the men on the job; that he (Connolley) retorted that Brylke was trespassing and directed him to leave the project. Connolley further testified that he saw "papers there," but did not know that they were union cards or that the employees were signing them. Moorhead corroborated Brylke concerning the circumstances of his and Ander- son's signing authorization cards for the Union and their meeting with Connolley. Moorhead, however, added in his testimony that Connolley told him, "Ralph, you know better than that" and that he (Connolley) did not want a union at the project 6 6 Although Pyles could not remember the specific time when this conversation occurred, I am persuaded that his testimony that it occurred before Martin's discharge is the best approximatetime identification. 6 Although Moorhead did not indicate in his testimony at what stage of this incident this remark was made or whether Brylke was present at that time, it appears from Moorhead's entire testimony that the remark was made after Brylke's departure at Connolley's direc- 310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD He also testified that Connolley asked Roy Anderson for his name as Connolley already knew Moorhead's since Moorhead regularly serviced Connolley's private automobile and at one time had worked for Connolley as a Maryland City guard on the project. Connolley testified , however, that he did not think he had any conversation with the two men who were with Brylke except to ask Moorhead, whom he merely rec- ognized as an employee on the project, for his name. He further testified that he did not know who the other person (Anderson) was nor did he have any con- versation with that man. Brylke, on the other hand, testified that while he was walking away from the group at Connolley's direction he heard Connolley ask Moorhead and Anderson for their names and thereafter continued the conversation with them which he could not hear. I find nothing in Moorhead's account of Connolley's statements to be unusual or inherently improbable and I accept it. Connolley's quoted remarks in disapproval of the Union are clearly consistent with the views which he openly voiced to all employees and subcontractors in his April 25 speech. As for Connolley's inquiry into the employees' names, it seems reasonable to assume from Moorhead's em- ployment relations with Connolley that Connolley already knew Moorhead' s name. Moreover, if it was necessary for Connolley to know Moorhead's name, which he admits asking, it seems logical to infer that he would be equally interested in learn- ing Anderson's name. In any event, whether or not Connolley knew Moorhead's name before the above episode or learned it at that time, I find he also asked Anderson for his name, as both Moorhead and Brylke credibly testified. Following the foregoing meeting, Superintendent Connolley proceeded to another section of the project. On the way, he came upon three other strangers roaming about the general work area. The first one he met, which was about 1 o'clock, was Union Organizer Vernon Baseman. According to Connolley, he questioned Base- man's right to be on the project and ordered him to leave. Connolley also testified that he told Baseman that he did not allow his employees to talk to any strangers on the job and warned that if he caught any employees doing so during working hours, they would be discharged 7 Connolley further testified that he later con- veyed the same warning to the other two organizers and ordered them to leave the premises too. Baseman's testimony differed from Connolley's in one important respect He testified that Connolley on this occasion told him that he had just fired two employees for talking to "you fellows" and that he was going to fire two others when he caught up with them. Connolley specifically denied this testimony and T credit his denial and find his version of his remarks to Baseman more plausible than the latter's However, I credit Baseman's uncontradicted testimony that during their conversation Connolley stated that he knew who Baseman was and the real purnose for his presence at the project. On the basis of the entire record. T find that Con- nolley was aware that Brylke, Baseman, and their associates were attempting to or- ganize all the employees working on the project After his conversation with Connolley. Moorhead went to work According to Moorhead, about 3 o'clock in the afternoon of that day (April 18), his supervisor, Charles L. Brooks, asked him what he did with his union card and, after replying that he did not know, Brooks asked the same question of two or three other em- ployees who were present and received the same reply. Brooks contradicted this testimony asserting, however, that about that time Moorhead voluntarily informed him that he had been approached by a union man who had given him "this card, this literature that he had read," and that he (Brooks) made no comment I credit the testimony of Moorhead whom. as indicated above and later in this report, I find to be a truthful witness. At the close of the day, Respondent Hurd terminated Moorhead's and Anderson's employment Two days later (Anril 20) Respondent Maryland Fabricators laid off employee Martin. Before it did so, Martin testified, Superintendent Connolley had approached him at his work station at the component cutter about 9 o'clock that morning and asked him for the union cards he was distributine Martin fur- ther testified that he disclaimed any knowledge of such cards and that, in response to this answer, Connollev stated that it was reported to the "office" that he had union cards on the job. Connolley, on the other hand. denied that he knew Martin tion This accounts for the absence of any reference to Connolley's statement in Rrylke's testimony 7 Connolley testified that it was a company rule not to allow strangers on the property at arc time No contention is made that Connolley was not within his rights in enforc- ing this policy against nonemployee union organizers. HURD CORPORATION 311 at that time or that he ever had such a conversation with him. As indicated pre- viously and in my discussion of his layoff below, I find Martin to be a candid and truthful witness and credit his foregoing testimony Norman Birdsong, an employee of Maryland City, testified that a few days before Superintendent Connolley delivered his speech (which was on April 25), his shop foreman, Pete Uebel,i announced to a group of employees (including Birdsong) working at the exterior panel table that, after the Union tried to get in, they would lay off everyone on Friday and rehire on Monday the men who had not signed the cards. Uebel, who admitted learning on April 17 of the Union's efforts to or- ganize employees at the project, denied making the remarks Birdsong imputed to him. Birdsong, who was still in Maryland City's employ at the time of the hearing, did not impress me as a person who would contrive testimony against his employer. I credit his testimony .9 On April 25, a little before noon , Connolley assembled Maryland City employees, its subcontractors, and their employees to hear a prepared antiunion speech. In it, Connolley expressed his awareness of the Union's propaganda and solicitation of employees to become members. He stated that, although the employees had the right to join the Union if they wanted to, his Company did "not want any part" of it. Connolley then reminded them that they were enjoying steadier employment than other building employees and listed the benefits the Company was giving them; pointed out that the Union was only interested in their dues and assessments and had nothing to offer them; asserted that unions force strikes "by making unreason- able demands on employers"; and warned that if they went out on strike they would lose wages and may even be permanently replaced by the Company. Recognizing that some employees had already signed umon application cards, Connolley stated that it should not "worry you [as] [c]ards and even union memberships are not binding on you. You are still entirely free to withdraw from the Union at any time you wish. And it is illegal for anyone to force or threaten you to get you to join a union . So if you have joined the Union as a result of any threats, you have the right to withdraw and no one can compel you to remain a member." After the meeting adjourned four employees revoked their previously executed union authorization cards. According to the uncontradicted testimony of John Krupnik, president of Respondent Krupnik, two of his employees, James Seabolt and David D Sheppard, did so under the following circumstances- After the meet- ing at which Connolley addressed the employees and subcontractors, Krupnik dis- cussed with Seabolt, Sheppard, and other employees, Connolley's speech and the Union's efforts to organize them. Among other things, Krupnik asked Seabolt and Sheppard if they thought that the Union could do more for them than the company was doing. Seabolt, in turn, alluded to Connolley's statement that he did not see much sense in having a union. About this point Krupnik told Seabolt and Sheppard that they could quit the Union if they wanted to and that he could have a letter prepared for them to sign and send to the Union. Krupnik conceded that the named employees did not ask him directly whether they could withdraw from the Union but testified that he inferred such a desire when they informed him that they had signed cards when approached by "Government men" and that they did not know what they were signing.1° Thereupon Krupnik went to Maryland City's office where he explained the situation to Maryland City's attorney who then dictated to the Company's secretary a form letter revoking the Union's authoriza- tion. After the letter was typed up, several copies were given to Krupnik who then returned to Seabolt and Sheppard and offered each of them a copy of the revocation letter to sign if they wanted to. Seabolt and Sheppard then signed the letters and handed them back to Krupnik for mailing . Krupnik took the letters to Maryland 8 Erroneously spelled U-b-a-I in the complaint and E-u-b-e-I in the transcript of testi- mony His true name is "Edward W Uebel" but is nicknamed "Pete." 0 The Respondents urge that Birdsong, as well as the General Counsel's witnesses to other incidents, should not be credited because, among other things, the General Counsel failed to produce as corroborating witnesses employees who ostensibly were present when the alleged remark was made However, it appears that such witnesses were equally avail- able to the Respondents as to the General Counsel While undoubtedly these witnesses would have been of immeasurable assistance to me in resolving conflicting testimony, I make my credibility findings without drawing any adverse inference against either party from the failure to produce such corroborating witnesses 10 Krupnik testified he corrected this erroneous impression about "Government men" by advising them that the men were union organizers . It Is also noted that no evidence was adduced that union organizers had actually misrepresented their position or the nature of the cards Seabolt and Sheppard were asked to sign. 312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD City's office where, at his request, they were addressed, stamped, and mailed in Maryland City envelopes.li The Union ultimately received these revocations. Norman Birdsong, who also revoked his authorization to the Union by signing a form letter prepared, addressed, and mailed to the Union by his employer, Maryland City, recounted the facts surrounding his action, as follows: He attended the meeting on April 25 at which Superintendent Connolley delivered his speech. About quitting time that day his foreman, Uebel, called him into his office.12 When he entered he found Eugene Mills, another employee, there, holding a form letter of revoca- tion and conversing with Uebel. Uebel told Birdsong and Mills that the Company was willing to forgive the men who had signed the "pledge cards" and to forget about it. Uebel then read the letter aloud and informed them that they could sign it if they "wanted to and the Company wouldn't hold nothing [sic ] against" them. Birdsong replied that he did not know much about the Union and was willing to sign it as he liked the hours and wages he was earning .13 Mills also signed a letter in Birdsong's presence Birdsong specifically denied asking Uebel whether or not he could withdraw from the Union. Uebel, the shop foreman for Maryland City, testified without contradiction con- cerning the occasion for employee Mills' presence in his office at the time of the incident to which Birdsong testified. According to Uebel, Mills, who had asked him a week before how he could withdraw his "pledge" to the Union,14 came to his office later in the day of Connolley's speech and told Uebel that he wanted to know whether it was true what he had heard that there was a letter around which he could sign in order to cancel his union authorization card. Uebel replied that he heard the same thing and telephoned Suprintendent Connolley, his superior, to verify it and, upon learning that it was true, requested several copies. Thereupon, Connolley or someone else brought to Uebel three form letters which were the same as those previously furnished to Krupnik, except for the employer' s name. Concerning the events that followed the receipt of these letters, Ubel's testimony is in sharp conflict with Birdsong's. Uebel testified that while Mills was reading a copy of the letter in the office, Birdsong entered and asked, "What is that?" that he (Uebel) replied, "It's a statement to withdraw a union pledge"; that Birdsong then read the letter and said he would sign it and he did; that Mills had already signed the letter at that time; and that he (Uebel) thereupon took the executed letters and sent them to Maryland City's secretary to be mailed to the Union. Uebel further testified that he posted on the wall near his desk the third copy of the form letter he had obtained from Connolley for ready reference in the event that any other employee asked for one, and that the letter so posted was visible to em- ployees who had the occasion to enter the building to get their tools. I have previously found Birdsong , who at the time of the hearing was still in Maryland City's employ, to be an honest and trustworthy witness. I find his testi- mony regarding Uebel's conduct in inducing Birdsong's revocation of his union authorization card equally credible and persuasive as his testimony regarding Uebel's earlier remarks. 2. Moorhead's discharge Moorhead began working for Respondent Hurd at the Maryland City project in October 1961, at $2 an hour. His duties entailed servicing heavy equipment, assist- ing his supervisor, Master Mechanic Charles L. Brooks,15 with repairs on heavy "There is uncontradicted testimony in the record that Maryland City's secretary cus- tomarily performs personal mailing and other services for employees and subcontractors requesting them. 12 A portion of this building serves as a place where Birdsong and other employees store their tools. 18 Birdsong also testified, under cross-examination by Respondents' counsel, that he de- cided to revoke his union authorization card "because Connolley had said if the Union did get in and the men went on strike they could be permanently replaced. I thought I'd get along a little better if I did because they knew" he had signed a card. Birdsong inferred such knowledge from the fact that he had previously informed Uebel about signing a card when the latter told him and other employees that after the Union tried to get in, the Company would lay off everyone on Friday and rehire on Monday those who had not signed union car?s 14 At that time, Uebel advised Mills to have a notary public draft such a statement and have it notarized and mailed to the Union. Apparently, Mills did not follow this advice. is Brooks, who had also been Moorhead's superior while working for another employer, recommended Moorhead for employment by Hurd. HURD CORPORATION 313 equipment, and performing mechanical work on small vehicles. Until the events herein Moorhead's competence had never been questioned ; indeed, about 3 weeks before his discharge he was given an unsolicited 25-cent hourly wage increase.16 As discussed earlier in the report, on April 18, Superintendent Connolley came upon Moorhead and Roy Anderson, another Hurd employee, while they were execut- ing union authorization cards for Union Organizer Brylke. Moorhead testified that following this incident, he reported for work, and later observed Connolley talking to the Hurd brothers near the latter's office, although he was too far away to hear what they were saying.17 Moorhead also testified-credibly as I have previously found-that around 3 o'clock in the afternoon Brooks came to him and asked him what he did with his union card and that he replied that he did not know. He further testified that Brooks then went to Hurd's office and returned, saying nothing; that later Brooks came back to him with his time book and asked him for the time he had worked the night before; that, after giving him this information, Brooks returned to the office where he remained for a good while; and that shortly before 5 o'clock Brooks told him that the Hurd brothers wanted to see him and together they went to the office. Concerning what transpired in the office on his and Brooks' arrival, Moorhead gave the following testimony: Arthur Hurd, who is in charge of Hurd's operations and employees, said that he was sorry he had to dismiss him that night. Hurd at first did not give Moorhead a reason except to say, after Moorhead insisted it was necessary for future employment, that he (Moorhead) knew what the reason was. When Moorhead denied knowledge, Hurd retorted, "Well, let's make it this way. Let's make it we are not satisfied with your greasing." 18 At this point, Moorhead asked Brooks whether he was satisfied with his work and Brooks responded affirma- tively. Hurd then handed Moorhead two checks and both he and Brooks left the office. Moorhead further testified that while he and Brooks were walking toward the grease truck to get his tools Brooks expressed his regrets, saying that it was not his fault that Moorhead was fired, "You know John Connolley caught you signing those cards. That's the reason." Arthur Hurd testified that he discharged Moorhead because he "didn't like his work; . [he] couldn't trust him; . [and he] didn't like his attitude toward ... [him or his] company." In explaining his mistrust of Moorhead, Hurd alluded to an incident on Christmas day 1961, when Moorhead, with company equipment he permitted him to use, towed out a car that was stuck in the mud on the project. According to Hurd, Moorhead deliberately lied when, solely out of curiosity, he asked Moorhead whether he was paid for those services and Moorhead replied in the negative.19 Hurd also testified to another incident which caused him to be dissatified with Moorhead and which he described as "[o]ne of the main things." This involved some remarks allegedly made by Moorhead regarding a paycheck that Moorhead was given the week of March 4 which was returned by the bank because of insufficient funds due to some unfortunate mixup in the company's accounts. Hurd testified that he was angered when he learned that Moorhead had falsely informed other employees that he had had three checks returned for insufficient funds. In addition, he testified that he reprimanded Moorhead for making those statements and told Moorhead he would fire him then and there were it not for the fact that Moorhead still owed his company money advanced to him for repairs "Arthur Hurd, erroneously referred to in the record as Alfred B. Hurd, who is the superintendent in charge of his company's operations, admitted that he authorized the raise on Brooks' recommendation 1a'Connolley admitted speaking to the Hurd brothers that day, as he customarily did in the normal course of his functions However, he denied, as Arthur Hurd also did, that he mentioned the Brylke incident to them. It is incredible to me that Connolley, who was determined to keep his project nonunion and who a few days later invited his employees, the subcontractors, and their employees to hear his antiunion speech, would not disclose to the Hurds that 'he observed two of their employees filling out some "papers" in the pres- ence of a union organizer. 1s Moorhead's testimony concerning the reason for his discharge is, in effect, cor- roborated by Respondent Hurd's own employment record of Moorhead which states that he was terminated because of unsatisfactory work. "Hurd testified that he personally did not want any part of this money. Moorhead denied that Hurd ever asked him whether he was paid for the towing job I find it un- necessary to resolve this conflict 314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to his car 20 According to Hurd, these remarks reflected Moorhead's attitude which he disliked. Regarding the discharge interview with Moorhead, Hurd gave this account: He sent Brooks to bring Moorhead to the office. As soon as Moorhead arrived at 5 o'clock, he told him that since the Company's loan to him for repairs to his car was finally paid off he was getting rid of him. In reply to Moorhead's request for the reason, Hurd suggested they attribute the discharge to a personality clash. Upon Moorhead's insistence that Hurd be specific, Hurd referred to the towing car and check incidents as the reason, adding that he would have fired Moorhead before were it not for the fact that he owed the Company so much money. On cross- examination, Hurd testified that his mistrust of Moorhead stemmed from his false denial that he was paid for the Christmas day towing job. However, Hurd admitted that about a month later he advanced Moorhead $350 for repairs to his car. More- over, Hurd also admitted that a few weeks before Moorhead's discharge, he author- ized a 25-cent hourly wage increase to Moorhead on Brooks' recommendation. Significantly, this increase was given about a month after the check incident. Moorhead, on the other hand, denied that Hurd mentioned either the towing or check incidents at the time of his discharge or that Hurd had ever threatened him with dismissal because of his check remarks. Brooks testified that he discussed the proposed discharge of Moorhead with Arthur Hurd who made the decision. However, Brooks furnished no facts regard- ing this conversation, except to state that he did not recommend the discharge. Moreover, although he did not contradict Moorhead's testimony that he was present during the discharge interview, Brooks gave no testimony as to what transpired between Hurd and Moorhead on this occasion. As for his departing remarks to Moorhead, to which the latter testified, Brooks disclaimed having made them. I am not favorably impressed with Arthur Hurd's testimony which I find cannot withstand scrutiny. For example, his asserted reasons for Moorhead's discharge are belied by the facts and the realities of the situation. Thus, apart from the picayune character of the towing incident relied upon, Hurd's ostensible mistrust of Moorhead because the latter did not satisfy his curiosity to know whether Moor- head was paid for a towing job he performed, on his own time leaves without satis- factory explanation the $350 loan Hurd made to Moorhead for car repairs a month later. Equally inexplicable is the 25-cent unsolicited hourly wage increase which Hurd authorized for Moorhead a few weeks before his discharge, if, as Hurd testi- fied, he had previously decided to discharge Moorhead because of the check incident. One would have to be extremely cynical to believe that Hurd would increase an employee's wages in contemplation of his termination. Moreover, if Moorhead's at- titude marked him for discharge, it is difficult to understand why Hurd did not in- crease the deductions from Moorhead's earnings to liquidate his indebtedness and terminate his employment before he had demonstrated, his interest in the Union21 Finally, the foregoing asserted reasons are refuted by Respondent Hurd's own em- ployment record of Moorhead which only states that Moorhead was terminated for "Unsatisfactory Work." 22 20 Moorhead testified that his remarks to employees about the checks were made in jest in response to similar jesting remarks made by them. He further testified that he gave this explanation to Arthur Hurd when the latter spoke to him about it at that time and angrily pointed out that such remarks looked bad for the company However, Moorhead denied that Hurd made any threat to fire him As indicated later in the report, I find Moorhead to 'be a credible witness Concerning the money Moorhead owed Hurd, it is undisputed that this money was ad- vanced in early February and that payments on account of this loan were thereafter de- ducted by Hurd from Moorhead's weekly pay 21 Moorhead's payroll record indicates that for most weeks Respondent Hurd deducted from Moorhead's earnings $25 on account of his indebtedness. On one occasion, however, it deducted $30 and on two others $35 each. Although for two payroll periods immediately preceding his demonstrated interest in the Union Moorhead earned more than he did when the $30 and $35 deductions were made, only $25 was taken out of his wages. 22 It is also noted that a payroll list put in evidence by the Respondents shows that Moorhead was separated for unsatisfactory work and "Honesty questioned " However, not a shred of evidence was produced to substantiate the charge of unsatisfactory work. Nor was any evidence offered to support the latter reason unless it referred to an alleged unauthorized charge of $33.82 by Moorhead for additional repairs to his car. However, Respondent Hurd conceded at the hearing that this matter came to its attention after the discharge and was not a ground for the separation. HURD CORPORATION 315 On the other hand, from my analysis of the evidence in the case and from my observation of the demeanor of the various witnesses, I find that Moorehead's testi- mony relating to the circumstances of his discharge and his conversations with Hurd, Connolley, and Brooks, as recited above, reflects the probable facts. Ac- cordingly, I credit Moorhead's testimony, notwithstanding his inability to remember dates with precision.23 3. Anderson's discharge As discussed above, Anderson was with Moorhead on April 18 when Superintendent Connolley came upon them as they were signing union authorization cards for Union Organizer Brylke. Like Moorhead, Anderson was discharged later that day by Arthur Hurd. The only testimony relating to Anderson's employment history and separation is that given by Arthur Hurd. The attorney for the General Counsel stated at the hearing that he could not produce Anderson as a witness because Anderson had moved from the area and could not be located. Hurd's testimony was rather confusing and contained many inconsistencies re- garding Anderson's employment history.24 It appears, however, from his entire testimony that Anderson was hired on March 26 to operate a DW-21 Caterpillar scraper at the probationary rate of $2 50 an hour; that he was good as anyone in performing the first two operations of his job but was sorely deficient in the last operation of dumping the load; that Anderson, nevertheless, continued to work on the DW-21 machine for 3 or 4 days when, through no fault of Anderson, the machine broke down requiring repairs; and that Hurd thereupon put Anderson on a Caterpillar D-7 bulldozer, which he could not run, and was laid off while the DW-21 was undergoing repairs. Hurd further testified that he then hired Hugh McKinney on April 2 to operate the D-7 but he proved to be unsatisfactory and when the DW-21 was returned to operation he tried McKinney on it. After one trip McKinney proved to be inadequate and was dismissed on April 5. The next day, Hurd testified, he recalled Anderson to operate the DW-21. Apparently, Anderson operated this machine until 5 o'clock, April 18, when, according to Hurd, he discharged him because he showed no improvement. In effecting the discharge, Hurd testified, he simply told Anderson he was letting him go. Explaining the reason for selecting April 18 as the day for Anderson's discharge, Hurd testified that his master mechanic, Brooks, had hired George Doyle over the telephone for Anderson's job a few days before the discharge and had arranged an appointment for Doyle to see him (Hurd) in the evening of April 18. Although Brooks was a witness at the hearing, he did not testify to his employment of Doyle. Hurd further testified that he assumed that Doyle would start working for him the next morning (April 19) and therefore discharged Anderson when he did. How- ever, Hurd testified, Doyle told him during his interview on April 18 that he could not start immediately on his new job as he needed a few days to give notice to his then employer that he was leaving. Yet, it is strange that such a request was not made to Brooks at the time Doyle was allegedly hired. In any event, Doyle began working for Hurd on April 23. I have heretofore found Hurd to be an unreliable witness. For this and other reasons set forth in my concluding findings, infra, I do not credit his testimony that he terminated Anderson because of his inability to improve in his work. 4. Martin's layoff Martin was employed by Respondent Maryland Fabricators on March 19 at $1 65 an hour, which was the rate paid the more skilled employees. He was regularly assigned to handle lumber in the component cutter operation, although he occa- sionally performed other jobs. Admittedly, he was a good, steady employee. As previously discussed, Martin was responsible for the Union's organizational drive at the project and, to the knowledge of Foreman Phillips and Superintendent Connolley,25 was active in soliciting employees to join the Union. On April 20 23 The Respondents rely on Moorhead's alleged unauthorized charge of $33 82 to Re- spond Hurd's account for repairs to Moorhead's car as impugning Moorhead's trustworthi- ness as a witness . In view of Moorhead's explanation , his demeanor, and the entire record in the case, I find his credibility unimpaired thereby. 24 Although payroll records would have undoubtedly helped, they were not produced at the hearing 23 Although Maryland Fabricators' President Puncke disavowed knowledge of Martin's union activities, I find it difficult to believe that Foreman Phillips, who from his own testi- mony was admittedly informed by employee McDaniel that Martin had solicited him to 316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Martin was laid off. On July 17, when production demands had assertedly improved to the point when Martin's services could be utilized, Puncke sent a letter to Martin notifying him to report for work on July 23. Martin, however, did not respond because he had obtained a better job in the meantime. Concerning the events leading up to his layoff on April 20, Martin testified as follows: About 9 o'clock in the morning, Superintendent Connolley approached him at his work station at the component cutter and asked him for the union cards that he was distributing. Martin disclaimed any knowledge of such cards and, in response to this answer, Connolley said that Martin had been reported to the office that he had union cards on the job. Contrary to Connolley's denial, I have previously credited this testimony. Continuing with this account, Martin testified that later in the morning, when he asked Foreman Phillips for a broom in order to clean up, Phillips called him aside, informed him that he was going to be laid off that day, and questioned him about union cards, which he denied having. According to Martin, Phillips then said he wished that Martin had made this plain to him before, since he could have spoken to the front office and perhaps saved him from being laid off but the "office now brands . . . [him] as a union agitator." Phillip contradicted this testimony. At noon 28 Phillips laid off Martin, stating, according to Martin, that he was a good worker and hated to see him go and would recall him when work picked up but in the meantime to keep in touch with him Z7 Martin also candidly admitted that work was on the decline at this time. William Puncke, a partner in, and president of, Maryland Fabricators, and Phillips conceded that Martin was a good worker, but insisted that his layoff was necessitated solely by a slackening in operations. Puncke testified that this decline started in the early part of April (later changed to the last week in March), at which time he began to weed out the unsatisfactory employees, laying off two employees on April 4 and two on April 6 .28 He further testified that with the excess thus eliminated, the company drifted along until Friday, April 20, when it became necessary to resume reducing the force. Explaining the circumstances of Martin's selection for layoff, Puncke testified, in substance, that about 10 or 10:30 a.m., Friday, April 20, Phillips came to him and informed him that they were getting low on work; that considering the workload, he (Puncke) suggested a 50-percent re- duction in force; and that Phillips stated that he could not accept such a cut because it would interfere with operations in which he was engaged. Puncke also testified that he believed that Phillips mentioned in this conversation that L. A. Wilson and Hugh Crenshaw were quitting that day 29 However, Puncke later expressed un- certainty whether Phillips had mentioned Wilson to him that morning in view of the fact that Wilson had quit the day before 30 and he had probably paid him off then 31 Puncke further indicated that he might also be mistaken that Crenshaw was men- tioned in that conversation In any event, Puncke testified, he and Phillips decided that a layoff of one employee would serve their purposes for the time being and that he (Puncke) then selected Martin for layoff as the employee with least seniority. join the Union, and Superintendent Connolley, Puncke's business partner, who questioned Martin on the morning of his layoff about his distribution of union cards, did not impart their knowledge of Martin's union activities to Puncke before Puncke decided to lay off Martin. 20 April 20 was Good Friday and employees were working a half day only 27 Phillips corroborated Martin's testimony respecting his work performance and Phillips' promise to recall him when work became available. as Puncke's later testimony indicates that there was no layoff on April 6 but that an employee quit on that day and another on April 4. Respondents' Exhibit No. 5, taken from Maryland Fabricators' payroll records, shows no layoff in April or the last week in March before Martin's layoff on April 20. Although Puncke also testified that there was no need for hiring new employees during this period of decline, the same exhibit reveals an employee hired on March 27 who quit on April 6; two employees hired on March 28 who quit on March 29; two employees hired on March 31 who quit on April 5; and one hired on April 4 who quit on April 14 2D According to Martin, Phillips told hint at the time of his layoff that another employee (not Otherwise identified) was quitting that day. 30 Wilson was rehired the following Monday, April 23. 8i According to Puncke, he usually visited the project on Tuesday and Friday, the latter being payday, although occasions might arise requiring him to be there on other days. Phillips confirmed the fact that Wilson quit on Thursday, April 19, +and that Puncke paid him off that day. HURD CORPORATION 317 Phillips gave the following account of Martin's layoff: The amount of available work was on the decline before Martin's layoff. However, he did his utmost to retain the staff until it reached a point where he could no longer do it and was obliged to start laying off employees. Although at this time employees Wilson and Cren- shaw had informed him that they were quitting, this reduction in force was insuffi- cient to meet the problem and he was therefore compelled to make up a layoff list. In addition, it was common knowledge at the project that Maryland City wanted a 50-percent cutback in operations. Accordingly, he discussed this matter with Puncke on Friday morning (April 20), taking the position that it was impossible to operate with a 50-percent cut in personnel. As a result, he and Puncke decided that since two employees were quitting that morning,32 they would lay off only Martin because he came from the Martin Aircraft plant and retain the other employees despite the work shortage because construction was their special field of endeavor. On cross-examination, Phillips testified, in substance, that when he arrived in the office to discuss layoffs with Puncke, Maryland City's Superintendent Connolley was there and he (Phillips) assumed that Puncke and Connolley had already determined on a 50-percent reduction in force. However, Phillips further testified that, after discussing the matter with Puncke, he persuaded Puncke to start with one layoff in addition to the two voluntary separations. Notwithstanding the work shortage, Phillips rehired Wilson the following Monday, April 23. Phillips testified, in justification of this action, that Wilson was a keyman in the manufacture of trusses, and one of the best, and therefore the Company was willing to get him back because they still had trusses to fabricate. Yet, Puncke testified on cross-examination that employee Bridges was an experienced and profi- cient keyman in the operation of the truss machine 33 Moreover, even assuming that Wilson was an invaluable employee,34 Phillips did not explain why another laborer was not put on layoff status when Wilson was reemployed if, as he testified, the work shortage necessitated an immediate staff reduction of at least three employees. Although it appears that there was a developing work shortage on Friday, April 20, I am not convinced by Puncke's and Phillips' foregoing testimony that they decided to lay off Martin for this reason. Casting serious doubt on the reliability of their testimony is the fact that, in the face of an asserted necessity for reducing personnel by three employees, Wilson, who admittedly was not too dependable an employee, was rehired the following Monday without any other employee being laid off at that time in his place. Similarly detracting is the questionable explanation given by Phillips for Wilson's reemployment in view of Puncke's testimony that employee Bridges was the keyman in the truss operation, as well as the different reasons ad- vanced by him and Puncke for selecting Martin for layoff, and Puncke's exaggerated and unsubstantiated appraisal of the work shortage before April 20. On the other hand, Martin impressed me as a forthright witness whose account conformed with the pattern of events that occurred at the Maryland City project. I accordingly credit his testimony concerning the circumstances of his layoff and Phillips' state- ments to him. C. Concluding findings 1. With respect to interference, restraint, and coercion I have heretofore found that on March 28, Maryland Fabricators' Foreman Phillips requested employee Martin to relinquish the union cards he was reported to the office to be distributing; that at a time before Martin's layoff Phillips questioned employee Pyles whether he or any other employee had signed a union card and, when Pyles denied that he or other employees had, Phillips stated that he had been otherwise informed by employee Bell; that on April 18, Maryland City Super- intendent Connolley approached Hurd's employees, Moorhead and Anderson, while 89 However, this is not entirely accurate since it is undisputed that one of them, Wilson, had already quit the day before. 33 Respondents' Exhibit No. 5 shows that Wilson was originally hired on January 30 at $1 50 laborer's hourly rate, while Bridges was hired March 23 at the more skilled rate of $1 75 It is also noted that Wilson was subsequently laid off on May 7, whereas Bridges was retained along with the other keymen. In addition, in the course of his testimony concerning the three layoffs on May 7 and 8, Puncke, in effect, acknowledged the fact that Wilson's job was less skilled than Bridges. ss Phillips, however, was in agreement with Puncke that Wilson was a type of in- dividual who wanted to control his working time more or less and, in fact, was hired by the Company on three separate occasions. 318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD they were signing authorization cards for Union Organizer Brylke and told Moorhead that he knew "better than that" and that he (Connolley) did not want a union at the project and asked Anderson, whom he did not know, for his name; that several hours later Moorhead's supervisor, Brooks, asked Moorhead and two or three other employees what they did with their union cards; that on the morning of employee Martin's layoff on April 20, Superintendent Connolley asked Martin for the union cards he was distributing and, when he disclaimed knowledge of such cards, Connol- ley stated that contrary information was reported to the "office "; that a few days before April 25, Maryland City Foreman Pete Uebel announced to a group of em- ployees that after the Union tried to get in, the company would lay everyone off on Friday and rehire on Monday the men who had not signed union cards; that, after Superintendent Connolley had delivered a prepared antiunion speech on April 25, John Krupnik, president of Respondent Krupnik, induced two of his em- ployees, Seabolt and Sheppard , to sign letters revoking their authorization to the Union to represent them for collective-bargaining purposes, which were drafted by Maryland City's attorney and which were mailed to the Union by Maryland City's secretary; and that Maryland City Foreman Uebel similarly induced and assisted employee Birdsong to revoke his union authorization 35 It is clear from the record that, contrary to the Respondents' contention , the fore- going acts were more than unrelated and isolated remarks by Respondents' officials and supervisors . Rather, they reflect a pattern of coercive and restraining conduct initiated and led by Superintendent Connolley which was designed to achieve a common objective of preventing the Union from securing a foothold in the con- struction project by organizing employees of the general contractor and the sub- contractors . This is particularly evident when this conduct is viewed in the light of the discrimination practiced against three employees, as found below. Accordingly, I find that each Respondent , acting through officials or supervisors, respectively interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their self-organizational rights guaranteed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.36 2. With respect to Moorhead 's discharge As indicated above, Arthur Hurd, who was in charge of Respondent Hurd's operations , summarily terminated Moorhead's employment several hours after speak- ing to Superintendent Connolley who had previously come upon Moorhead while the latter was signing an authorization card for Union Organizer Brylke. Respondent Hurd insists that it was not motivated by Moorhead 's union membership or interest in discharging him but urges that it took this action because of an accumulation of incidents which led Arthur Hurd to distrust Moorhead and to be dissatisfied with his work and attitude toward the Company . I find no merit in this contention. From what has already been said, there can be no question that the asserted reasons are unworthy of belief. Not only was Moorhead given an unsolicited 25- cent hourly wage increase after he ostensibly became an undesirable employee, but also the incidents which allegedly prompted the discharge were not even mentioned at the time of the separation , as one would naturally expect if such were the case. Indeed, it was only after Moorhead's prodding that Arthur Hurd proposed , "Let's make it we are not satisfied with your greasing," although Foreman Brooks, in response to Moorhead's question at that time, indicated his disagreement with this appraisal of Moorhead's work. Viewing all the evidence in this case which reveal a fixed determination by Super- intendent Connolley to keep the project nonunion, I find the true reason for Moor- -That such inducement and assistance are prohibited by Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, see N L R B v. Overnite Transportation Co., 308 F. 2d 279, 281 (C A. 4), enfg 129 NLRB 1026; Wcnn-Dixie Stores, Inc and Winn-Dimie Greenville, Inc, 128 NLRB 574, 580: Memphis Publishing Company, 133 NLRB 1435, 1442. Plainly, NLRB. v Brookside Industries, Inc., 308 F 2d 224, 226 (C A 4), and other cases relie'd upon by the Respond- ents are factually distinguishable from the instant case. sa Contrary to the Respondents' contention I find that not only are the foregoing Sec- tion 8(a) (1) findings sufficiently supported by the amended complaint and amended bill of particulars, but the subject matter was fully litigated at the hearing. Of. Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company, use., 140 NLRB 1191. I further find, in disagreement with the General Counsel, that the evidence does not establish that Superintendent Connolley's statement during the course of his April 25 speech that Maryland City em- ployees may buy appliances at discount through the Company was more than announce- ment of a preexisting benefit available to employees and hence such statement was not vio- lative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. HURD CORPORATION 319 head's discharge in Foreman Brooks' remark to Moorhead that he was fired be- cause Connolley caught him signing a union card. It is quite clear that such conduct constituted discrimination by Respondent Hurd to discourage membership in the Union in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as well as interference with, restraint, and coercion of employees which Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act prohibits. 3. With respect to Anderson 's discharge It appears to be more than an odd coincidence that Anderson should be dis- charged on April 18 under virtually the same circumstances as was Moorhead. Both were caught by Superintendent Connolley earlier in the day as they were signing authorization cards for Union Organizer Brylke. Both were summarily terminated at the close of the day without any prior warning after Connolley had spoken to the Hurd brothers. In neither case is there any credible evidence that arrangements were made for their immediate replacement . In the face of these facts, I can attach no credence to the testimony of Aurthur Hurd, whom I have previously found not to be a reliable witness, that Anderson's discharge was due to his inability to improve in his work . On the contrary , I find that the same antiunion reason which motivated Moorhead 's termination , prompted Anderson's discharge. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent Hurd discriminated against Anderson to discourage union membership and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act. 4. With respect to Martin's layoff Respondent Maryland Fabricators maintains that Martin was laid off because of a work shortage . However, I have heretofore found in this report that this reason was not supported by credible testimony . While the rejection of the Respondent's explanation reflects upon its real motives ,37 the critical question, of course , remains whether it was antiunion considerations that brought about the layoff on April 20. From my analysis of the entire record I find that Martin would not have been laid off on that day were it not for his union activities , although the evidence also indicates that he would have been legitimately laid off on May 7 for economic reasons. As discussed previously, Martin was the instigator of the Union 's organizational drive. Whether or not Maryland Fabricators or Superintendent Connolley, who was also one of the firm's partners, knew this, it is quite clear that they were at least aware that Martin was zealously soliciting members for the Union and that they tried to stop it. Thus, on March 28, shortly after Martin began his activities , he was re- ported to the "office" and was immediately asked by Foreman Phillips for the cards he was distributing. On the morning of Martin's layoff on April 20, Connolley him- self sought to induce Martin to hand over the union cards in his possession , pointing out as Phillips had done previously that he was reported to the "office " as having union cards on the job. On both occasions Martin disclaimed knowledge of such cards. That Martin was disbelieved by his employer and Connolley and had actually fallen into their disfavor because of his union advocacy is also apparent from Phillips' remarks to Martin when Phillips informed him that he was going to be laid off later that day. Specifically, in response to Martin's repeated denial of knowledge, Phillips expressed the wish that Martin had previously made this plain to him since he could have spoken to "the office" and saved him from being laid off but the "office now brands . . . [him ] as a union agitator." In view of all the facts and circumstances in this case , particularly the demonstrated hostility to the unionization of employees working on the Maryland City project, I find that Martin's layoff on April 20 was due solely to his union activities. Un- questionably, such discrimination by Respondent Maryland Fabricators to dis- courage support of the Union is violative of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act and infringes upon employees' self-organizational rights protected by Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 5. With respect to Respondent Maryland City's liability for the discrimination against Moorhead, Anderson, and Martin The Respondent Maryland City contends that it could not be held in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act because it neither caused nor participated in the discharge of Moorhead or Anderson or the layoff of Martin and, in any event, because it was not their employer. I find no merit in these contentions. 37 North Carohna. Finish4nq Company V. N.L.R.B, 133 F 2d 714, 718 (CA 4), cert. denied 320 U S. 738; N.L R.B v. Thomas W. Dant, Robert E. Dant, et al ., d/b/a Dant & Russell, Ltd., 207 F. 2d 165, 167 (C.A. 9). 320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD While it is true that there is no direct evidence of Maryland City's participation in the discrimination practiced against the employees in question, the circumstances surrounding their separation when viewed in light of Superintendent Connolley's determination to keep the project nonunion inescapably lead me to the conclusion that Maryland City, through Connolley, was instrumental in bringing about the discharges and layoff. Thus, several hours before Respondent Hurd terminated the employement of Moorhead and Anderson, Connolley encountered them signing authorization cards for one of the Union' s organizers and then and there reminded Moorhead, in the presence of Anderson, that he should "know better than that" and that he (Connolley) did not want the project unionized. Later in the day, after Connolley was seen speaking to the Hurd brothers, Moorhead and Anderson were discharged because Connolley caught them signing union cards. Similarly, Martin was discriminatorily laid off by his employer, Maryland Fabricators, because of his union activities shortly after Connolley's unsuccessful efforts to have Martin relinquish the union cards he was reported to the "office" as distributing. Here, too, it is noted that, according to Foreman Phillips, upon his arrival in the office on the morning when the decision to lay off Martin was made, he met Connolley there with Puncke, the firm's president.38 In these circumstances, it would strain one's credulity to believe that Connolley had no hand in the discrimination suffered by Moorhead, Anderson, and Martin. Clearly, this conduct served Connolley's determination to prevent the Union from gaining a foothold at the project. And equally clear is the fact that Connolley, as Maryland City's superintendent in charge of all operations at the project, including those performed by subcontractors, thereby demonstrated that he possessed sufficient control over the employment tenure of the subcontractors' employees as to cause the discharge of two of them and the layoff of the third Such effective and real control over the job rights of employees, when considered in light of the intimate business character of the association between a general contractor and his sub- contractors, has been held to carry with it the prohibition against discrimination imposed by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists in the classical sense 39 As one court so aptly stated, "Where an independent contractor knowingly participates in the effectuation of an unfair practice, it places itself within the orbit of the Board's corrective jurisdiction." 40 Accordingly, I find that Respondent Maryland City, by causing the discharge of Moorhead and Anderson and the layoff of Martin, discriminated against them to discourage membership in the Union within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their self-organizational rights within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with their operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and its free flow. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since Respondent Hurd, at the instance of Respondent Maryland City, discrimi- natorily discharged employees Moorhead and Anderson, I recommend that Re- spondent Hurd offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,41 and that Respondent Maryland City notify Respondent Hurd and employees Moorhead and Anderson that it withdraws objection to the employment -It is also noted that on April 25 Connolley assembled not only Maryland City em- ployees, but also the subcontractors and their employees to hear his antiunion speech. as See, for example, Northern California Chapter, The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc, et at, 119 NLRB 1026, enfd sub nom Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 of the International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO v N.L.R B , 266 F 2d 905 (C A D C ), cert denied 361 U.S 834; N.L.R B v. Long Lake Lumber Company and F D Robinson, 138 F. 2d 363 (CA. 9), enfg. 34 NLRB 700. 40 N L R B. v. Gluck Brewing Company and Back Transfer and Storage Company, 144 F 2d 847, 855 (C.A. 8). 41 At the hearing the General Counsel stated that Anderson had moved out of the area and could not be located. For this reason the Respondent Hurd may make its reinstate- HURD CORPORATION 321 of these employees on its project. I also recommend that Respondents Maryland City and Hurd jointly and severally make Moorhead and Anderson whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of rein- statement. However, Maryland City's liability for further accrual of backpay shall terminate by giving Hurd and the above -named employees the notice of withdrawal of objection provided for herein . In such event, Maryland City shall not be liable for any backpay accruing 5 days after giving this notice. Backpay shall be computed with interest on a quarterly basis in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. As for Martin , whom I have also found was discriminated against by Respond- ent Maryland Fabricators and Respondent Maryland City, the record shows that he had rejected Maryland Fabricators ' offer of reemployment which was made to him by letter dated July 17, 1962. For this reason no further offer of reinstate- ment shall be required . However, these Respondents shall jointly and severally reimburse Martin for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned from the date of his layoff on April 20 to the date he rejected Maryland Fabricators' offer of reemployment or the date he decided not to return to Maryland Fabricators' employment, whichever occurred earlier. Since Martin would have been laid off on May 7 for nondiscriminatory reasons, there obviously would be no loss of pay during such period of legitimate layoff. Backpay shall be computed in the manner indicated above. In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondents, other than Krupnik, including discrimination which, as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals observed , "goes to the very heart of the Act," 42 there exists the danger of the commission of other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act. I accord- ingly recommend that the Respondents , other than Krupmk, cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act 43 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Ralph Moorhead and Roy Anderson as to discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of, the Union, Respondents Hurd and Maryland City have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Harry E. Martin as to discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of, the Union, Respondents Maryland Fabricators and Maryland City have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. By engaging in the various acts of interference , restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of their self-organizational rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as previously found in this Intermediate Report, each Respondent has committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that: ment offer, and the Respondent Maryland City may give its notification to Anderson by registered or certified mail directed to his last known address, and by serving a copy of such offer and notification upon the Regional Director for the Fifth Region. 4' N L.R B. v Entwistle Mfq Co , 120 F. 2d 532, 536 (C A 4). 43 N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U S. 426, 433 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. Respondent Hurd Corporation, Laurel, Maryland, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discharging employees or discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent that their rights in that regard may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (b) Coercively interrogating employees as to what they did with their union authorization cards. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing 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 representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Ralph Moorhead and Roy Anderson immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and jointly and severally with Respondent Maryland City Corporation make each of them whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him , as provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due and the right to reinstatement under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its place of business and at the Maryland City Corporation construc- tion site in Laurel, Maryland, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A " 44 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 45 B. Respondents William Puncke, George Loedisch, and John Connolley, Partners, t/a Maryland City Fabricators and Suppliers, Laurel, Maryland, their agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1 Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by laying off employees or discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent that their rights in that regard may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. a In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De- cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States 'Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order " ^ In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." HURD CORPORATION 323 (b) Requesting employees to relinquish cards in their possession authorizing the above-named Union to represent them for the purpose of collective bargaining; coercively questioning employees whether they or other employees had signed such union authorization cards; and telling employees that they had information that they were distributing or that they had signed such cards. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing 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 collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to re- frain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Jointly and severally with Maryland City Corporation make Harry E. Martin whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him as provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its place of busmess and at the Maryland City Corporation construction site in Laurel, Maryland, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 46 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondents, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith 47 C. Respondent Maryland City Corporation, Laurel, Maryland, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by causing the discharge or layoff of employees or discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent that their rights in that regard may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. (b) Coercively informing employees that it did not approve their signing union authorization cards; requesting employees to relinquish such cards in their possession; telling employees that it had information that they had union cards on the job; warning to discharge all employees and to rehire those who had not signed union authorization cards; and soliciting, inducing, and assisting employees to revoke their previously executed union authorization cards with the assurance that they will be forgiven for having signed such cards. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing 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 collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted ac- tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify Respondent Hurd Corporation, Ralph Moorhead, and Roy Anderson that it has no objection to the reinstatement of Moorhead and Anderson to their 40 See footnote 44, supra. 47 See footnote 45, supra. 717-672-64-vol. 14 3-2 2 324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. (b) Jointly and severally with Hurd Corporation make Ralph Moorehead and Roy Anderson whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, as provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (c) Jointly and severally with Maryland City Fabricators and Suppliers make Harry E. Martin whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimina- tion against him, as provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (d) Post at its place of business and construction site in Laurel, Maryland, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix C." 48 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customar- ily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 4s D. Respondent Krupnik Brothers, Inc., Glen Burnie, Maryland, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Soliciting, inducing, and assisting employees to revoke their union authoriza- tion cards. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em- ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2 Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its place of business in Glen Burnie, Maryland, and at the Maryland City Corporation construction site in Laurel, Maryland, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix D." 50 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representa- tive of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt there- of, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.51 It is also recommended that the complaint, as amended, be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by conduct other than that found unlawful herein. See footnote 44, supra. 49 See footnote 45, supra. 50 See footnote 44, supra. m See footnote 45, supra. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of , Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging any employees or discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent that their rights in that regard may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. HURD CORPORATION 325 WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees as to what they did with their cards authorizing the above-named Union to represent them for the purpose of collective-bargaining. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL offer Ralph Moorhead and Roy Anderson immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and jointly and severally with Maryland City Corporation make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, as provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or re- maining members of Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. HURO CORPORATION, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, 21202, Telephone No. 752-8460, Extension 2100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of, Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi- zation, by laying off employees or discriminating against them in any other man- ner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent that their rights in that regard may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT request employees to relinquish union authorization cards in their possession; coercively question them whether they or other employees had signed union authoriziaton cards; or tell employees that we had information that they were distributing or that they had signed such cards. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to join or assist the above- named Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL jointly and severally with Maryland City Corporation, make Harry E. Martin whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD against him, as provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members of Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WILLIAM PUNCKE, GEORGE LOEDISCH, AND JOHN CONNOLLEY, PARTNERS, T/A MARY- LAND CITY FABRICATORS AND SUPPLIERS, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, 21202, Telephone No. 752- 8460, Extension 2100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. APPENDIX C NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of , Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi- zation, by causing the discharge or layoff of any employees or discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment , except to the extent that their rights in that regard may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT coercively inform employees that we do not approve their signing union authorization cards; request them to relinquish such cards in their possession; tell them that we have information that they had union authorization cards on the job; warn to discharge all employees and rehire those who did not sign union authorization cards; or solicit, induce, or assist employees to revoke their previously executed authorization cards with the assurance that they will be forgiven for having signed such cards. 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 representatives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities , except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL notify Hurd Corporation, Ralph Moorhead, and Roy Anderson that we have no objection to the reinstatement of Moorhead and Anderson to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL jointly and severally with Hurd Corporation make Ralph Moorhead and Roy Anderson whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, as provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." WE WILL jointly and severally with Maryland City Fabricators and Suppliers make Harry E. Martin whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him, as provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." All our employees are free to become , remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members of Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization , except to the extent that such right may be HRIBAR TRUCKING, INC. 327 affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. MARYLAND CITY CORPORATION, Employer. Dated-- ----------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, 21202, Telephone No. 752- 8460, Extension 2100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. APPENDIX D NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT Solicit, induce, or assist our employees to revoke their previ- ously executed cards authorizing Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, to represent them for the purpose of collective bargaining, or in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. KRUPNIK BROTHERS, INC., Employer. Dated---------- --------- By------------------------------- ------- ----- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, 21202, Telephone No. 752- 8460, Extension 2100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Hribar Trucking, Inc. and Milton Frankwick and Teamsters and Chauffeurs Union Local No. 43 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Party to the Contract. Case No. 13-CA- 5041. Jwne 28, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On March 8, 1963, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in support thereof were filed by the Respondent and the Party to the Contract, hereinafter referred to as the Union.' The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. 'By Trial Examiner's order dated November 27 , 1962, the Union's petition to inter- vene and participate to the extent of its interest was granted. 143 NLRB No. 46.