Great Northern Development Co., Inc.

TREASURE LAKE, INC. 679 Treasure Lake, Inc., a subsidiary of Great Northern Development Co., Inc . and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 66, A, B, & C, AFL-CIO. Case 6-CA-4646 July 28, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS On January 28, 1970, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peterson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support of its ex- ceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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, brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner only to the extent con- sistent with our Decision and Order.' As part of the Respondent's plan to develop a large tract of land as a recreation-resort area, it em- ployed a brush or woods crew consisting of 25 or 30 men engaged in operating powersaws and clear- ing and burning trees and brush in order to prepare the site for actual construction. Most of this crew was hired in April and May 1969. Bundy, the foreman of this crew, hired most of these men. Ac- cording to the credited testimony of several witnes- sess Bundy told them that they would be hired at the hourly wage of $2 and would receive a 25-cent raise in pay after 30 days. They were also told that there was plenty of work since the whole project would be going on for at least 15 years. After the expiration of the 30-day period, several men asked Bundy about the 25-cent raise which I On June 3, 1970, the General Counsel made a motion to the Board to reopen the hearing The Respondent filed an answer requesting that the motion be denied In light of our present decision we, at this time, will not pass on the merits of the General Counsel's motion they had been promised at the time of their hire. At first Bundy said there would not be any raises, but later told them that they had the alternative of ac- cepting a 12-1/2-cent raise with no overtime or continue without a raise but with overtime. The men chose to continue their present pay with over- time . Shortly thereafter, however, Bundy informed the crew that there would be no more overtime. The members of the brush or woods crew, frus- trated by the denial of the promised pay raise and loss of overtime, began to discuss organizing a union. Shortly thereafter, it appears, Bundy told at least three employees one morning that he was tired because he and other foremen had been patrolling the premises the preceding evening because they heard the Union was coming in. The Trial Ex- aminer found that this incident did not constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) since there is no affirm- ative showing that any union activities were being conducted at the time. We disagree. It is clearly evident that the remarks of Bundy were made at a time when these employees were preparing to or- ganize a union after Respondent had refused to give them the promised pay raise. The statements by Bundy gave employees the distinct impression that the Respondent was vehemently against union or- ganization and that their union activities or any possible future activities were being kept under sur- veillance, thus violating Section 8(a)(1). About the same time, members of the crew, George Gould and Gerald Miller, contacted a union representative for the Operating Engineers, who told them to get the names and addresses of those interested in a union to see whether there was suffi- cient support for a union. Accordingly, the next morning, June 20, 1969, while part of the brush or woods crew was awaiting assignment, George Gould placed a blank sheet of paper on the hood of his car and asked those who were interested in a union to sign the paper. Fourteen signed it. Duggins, Respondent's coordinator of construc- tion on the site, discovering that Gould was obtain- ing signatures for a union, directed that he be fired immediately. Foreman Bundy carried out Duggins' directive that morning. The Trial Examiner con- cluded that George Gould had been discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. We adopt this determination, to which no party has filed exceptions. That same afternoon, a meeting of the entire brush or woods crew was called by Duggins. At this meeting it was suddenly announced that there would be a cutback in the work force and that 13 employees would be laid off. Of those laid off 10 had signed Gould's list. 184 NLRB No. 74 680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Although acknowledging that the circumstances raised strong suspicions of a casual connection between the events of that morning and the layoff of most of the employees who indicated their in- terest in the union in the afternoon, the Trial Ex- aminer concluded that the layoffs were not dis- criminatory. The Trial Examiner accepted the testimony of Duggins that he had prepared a list of 14 employees, including the discharged Gould, to be laid off before he arrived on the jobsite that day and that an afternoon meeting had been scheduled the preceding week for this day. The Trial Examiner has given considerable weight to the testimony of Duggins in making his decision. We think this emphasis is misplaced and find that Duggins' testimony should be discounted. Duggins states that he prepared the above-men- tioned list prior to the morning of June 20 but there is no evidence in the record to corroborate this self- serving testimony and no tangible evidence, i.e., the list itself or other documentation, was introduced at the hearing. He further testified that he had de- cided to call the meeting to lay off employees the preceding week. However, there is no evidence that any of the Respondent's employees knew or were told that there was to be a layoff prior to June 20. In fact, uncontroverted testimony showed that up until a couple of weeks before the layoff the brush or woods crew was doing considerable overtime work. Moreover, it defies coincidence that the Respondent just happened to choose for layoff the same number of employees (not counting Gould, who had already been dismissed) as had signed Gould's list that morning. Finally, there is no ex- planation as to why Duggins would have summarily discharged Gould in the morning if he had thereto- fore planned to lay him off in the afternoon. Far more revealing in ascertaining the Respon- dent's true motivation than Duggins' efforts to justi- fy the layoff are the activities and comments of Duggins and Bundy, supervisor of the brush or woods crew, that day. Charles Weilacher, a member of the brush or woods crew, testified that later in the morning after Gould had been fired, Bundy told2 Weilacher that he would find out who else had signed the paper. And, still later that morning, Bundy informed Donald and Raymond Anthony, also members of the crew, that Gould had been discharged for getting names for a union, and that in the afternoon there was going to be a meet- ' Foreman Bundy did not testify at the hearing We accept the uncon- troverted testimony of Charles Weilacher and, tofra, the Anthony brothers, as properly describing what transpired that morning between Bundy and themselves The Trial Examiner concluded that these remarks of Bundy as related above by the Anthony brothers did not constitute a violation of 8(a)( I ) We disagree The context in which the remarks were made, immediately ing at which "there are going to be 14 men that get it that evening."' Further, Duggins, according to several General Counsel witnesses, stated in a speech before announcing the layoffs4 at the after- noon meeting, that the Respondent did not want to have a union organized and that Gould had been discharged because of his attempt to organize the Union. Upon the entire record, we conclude that the Respondent discharged 13 employees on the after- noon of June 20 because of their known or suspected union adherence. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respon- dent, Treasure Lake, Inc., a subsidiary of Great Northern Development Co., Inc., DuBois, Pennsyl- vania , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 66, A, B, & C, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging employees or otherwise discriminat- ing in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Threatening its employees with discharge if they engage in union activity. (c) Engaging in or creating the impression of surveillance of the self-organizational activities of its employees. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exer- cise 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, and to engage in other concerted activi- ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to George Gould, Marlean Anderson, Donald Anthony, John Anthony, Raymond Anthony, Arthur Bair, Charles Johns, Lara Joiner, Clifford Limrick, Gerald Miller, Charles Rishel, after informing the employees that Gould had been discharged for trying to organize the Union, could only create the impression that this was a threat of discharges or layoffs related to the morning attempt to begin the or- ganization of a union 4 As it turned out, three Anthony brothers who were laid off did not sign Gould's list TREASURE LAKE, INC. 681 Charles Weilacher, Delbert Weilacher, and James Weilacher immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against them. (b) Notify the said George Could, Marlean An- derson, Donald Anthony, John Anthony, Raymond Anthony, Arthur Bair, Charles Johns, Lara Joiner, Clifford Limrick, Gerald Miller, Charles Rishel, Charles Weilacher, Delbert Weilacher, and James Weilacher if presently serving in the armed forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstate- ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 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, timecards, personnel records and reports. and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its place of business in Dubois, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 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 al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. ' In the event that the Board's Order is enforced ny a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or, activities on behalf of Intenational Union `of Operating Engineers, Local Union 66, A, B, & C, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging any of our em- ployees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to our employees ' hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge if they engage in union activity. WE WILL NOT engage in or create the impres- sion that we are engaging in surveillance of the self-organizational activities of our employees. 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 labor organizations , to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor or- ganization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu- tual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. WE WILL offer to George Gould, Marlean Anderson, Donald Anthony, John Anthony, Raymond Anthony, Arthur Bair, Charles Johns, Lara Joiner, Clifford Limrick, Gerald Miller, Charles Rishel, Charles Weilacher, Delbert Weilacher, and James Weilacher im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub- stantially equivalent positions, without preju- dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. WE WILL notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstate- ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Milita- ry Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the above-named or any other labor organiza- tion. 682 Dated By DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TREASURE LAKE, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF GREAT NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. (Employer) (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its' provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone 412-644-2977. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE IVAR H . PETERSON , Trial Examiner : Upon charges and amended charges filed by International Union of Operating Engineers , Local Union 66, A, B, & C, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the Acting Regional Director for Region 6, on behalf of the General Counsel, issued a complaint on September 4, 1969, against Treasure Lake , Inc., a subsidiary of Great Northern Development Co., Inc ., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respon- dent had engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.' As amended at the hearing , the complaint alleged that the Respondent, by its foreman, Glenn Bundy, gave employees the impression that their union activities were being kept under surveillance and threatened employees with loss of employment because of their assistance and support of the Union ; it further alleged that George Gould was unlawfully discharged, and that 14 other employees were un- lawfully laid off or discharged .' In its answer, the Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice , I heard the case on October 21, 1969 , at DuBois, Pennsylvania . The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing . Thereafter the General Counsel filed a brief. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I ' The original charge was filed June 30, 1969, the amended charge was filed August 8 2 In his brief, counsel for the General Counsel dropped his contention make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent , a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in the retail sale and development of real estate in the vicinity of BuBois , Pennsylvania. Dur- ing the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint the Respondent's gross volume of busi- ness was in excess of $500,000, and during that period it received goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania . The Respondent admits , and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Sequence of Events In commenction with its real estate development operations the Respondent employed a brush or woods crew consisting of 25 or 30 men engaged in operating powersaws and clearing and burning trees and brush. Most of them were hired in April and May 1969,3 at an hourly wage of $2. Barney Dug- gins, the coordinator of construction, was in charge of all construction operations. Although the Respondent in its answer denied that Glenn Bundy was a foreman with supervisory authority, the un- contradicted evidence shows that he hired men, as- signed work, and supervised employees in their daily tasks; I find that Bundy occupied a superviso- ry position within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Bundy was not called as a witness. George Gould, Donald Anthony, and Gerald Miller credibly testified that when they were hired by Bundy they were told that after 30 days they would receive a 25-cent raise in pay. After expira- tion of the 30-day period, and not receiving a raise, they inquired of Bundy and were told there would be no raise. Also, Bundy stated that overtime would be reduced. In view of these developments, George Gould, Miller, and other employees began discussing at the jobsite during lunch periods and other occasions the posibility of joining a union. On June 19, as a result of these discussions, George Gould spoke by telephone to Lester Smiley, busi- ness agent of the Union. Smiley advised Gould to get the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of that Charles Conway, originally named in the complaint , had been dis- criminatorily laid off on June 20 Unless otherwise indicated , all dates refer to the year 1969 TREASURE LAKE, INC. the employees interested in the Union and a meet- ing would thereafter be arranged. At the start of the workday on June 20, between 7 and 7:15, Gould spoke to a group of employees who were waiting for work instructions and for a man to tie back some trees to clear a powerline before actually starting work. He told them of his talk with Smiley, and produced a blank piece of paper which he placed on the hood of his car and asked the men in- terested in the Union to sign their names, addres- sers, and telephone numbers. A total of 14 em- ployees, including Gould, signed the paper.4 The place where Gould and the others who signed the paper were working was known as Bay Road and was a little less than 2 miles from the main gate of the development. Duggins testified that he entered the main gate shortly after 7 o'- clock and, as he proceeded toward Bay Road, he met Norman Smith, Sr., an employee, who in- formed him that Gould had signed up a group of men for the Union and had tried to sign him (Smith) also. It is Duggins' testimony that, when he found Gould "was in the process of signing names for a union" he immediately went to the office and, at approximately 7:30, called Attorney Smith for advice. Thereafter, he gave Gould's check to Foreman Bundy and told Bundy to discharge Gould. Gould testified that as Bundy handed him the check Bundy said he was fired for signing up 14 men for the Union. Gerald Miller, another em- ployee, testified that he was standing close to Gould as Bundy came with the check and heard Bundy tell Gould that the latter signed up 14 men for a union and, to Gould's inquiry whether that meant he was fired, answered in the affirmative. After being discharged, Gould was escorted out the main gate by a security guard. Donald Anthony testified that about 9:30 in the morning Bundy came to where he and his two brothers, Raymond and John, were working at a lo- cation some distance from where Gould had signed up employees. They had not participated in the paper signing. Bundy stated he had fired a man, and, when asked who, replied that it was Gould and that Gould had been getting names to start a union.' Also during the morning of June 20, after the discharge of Gould, Bundy came to where Charles Weilacher was working and stated, with reference to the paper signing, that he had gotten the ringleader and would find out who the other signers were. At the conclusion of the workday on June 20 Duggins held a meeting of the entire woods crew. At the meeting, which had been scheduled the preceding week, Duggins distributed several cases ' These are John Gould, William Gould , Delbert Weilacher, James Weilacher, Clifford Limrick, Charles Johns, Lara Joiner, Charles Weilacher, Charles Conway, Arthur Bair, Charles Rishel , Marlean Ander- son, Gerald Miller, and George Gould Three others-William White, Robert Rager, and William Dow-signed the night of June 20 ' Donald Anthony further testified that Bundy said there would be a 683 of beer to the employees and spoke to them about the events of the morning and the need to reduce operations . According to the undenied and credited testimony of Donald and Raymond Anthony, Dug- gins mentioned that the men had been "talking union " and said that he did not want any union. Duggins also stated that it was necessary to have a cutback in the woods crew as it was caught up with the surveying crew which was behind schedule. Duggins gave a prepared list of those to be laid off to Foreman Bundy who read off the names and passed out the checks . A total of 13 were laid offs Of these, all except the three Anthony brothers were told the layoff was permanent ; the Anthony brothers were merely told they were laid off. Ex- cept for Anderson , who was recalled on July 14, none of those laid off on June 20 have been rehired . No new employees were hired for the woods crew after the June 20 layoffs. B. Concluding Findings 1. The discharge of Gould The evidence is uncontradicted that Duggins determined to discharge Gould immediately after he learned from employee Smith that Gould had signed up a number of employees for the Union. Nor is there any dispute that Foreman Bundy told Gould when he gave Gould his check that he was being discharged for signing up employees for the Union. After the discharge Bundy told Donald and Raymond Anthony that Gould had been discharged for signing up 14 men for the Union, and he told Charles Weilacher that he had fired the ringleader of the movement to recruit union adherents. Although Gould engaged in his activity a few mo- ments after the start of the working day, rather than on his own time, the record is clear that the men in the group were awaiting work instructions and the arrival of a man to tie back a tree near a powerline before they could begin work. The testimony of Duggins makes clear that he decided to terminate Gould because Gould had signed up employees for the Union rather than because Gould engaged in such activity on company time when he should have been working. I conclude and find that the Respondent discharged Gould because he solicited employees to sign a paper indicating their interest in the Union and that thereby the Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 2. The June 20 layoff Counsel for the General Counsel contends that the 13 employees laid off at the close of the work- meeting after work and, in Anthony's words, "said there are going to be fourteen men that get it that evening , the same Friday " 6 Marlean Anderson, Donald Anthony, John Anthony, Raymond Anthony, Arthur Bair, Charles Johns, Lara Joiner, Clifford Limrick, Gerald Miller, Charles Rishel, and Charles, Delbert, and James Weilacher 684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD day on Friday, June 20, were laid off because they had signed , or the Respondent believed they had signed , for the Union that morning . On the other hand, the testimony presented by the Respondent is that the layoff was caused by lack of work and that the selection of those to be laid off was based on merit . Although the circumstances raise strong suspicions , I am not persuaded that a preponde- rance of the evidence establishes that the Respon- dent was discriminatorily motivated in effecting the layoff. The timing of the layoffs, coming the afternoon of the same day that most of the employees laid off had indicated their interest in the Union by signing the paper, is a circumstance which suggests a causal connection between the two events. However, Dug- gins testified that when he came to the jobsite that morning he had a prepared list of employees to be laid off at the end of the workday, that George Gould was on the list, and that the "major portion" of the others in the group with Gould were "slated to be laid off." Duggins further testified that the meeting held the afternoon of June 20 had been scheduled the preceding week, for the purpose of announcing a reduction in force. Moreover, the record establishes that no new men were hired for the brush or woods crew following June 20. Marle- an Anderson, one of those laid off who had signed the paper, was rehired on July 14 for a job in the maintenance department. Duggins impressed me favorably as a witness and I find nothing in the record that would warrant me in discrediting his testimony that the selection for layoff had been made before he became aware of Gould's activity the morning of June 20. Also tending to negate an inference of dis- criminatory motivation is the fact that three em- ployees in Gould's group who signed the paper (John and William Gould and Conway) were not laid off, whereas three others who were not in Gould's group and who had not signed the paper (Donald, John, and Raymond Anthony) were in- cluded in the layoff. There is no indication in the record that the Anthony brothers had in any way participated in the unionization movement or that the Respondent thought they were involved therein. Although the matter is not free from doubt, I conclude and find that the General Counsel has not adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the Respondent discriminatorily laid off the 13 em- ployees on the afternoon of June 20. Accordingly, it will be recommended that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.' 3. Alleged Section 8(a)(1) violations Counsel for the General Counsel contends that r 1 have concluded that the decision to effect the layoff and the selection of employees to be laid off had been made by Duggins prior to his arrival at the jobsite on June 20 Foreman Bundy later that morning told Charles Weilacher he would find out who else had signed the paper and told Donald and Raymond Anthony that 14 employees would be terminated Foreman Bundy's statement to Donald and Raymond Anthony, during the morning of June 20, to the effect that "there are going to be fourteen men that get it that evening," constitutes a threat to discharge employees for their support of the Union and is therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1). I think the statement is equally susceptible of meaning that 14 employees were scheduled to be laid off at the end of the workday. I am persuaded that this state- ment was not a threat of reprisal, and I shall recom- mend dismissal of this specific allegation. The complaint alleged that Foreman Bundy in June gave employees the impression that their union activities were being kept under surveillance. The only evidence adduced in support of this al- legation is to the effect that about 2 weeks before June 20 Bundy, in conversation with employees, in- dicated that he was tired because he and other foremen had been patrolling the premises the preceding night because "they" had heard the Union was coming in . Donald Anthony , one of the employees, responded that he had not heard anything about a union . I am of the opinion, and find, that the evidence in support of this allegation is too insubstantial to warrant a finding that the Respondent created the impression employee union activities-and there is no specific showing that any activities of a union nature were then being con- ducted-were under surveillance. The allegation will be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent found to con- stitute unfair labor practices as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce 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 ap- propriate affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since I have found that the Respondent dis- criminatorily discharged George Gould, I shall recommend that the Respondent offer him im- mediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub- stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and that afternoon These statements, which I find were made by Bundy, have been considered but they do not alter my conclusion that a preponderance of the evidence fails to support the allegation that the layoffs were violative of the Act TREASURE make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered from the date of the discriminatory discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement . The backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula approved in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum , as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 1 shall also recommend that the Respondent preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board , payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of backpay due. As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are of a character striking at the root of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the LAKE, INC. 685 following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer 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 discharging George Gould on June 20, 1969, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. 5. In other respects alleged in the complaint the Respondent has not violated the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publica- tion. )