Cletus H. Patterson & Sons, Inc.

CLETUS H. PATTERSON & SONS, INC. 59 (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Recommended Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith'° IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that so much of the complaint in this proceeding as alleges violations of the Act by the Respondent with respect to The Muffin Man and Elmsford Market be dismissed. '0 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Iegional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 456, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA 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, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of Skibee, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to refuse in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials, articles, or commodities, or to perform any services; nor will we threaten, coerce, and restrain Skibee, Inc., Twin Maples Restaurant, Parkway Wines & Liquor, or any other person en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce; where in any case an object is to force or require the aforesaid employers to cease doing business with Strauss Paper Co., Inc. WE WILL NOT, for the period of a year from the date of this notice, use the services of Peter Calabrese as our agent in matters relating to collective bar- gaining with employers and employees who are located within our geographical jurisdiction. LOCAL 456 , INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post- ing, and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. Members may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office , Fifth Floor, Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York , New York, Telephone No. Plaza 1-5500, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Cletus H. Patterson & Sons, Inc. and William C. Miller Cletus H. Patterson & Sons, Inc. and Robert V. Harvey Cletus H. Patterson & Sons, Inc. and Gordon A. Gillespie. Cases Nos. 8-CA-339.4-1, 8-CA-339.1-1, and 8-CA-3393-3. October 23, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On .Tulle 25, 1964, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his De- cision 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 cer- 149 NLRB No. 6. 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tarn affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. There- after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's De- cision 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-mem- ber panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' con- clusions, and recommendations with the following additional comments. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the reasons offered by the Respondent for the termination, layoffs, and failure to recall Gilles- pie, Harvey, and Miller were pretexts to conceal its discriminatory motivation for ridding itself of these three drivers. Although Re- spondent may have had no animus against unions generally, nor ob- jected to the fact that its drivers were members of the Teamsters, we are satisfied from the evidence that it resented their individual and concerted efforts to obtain their collective goal of gaining the wage scale which the Teamsters had obtained in agreements with other construction contractors. The drivers' wage demands may be consid- ered either as in furtherance of their interests as union members or as in furtherance of their group interest apart from union representa- tion; in either event they constituted protected activity. However, whether the discrimination practiced against them be regarded as a violation of Section 8(a) (3) or solely as a violation of Section 8(a) (1), the remedy of reinstatement and backpay recommended by the Trial Examiner would, in either event, be the same. ORDER2 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom- 1 Respondent has excepted to the Trial Examiner's crediting of Harvey 's version of a conversation lie had with Jack Patterson , president of Respondent , on the basis of which the Trial Examiner found that Respondent had threatened to sell its trucks and lay off Its drivers if they insisted on demanding the union wage scale It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 ( C.A. 3). Such a conclusion is not warranted here. 2 The following paragraph is hereby added to the notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision: We winr, notify the above-named employees if 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. CLETUS H. PATTERSON & SONS, INC. 61 mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding was held before Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan at a hearing in Ashtabula , Ohio, on March 30 , 31, April 1, 2, 3, and 10, 1964, on the amended consolidated complaint of General Counsel and the amended answer of Cletus H. Patterson & Sons, Inc., herein called the Respondent .' The issue litigated was whether the Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.' The parties waived oral argument. The General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein , a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, with its offices and principal place of business located in Ashtabula, Ohio, where it is en- gaged in the business of concrete and asphalt paving; and during its fiscal year ending April 30, 1963, in the course and conduct of its business operations, fur- nished services, valued in excess of $50,000, to the New York Central Railroad, which enterprise is engaged in transportation operations which constitute a link in the chain of interstate commerce and from which it derives a gross annual revenue in excess of $50,000. Respondent, during the calendar year ending December 31, 1963, in the course and conduct of its business operations, derived gross revenues in excess of $50,000, from said operations, which were performed for: New York Central Railroad, which has its place of business located in Ohio, and annually performs services valued in excess of $50,000, outside the State of Ohio; True Temper Corporation , which has its place of business located in Ohio, and annually ships finished products of a value in excess of $50,000 , from its Ohio location to points outside the State of Ohio; and the city of Ashtabula, Ohio. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein , an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen anu Helpers of America, Local No. 377, herein referred to as the Union, is now, and has been at all times material herein , a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Violation of Section 8(a)(1) The consolidated complaint alleged that on or about August 1, 1963, and con- tinuing to date Jack Patterson , president of Respondent, threatened its employees with loss of employment and other reprisals because of their union activities, sym- pathies, membership, and affiliation and/or because of their protected concerted activities. 1 The charges in Cases Nos. 8-CA-3393-1 and 8-CA-3393-2 were filed on January 21, 1964, and served on January 23, 1964 The charge in Case No 8-CA-3393-3 was filed on January 30, 1964, and served on January 31 , 1964 . The complaint issued on March 2, 1964. 'At the hearing the consolidated complaint was amended by adding paragraph 5 (A) as follows: Respondent through its agent, Jo Ann Ilarris , from on or about July 24, 1963, to date, interrogated ith employees concerning their union membership , activities and desires. 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Robert V. Harvey testified that during the first week in September 1963, he met with Jack Patterson and tried to persuade him to pay the Teamsters' scale of $3.09/ per hour, in view of the fact that the employees who belonged to the other two unions were paid the union scale by the Respondent . Patterson replied that if the truckdrivers accepted the $2 .50 per hour wage scale, they would have steady work but if they insisted on the union scale he would sell the trucks and lay them off. In his testimony Patterson denied generally that he had ever threatened his employees with loss of employment and reprisals for discriminatory reasons. On the testimony of Robert V. Harvey which I credit I find Patterson's statement to Harvey that if the huckdrivers insisted on the union scale he would sell the trucks and lay off the truckdrivers to be interference, restraint, and coercion vio- lative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The consolidated complaint as amended at the hearing alleged in paragraph 5A that the Respondent through its agent Jo Ann Harris , from on or about July 24, 1963, to date, interrogated its employees concerning their union membership, ac- tivities , and desires. The General Counsel called as a witness Mrs. Jo Ann Harris who testified that she was formerly employed by the Respondent to do general office work and her last period of employment was from April 1963 to February 28, 1964. She testi- fied that Jack Patterson had asked her to interview prospective employees and to obtain information consisting of names, addresses, telephone numbers, type of work done, and whether they were union or nonunion . She testified that she made memos of these interviews on paper, but did not always communicate the informa- tion to Patterson since it was left to her to decide whether she thought he might be interested in an applicant. When she did communicate the information to Patterson it was on paper which she placed on his desk. The memos of other applicants she placed in the files. She testified that she asked about 35 prospective employees whether they were union or nonunion between August 1, 1963, and approximately February 10, 1964. She also specifically testified that in the sum- mer of 1963 she asked Gordon Gillespie if he were union or nonunion and he replied that he was union . Later, she continued, Patterson was hired but none of the other prospective employees was hired . Gillespie also testified that she asked him if he belonged to a union. On cross-examination Harris testified that she questioned about 20 applicants from April 1963 to February 28, 1964. Patterson denied that he had ever authorized Harris to question applicants re- garding their union membership and had no knowledge that she was doing it until her testimony in this hearing. Patterson produced the personnel file which he located from Harris' testimony. That file contained approximately 55 written memos or applications , 13 of which were identified as being in Harris' handwriting. Only two of Harris' memos con- tained any reference to whether the applicant was union or nonunion . Both of those memos were dated February 14, 1964, and referred to Robert Siler and Willie Coleman as nonunion . Neither was hired after February 14, 1964, by the Respondent. On the testimony of Jack Patterson which I credit I find that he never instructed or authorized Harris to make inquiries of applicants as to whether they were union or nonunion . The amended complaint to that extent should be dismissed. The Violations of Section 8(a)(3) The consolidated complaint alleged that in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act the Respondent terminated the employment of Gordon A. Gillespie, Robert V. Harvey, and William C. Miller on or about September 15, November 25, and December 27, 1963, respectively; and at all times since such dates has failed and refused to reinstate them to their former or substantially equivalent positions. The answer denied that the employment of Gillespie and Harvey was terminated but admits that the employment of Miller was terminated but not for the reasons alleged in the complaint . The answer further denied that the Respondent has failed and refused to reinstate any of said employees for the reasons alleged in the complaint. The Respondent is engaged in the business of concrete and asphalt paving. Be- cause of the weather the business is seasonal and the period of operations is usually from April to late fall or early winter. Robert Harvey and William Miller were hired by the Respondent in August 1962, as truckdrivers, but they also performed manual labor. Before they were employed the Respondent had no regular truckdrivers but assigned laborers to drive the trucks when the need arose. CLETUS H. PATTERSON & SONS, INC. 63 Harvey and Miller were laid off because of the winter weather at the end of 1962. When the construction season began in 1963, Harvey was the first truck- driver recalled to work and Miller was the second one recalled. Harvey reinstated himself in Teamsters Local 377 early in May 1963. Later that month Harvey accompanied Miller to the Teamsters hall where Miller joined the Union. At that time they met with Carlos Jones, the union business agent, and discussed the union wage scale of $3.091/2 per hour which the Teamsters had nego- tiated with some other construction companies. The Respondent at no time had contractual relations with the Teamsters but did have collective-bargaining agree- ments with Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers' Union, Local 245, and with International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers, Locals 18, 18-A and 18-B. At the meeting with Jones, Harvey was appointed union steward. In June or July 1963, Jones met with Jack Patterson president of Respondent, William Grace of the Operating Engineers Union, and Theodore Green of the Hod Carriers' Union and they discussed the work assignments of Respondent's employ- ees. Jones informed Patterson that the Respondent's three truckdrivers were mem- bers of the Teamsters. Patterson recognized the Teamsters as representing the truckdrivers and accepted Harvey as the Union's steward. In July or August 1963, Harvey took up with Patterson a grievance concerning the wages paid to the truckdrivers. Patterson said he would not pay the union scale but if the drivers went along with him they would have steady work all winter. About the first week in September 1963, Harvey again met with Patterson and tried to persuade him to pay the union scale of $3.091/2 per hour, in view of the fact that the employees who belonged to the other two unions were paid union scale by the Respondent, Patter son replied that if the truckdrivers accepted the $2.50 per hour wage scale, they would have steady work, but if they insisted on the union scale, he would sell the trucks and lay them off. In September 1963, while Jones was investigating a grievance that a nonunion employee was driving one of the Respondent's trucks, he had a conversation with Superintendent Hoover who suggested to Jones the possibility of replacing Harvey in order to put another man on the job. Jones rejected the suggestion. Harvey was laid off at noon on November 25, 1963, according to his layoff slip, which stated his employment was terminated due to lack of work. Harvey was called back to work three times in December. The last date he worked was De- cember 20, 1963. He has not been recalled since then. On or about August 15, 1962, when Miller was interviewed by Patterson prior to being hired, Patterson asked him if he belonged to any union and when Miller replied in the negative, Patterson said "Well, that's good, because I don't believe too much in unions." In July 1963 Miller complained to Harvey, his union steward, because he was not receiving the union scale and about his hospitalization. In August 1963, Miller left a message at Respondent's office for Patterson re- garding his wages and hospitalization. In September 1963 Miller took up those grievances with Carlos Jones, the Union's business agent. On September 9 or 10, 1963, Patterson assigned Miller to work at the New York Central Railroad and told Miller that there would be work for him the year-round. In October 1963, Miller saw Superintendent Hoover personally and complained that Hoover's son, a nonunion driver, was driving a truck, that Miller was not re- ceiving the union scale and hospitalization. On Friday December 27, 1963, Miller received a slip stating he was laid off due to lack of work. Patterson told him that Lee Hoover and Arthur Showalter would drive his truck. Gordon A. Gillespie was hired on or about July 16, 1963, as a dump truckdriver. In August 1963 Gillespie reinstated himself in the Teamsters Union. In the latter part of August 1963 Gillespie complained to Superintendent Hoover of the failure of the Respondent to pay him the union scale and the fact that nonunion employees were driving trucks. Hoover referred him to Patterson. Gillespie also complained to Jones and Harvey. In September 1963 Gillespie again informed Jones that he was not receiving the union scale. Jones telephoned to Patterson and left a message concerning the grievance. Later Patterson's secretary returned the call and said Patterson wanted to know what the union scale was, and Jones told her it was $3.091/2 per hour. The following week Gillespie's wage was increased from $2.50 to $3.091/2 per hour and the succeeding week, on Wednesday, October 9, 1963, Gillespie's em- ployment was terminated. 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On or about January 1964, Jones again met with Patterson and Hoover in the presence of Green (Hod Carriers' Union) and Grace (Operating Engineers) and the layoffs of Harvey and Miller were discussed. Patterson stated that the reason he let Harvey go was that he was giving customers a hard time and that Miller was let go for dishonesty and he would not take them back. The Respondent's defense in substance is that it did not intend to reemploy Harvey because he had been found to use snow removal equipment belonging to the Respondent for his own benefit, without permission, and for the further reason that he had insulted customers of the Company; and that the Respondent's inten- tions not to reemploy Harvey had nothing whatever to do with his union member- ship or activities. With respect to Miller the Respondent's defense is that he was not reemployed be- cause he was untruthful in relating to Patterson how a company truck which he was driving had been damaged and for the further reason that Patterson had seen him taking away from the company property salvage material which belonged to the Company, and that Patterson believed Miller had taken additional salvage ma- terials without permission. The Respondent's defense with respect to Gordon Gillespie is that he would not be reemployed because he was undependable, irregular in reporting for work, and had refused to drive a truck assigned to him without just cause for doing so. Jack Patterson president of the Respondent testified that he would not rehire Harvey because Harvey had insulted Earl Weaver, a supervisor for the New York Central Railroad, which is one of Respondent's best customers. Patterson testified that on the afternoon of December 20, 1963, he learned that Harvey had said to Weaver on or about December 18 that in answer to Weaver's inquiry he had re- turned to plow snow the night before and added if he had known there were only two inches of snow "you bastards could have gone to hell" referring to the railroad. Patterson testified that when he learned of this, which he said may have been after Harvey had been laid off, he telephoned Weaver and apologized for Harvey's con- duct. Patterson testified that in substance Weaver expressed an unhappiness at Harvey's attitude and Patterson again apologized and said it would not happen again. Patterson testified it was because of this that Harvey would not be rehired. In rebuttal the General Counsel called Earl Weaver who categorically denied that Harvey made the insulting remark as asserted by Patterson and Hoover. Weaver also denied that he ever complained to Patterson or Hoover regarding the conduct of Harvey and said that Harvey had always performed his work satisfactorily. Patteison testified that another factor he took into consideration when he de- cided not to rehire Harvey was that he had learned that Harvey had used company snow removal equipment for unauthorized work on his way to the railroad. However, Harvey's testimony in this regard is uncontradicted that he obtained permission from Foreman Showalter to use the equipment on his own property before he did so. Patterson testified that in May 1963, an employee threw a railroad jack into the cab of the truck assigned to Miller and caused the bed of the truck to come down. Patterson testified this caused damage in excess of $100 to the truck. When Patter- son asked Miller how it happened he said he did not know. Patterson testified that he learned Miller had not told him the truth about this accident shortly before Miller was discharged. Patterson further testified he saw Miller taking some lum- ber from the company yard three or four times in September 1963. He spoke to Miller about it and thereafter had no knowledge of any lumber being removed. Miller testified that after the railroad jack was thrown into the cab of his truck he returned to the company yard where employees Harvey, Herpy, and Sousa were present. Sousa was a mechanic for the Respondent. Sousa inspected the truck and found nothing wrong with it. Miller continued to use the truck and said noth- ing about the incident to Patterson. In June 1963 the crossmember that held the left unit of the dump truck in place tore loose from the frame. Miller testified there was no connection between the two incidents. Miller also categorically denied that he ever took lumber or any other company property. Patterson testified that Gordin Gillespie was terminated on October 9, 1963, be- cause he reported to work irregularly and refused to drive the 1951 Ford dump truck, saying it was unsafe. Although Gillespie said he would not drive it any more he did continue to drive it. Virgil Runyon testified that he operated the same truck, and that it was out of line, the U-bolts were loose, it was hard to steer, and there was trouble with the brakes. Although Patterson and Hoover claimed that Gillespie was frequently absent from work without excuse and re- ported late in the mornings , Patterson could not recall any specific dates and no CLETUS H. PATTERSON & SONS, INC. 65 company records were produced to substantiate the defense. No explanation was forthcoming from the Respondent as to why it increased Gillespie's wages nearly 25 percent only 1 week before he was terminated if he was such an unsatisfactory employee. Upon consideration of all the evidence I credit the testimony of Harvey, Miller, and Gillespie and find and conclude that the termination of Gillespie on October 9, 1963, the layoffs of Harvey on December 20, 1963, and Miller on December 27, 1963, were discriminatorily motivated in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and the Respondent's failure to recall them was similarly motivated. I further find that the proffered reasons for the termination, layoffs, and failure to recall them are pretexts to cover the real discriminatory motives for such actions. I find it unnecessary to resolve the controversial testimony contained in the "background" evidence as to events beyond the 6 months prior to the filing of the charges herein as there is in my opinion sufficient evidence of discriminatory mo- tive within the statutory period to render unnecessary such consideration. IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondent 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 com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of William C. Miller, Robert V. Harvey, and Gordon A. Gillespie I shall recommend that the Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and make them 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 dates of their terminations of employment to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement. Backpay will be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest as directed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case I make the following: CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. Cletus H. Patterson & Sons. Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 377 is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of William C. Miller, Robert V. Harvey, and Gordon A. Gillespie the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By engaging in such acts the Respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) thereof. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions in the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER Cletus H. Patterson & Sons, Inc., its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 377, or in any other organization of its employees by discriminating in regard to their hire, tenure, or any other terms or conditions of employment. 770-070-65-vol. 140-6 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Threatening to sell its trucks and lay off employees before the Respondent will pay the union scale per hour or in any other manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization to form, join, or assist International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 377, 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 or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to William C. Miller, Robert V. Harvey, and Gordon A. Gillespie immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi- tions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and make them whole in the manner set forth in the section of the Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) In the event that any of the above-named employees is presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, notify him of his 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.' (c) 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 recoids and reports and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due. (d) Post at its plant in Ashtabula, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." ` Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 8, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the afore- said Respondent, be posted 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 by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here- with.' 3 See Melrose Processinq Company, 146 NLRB 979, where the Board adopted the Trial Examiner's recommendation that this language should appear as a provision of the Order rather than as it footnote to the notice I If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner." If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the iNords "a Decision and Order" ' If this Recommended Order he adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read, "Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX 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 Re- lations Act, as amended, we hereby notify employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership by our employees in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 377 or in any other labor organization by discriminating against them in regard to hire, tenure of employment or any term or condition of em- ployment except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Re- lations Act as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment because of their membership, interest in, or activities on behalf of, the above union or any other labor organization. LOCAL 248, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, ETC. 67 WE WILL offer to William C. Miller, Robert V. Harvey, and Gordon A. Gillespie immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privi- leges they may have previously enjoyed and make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization to form, join, or assist the above-named union or any other labor organization to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities. CLETUS H. PATTERSON & SONS, INC., Employer. Dated--- ---------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post- ing, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 720 Bulkley Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue , Cleveland, Ohio, Telephone No. Main 1-4465, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Local 248, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Im- plement Workers of America, AFL-CIO and Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company Local 248, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Im- plement Workers of America, AFL-CIO and Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company Local 401, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im- plement Workers of America, AFL-CIO and Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company. Cases Nos. 30-CB-1 (Old Case No. 13-CB-1066), 30-CB-4 (Old Case No. 13-CB-1222), and 30-CB--5 (Old Case No. 13-CB-1408). October 23, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On January 31, 1964, Trial Examiner Harold X. Summers issued his Decision in the above case, finding that the Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in his at- tached Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and support- ing briefs. At the request of the Charging Party, the Board granted oral argument herein by notice of hearing dated June 9, 1964. The hearing was held on July 9, 1964, and all parties participated in the argument. In addition, counsel for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations participated in the argument and filed a brief as amicus curiae and counsel for the Na- tional Association of Manufacturers filed a brief as amicus curiae. 149 NLRB No. 10.