Lakes Concrete Industries, Inc.

896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lakes Concrete Industries, Inc., Milford Block & Tile Co. and Concrete Sand & Materials Co. and Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 427, AFL-CIO. Case 18-CA-2468 July 1, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On February 28, 1968, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his Decision in this proceeding, find- ing that Respondent had engaged in and was engag- ing in certain unfair labor practices, and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision. General Counsel also filed exceptions to the Deci- sion and a supporting brief. Respondent and General Counsel each filed answering briefs. 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, the briefs, 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 herewith. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respon- dent's conduct regarding employee Harold Duncan did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. We cannot agree, however, with the Trial Ex- aminer's finding that the discharge of employee Robert Steece was discriminatorily motivated. It is true that Steece was deeply involved with the union organizational activities. He was with Duncan when Duncan first contacted a union representative. He attended the union meeting, signed an authoriza- tion card, and solicited cards from five or six em- ployees. There is no evidence, however, that Respondent was aware of Steece's participation in any of these activities. The testimony of Steece, himself, makes it quite clear that he attempted to keep his activities a secret. He was careful to solicit authorization cards only after working hours. Ac- cording to Steece, no member of management, to the best of his knowledge, observed him soliciting the union cards. In circumstances such as these, we are unable to infer a discriminatory motive for his discharge. Accordingly, we find this aspect of the complaint to be without merit. Nor do we agree with the Trial Examiner that Steece's conversation with Christian Gosch, an of- ficer of Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1). The conversation, according to Steece, consisted solely of Gosch's asking Steece if any union representa- tives had contacted him and Steece's reply, "No." We do not believe that an isolated question such as the one involved herein constitutes interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of the Act, and therefore we also dismiss this aspect of the complaint. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION WILLIAM J. BROWN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the "Act," came on to be heard at Spencer, Iowa, on November 29 through December 1, 1967.1 The original charges of unfair labor prac- tices were filed August 15 and the complaint herein was issued October 17 by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the "General Counsel" and the "Board," acting through the Board's Regional Director for Region 18. It alleged, in addition to jurisdictional matter, that the above-indicated Respondent2 en- gaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act; Respondent's duly filed answer admits the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and denies the commission of unfair labor practices. At the hearing the General Counsel and the Respondent appeared and participated as noted above with full opportunity to present evidence and argument on the issues. Subsequent to the close of the hearing they filed briefs which have been fully considered. On the entire record herein and on the basis of my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: I Dates hereinafter relate to the year 1967 unless otherwise indicated Y The pleadings establish that the three Companies involved constitute a joint employer 172 NLRB No. 94 LAKES CONCRETE INDUSTRIES 897 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The pleadings and evidence indicate and I find that the three corporations constituting the Joint Employer Respondent herein are organized and exist by virtue of the laws of the State of Iowa and are engaged at plants in Spencer and Milford, Iowa, in the manufacture and sale of concrete , building blocks, building supply items, and in the operation of sand and gravel pits . During the year preceding issuance of the complaint herein Respondent caused to be shipped from points outside the State of Iowa to the Iowa locations of Respondent ce- ment and other building products valued in excess of $50,000. I find, as Respondent concedes , that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent has denied the complaint's allega- tions that the above-indicated Charging Party is a labor organization within the purview of Section 2(5) of the Act. The uncontradicted testimony of Robert J. Sekera, business representative of the Charging Party,3 is credible and establishes that the Union admits employees to membership and exists for the purpose of collective bargaining respecting hours, wages, and terms and conditions of employ- ment. The Union filed a representation petition covering employees of the Respondent and par- ticipated in a Board-conducted election on May 22. I find that the Union is a labor organization within the purview of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction and Summary of Events Early in April , employee Harold Duncan, a dragline operator with about 3 years' service with the Respondent , communicated with Sekera with respect to union organization of Respondent's em- ployees and thereafter played the major role in securing employee signatures on union authoriza- tion cards. His principal employee aide in this cam- paign on behalf of the Union appears to have been employee Robert Steece , a mechanic employed in Respondent's main shop at Milford since December 1965. Early in April the Union wrote Respondent claiming to represent a majority of Respondent's production workers and truckdrivers and about the same time filed a representation petition under Sec- tion 9 of the Act. Thereafter an agreement for con- sent election was executed and an election con- ducted on May 22 at which the tally of ballots revealed 15 votes for the Union, 15 votes against the Union, and 4 challenged ballots. At all material times William Rindsig and Christian Gosch have been officers of Respondent and E. F. Oloff has been its plant manager. The su- pervisory status of the foregoing is established by the pleadings and evidence. There is a dispute as to the supervisory status of Bruce MacTaggart hired in January to work in the office at Milford. The evidence indicates that he is, at the least, a leadman for the execution of supervisory orders. The case presents the question as to whether, as alleged4 by the General Counsel and denied by the Respondent, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by: 1. Interrogation of employees as to their union activities and desires on the part of Gosch on or about May 18. 2. Instructions on the part of Rindsig on or about May 18 to an employee to induce other employees to vote against the Union. The case also presents the question as to whether Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by: 1. Discriminatorily reducing the hours of work of Duncan on or about May 29, and constructively discharging5 him on or about July 28. 2. Discriminatorily discharging employee Steece on or about July 21. B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion Robert Steece testified that in the week preced- ing the May 22 election Gosch asked him, in the Milford shop, if any union representative had con- tacted him and he replied in the negative. Gosch did not directly deny this statement of Steece.s I credit Steece's testimony in this regard and find that Gosch asked him, on or about May 18, whether a union representative had contacted him. There is no indication of further questioning by Gosch and the matter of whether there would be further questioning had Steece answered in the af- firmative is speculative. At the time of the question the Company had already agreed to a consent elec- tion and must, therefore, have satisfied itself that a sufficient number of its employees were union sup- porters to justify the processing of a representation petition. Prescinding from any generalized ' Hereinafter referred to as the " Union " 4 With respect to the allegation in the complaint that Rindsig, on or 'about May 18, threatened closing of the Spencer plant if employees designated the Union as representative , the General Counsel's brief omits this matter as an issue in the case Respondent 's brief asserts that there is no evidence substantiating the allegation, I recommend dismissal of this al- legation for want of proof thereof ' General Counsel alleges that Duncan was forced to quit due to a com- bination of the reduction of his hours and the statement to him by Gosch, in reply to Duncan 's question, that he would quite likely be laid off ' Gosch candidly conceded that there may have been an occasion when he asked an employee how he felt about the Union gs4_19C /l_T T - 71 - nt t - 58 898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD questioning as to whether or not Blue Flash Ex- press, Inc., 109 NLRB 591, and subsequent deci- sions up to Fontana Brothers, 169 NLRB 368, establish a ready touchstone in this area, the question here is whether, in the circumstances, Gosch's question to Steece constituted inter- ference, restraint, and coercion within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I think that the blunt answer is that the circumstances here make it a matter of no legitimate concern of the Respondent whether or not a union organizer had contacted Steece and that the question constituted an intru- sion of a top official of Respondent into matters that involved Steece's rights under the Act to be in- sulated in his union activity from employer inquiry. I find and conclude that Gosch's questioning of Steece as to whether a union representative had contacted him constituted an unfair labor practice within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. With respect to the allegations that Respondent, through its officer William Rindsig, told employee Robert Youde to talk to other employees and tell them to vote against the Union, the Respondent as- serts that Youde was at all material times a super- visory employee and that Rindsig did no more than instruct him, as a supervisor, to make no statements to employees as to whether they should vote for or against the Union in the then pending election.' Youde has been employed for 15 years by Lakes Concrete Industries commencing with the Com- pany's acquisition of a blockmaking machine at Spencer. He punches a timeclock and is paid at an hourly rate of $2.20 with a guaranteed workweek of 52 hours, 12 of which are paid at rate and one- half. Vacations and other fringe benefits are those applicable to rank-and-file employees. There ap- pears to have been some inquiry into his compensa- tion by Wage and Hour authorities, the evidence being inconclusive as to whether or not a decision was made as to his status as an exempt executive under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a question which is not necessarily determinative of his status as a supervisor under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Youde testified that his duties es- sentially consist of setting machine controls to en- sure the correct admixture of sand, cement, and water to ensure the manufacture of the particular blocks being manufactured, and that he does not direct or control the work of three other workmen who work on the blockmaking machine nor that of the truckdrivers who bring its incoming basic materials, their work as well as his own being, ac- cording to Youde, supervised by truck dispatcher Wilson and by Oloff, manager of Lakes Concrete Industries plant. ' In the course of the hearing the Examiner permitted an amendment to the complaint alleging an unfair labor practice defined in Section 8(a)( I ) of the Act by Rindsig's causing Youde to execute a written agreement covering rates of pay, hours of work, and other working conditions On the conclusion of all the evidence the Examiner indicated his disposition to Rindsig's testimony is that Youde has been the foreman of the Lakes Concrete plant since the death of Foreman Emil Schilling in 1965 and that Youde directs the operations of truckdrivers, lift truckmen , and men at the cubing station and, although he never had occasion to exercise it, pos- sessed authority to recommend discharge and to make changes in employee assignments . Rindsig testified that the Respondent had been held an- swerable for a threatening statement of Schilling on the occasion of an earlier representation election and that was the reason for his talking to Youde and instructing him to make no statements to em- ployees with respect to the way they should vote. Youde , on the other hand , testified that in the week preceding the election Rindsig asked him to tell the employees to vote against the Union inasmuch as Rindsig was not in any position to do so. The evidence appears clearly to preponderate in favor of the conclusion that Youde was a rank-and- file employee8 and there is no basis for any conten- tion that he was possessed of authority to hire, transfer , suspend , lay off, recall , promote, discharge, reward , or discipline , responsibly direct or adjust grievances , or effectively to recommend in these areas , much less a basis for concluding that his duties and authority involved the use of inde- pendent judgment . Rather he appears to be a skilled operator who gives only incidental and mechanical instructions occasionally to other em- ployees relating to the mixing of the particular batches. The question remains, however , as to whether or not Rindsig told him to urge other employees to vote against the Union since, if such instructions were issued , Youde would be regarded as Respon- dent 's agent ad hoc for the purpose of interfering with employee rights under the Act. While I find that Rindsig somewhat embellished the status of Youde in his testimony concerning Youde's authority , I credit him in his flat denial of Youde's assertion that Rindsig instructed him to tell other employees to vote against the Union . I therefore recommend dismissal of this allegation of the com- plaint. C. Discrimination 1. Harold Duncan Harold Duncan was hired in August 1964 as a dragline operator and worked for Respondent at its Milford plant continuously until he quit at the close of work on July 28, except for a period of 7 weeks in the fall of 1966 when he quit and worked for a dismiss these allegations at which stage the General Counsel requested their withdrawal and the allegations in this respect were withdrawn ' This, incidentally, was the conclusion reached in the 1967 representa- tion case LAKES CONCRETE INDUSTRIES 899 packing plant in the area, only to apply for and get reinstatement with Respondent in December 1966 when he found himself dissatisfied with inside work. Duncan was, as noted above, the prime employee mover in the union campaign. Although it appears that his relatively extensive solicitation of em- ployees took place away from Respondent's premises, it also is clear that he was the Union's ob- server at the May 22 election, and I find that from his role on that occasion the Respondent knew that he was, if not the Union's foremost employee sup- porter, at least one of the relatively ardent union adherents. I conclude that the Respondent knew, at least from May 22, that Duncan was playing a rela- tively active role in support of the Union and, ap- parently, had no reason to believe that any em- ployee was more active for the Union. In this con- nection I also give substantial weight to the testimony of Harold Henderson, a union supporter who quit his job at Spirit Lake Redi-Mix9 about June 3. Henderson, thoroughly credible in my ap- praisal of him, testified that Gosch asked him if Duncan had contacted him on behalf of the Union and later, but before the election, told him that em- ployees should not give in to the prounion pressure of Duncan, and that Respondent was going to put the pressure on Duncan who was the cause of the trouble. I do not credit Gosch's denial of these con- versations. Gosch testified that the busy season for the Mil- ford operations is that from April to October and this is borne out by a compilation of Duncan's weekly hours (Resp. Exh. 4) for the year 1966 which reveals that while he had only sporadic over- time in the period January 7, 1966, to March his overtime was regular and substantial thereafter. It also appears from this exhibit that four employees junior to Duncan (Kuehl, Felix, Eckhard, and Erne) were hired commencing in March 1967 and continued in Respondent's employ at least until the time of Duncan's separation with regular and sub- stantial overtime including overtime in several weeks when Duncan worked less than a 40-hour week. The weeks in which Duncan worked less than 40 hours are those ending June 3, 10, and 17, and it is noted that these periods are those follow- ing closely upon Duncan's appearance as union ob- server in the representation election. It also ap- pears, however, that Duncan's overtime work resumed in the week ending June 24 and continued thereafter up until the time of his termination.[' There is no doubt but that Duncan was a highly skilled operator of dragline and other earthmoving equipment as well as of trucks and that Respondent had no complaints about the quality of his work or his willingness to work. In fact Respondent had reemployed Duncan after he had quit in the midst of a busy season in November 1966 as noted above. There is considerable confusion in the record respecting the availability of work for Duncan at Milford on occasions in June and July when he was sent home early (or voluntarily went home) but it does appear that the total number of such weeks was only 3 and in 2 of those weeks he worked 39- 1/2 and 22 hours. It cannot be contended that Respondent dis- criminated against Duncan in reducing his rate when he was assigned to less skillful work than dragline operation inasmuch as it appears that Dun- can on several occasions asked to drive a truck when wet weather made operation of the dragline impossible. There is little doubt but that Respondent was op- posed to the organization of its operations by the Union and threatened to put the pressure on Dun- can but it cannot be said to preponderate in favor of any conclusion other than that Duncan an- ticipated possible discriminatory treatment and quit to secure regular employment elsewhere. In this connection Duncan testified that on the day preceding his quit he talked to Gosch and, ap- parently apprehensive about a layoff due to the rainy season, asked if he would be included in a layoff. Gosch said that he probably would and Dun- can resigned the following day to take a job el- sewhere. Duncan, with a family to support, and with such undoubted skill in handling equipment as to assure him of steady work elsewhere, does not appear to have been constructively discharged by Respondent and I recommend dismissal of the al- legations of the complaint respecting his termina- tion. 2. Robert Steece Robert Steece was hired by Gosch in December 1965 to work as Respondent's only full-time mechanic performing relatively heavy repair work on all types of automotive equipment at the Milford shop. Hired at $2 per hour, he received periodic raises to $2.18 by July. It appears that he was Dun- can's principal assistant in organizing on behalf of the Union and the evidence indicates that he sol- icited at least five or six employees on behalf of the Union, talking to some of them as they were leaving work. Steece testified that a week before the May 22 election Gosch asked him at work if the Union had contacted him and he replied in the negative. He also testified that on the Friday before the elec- tion Oloff told him to be sure and put his "X" in the right box. The only indisputable evidence of Respondent's knowledge of his union support arises ' Spirit Lake Redi-Mix was a party to a separate representation proceed- ing involving the Union about the time of the proceedings concerning Respondent, Gosch is president and part-owner of Spirit Lake Redi-Mix The Respondent's brief asserts that any statements of Gosch made at Spirit Lake cannot be charged against Respondent The statements there are not alleged as unfair labor practices in this case but do constitute evidence of Gosch's knowledge of Duncan 's role on behalf of the Union in organization of Respondent "In the weeks ending July I through July 22 Duncan 's overtime hours compare favorably with those of junior employees at Milford 900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from the fact that he testiified as a witness on be- half of the Union in the hearing on challenged bal- lots which took place on July 25, subsequent to his discharge which occurred on Friday, July 21. Some 2 or 3 weeks prior to Steece's discharge, the engine of Respondent's truck No. 9, a 1964 Chevrolet V-8, had been brought in to the Milford shop for overhaul by Steece. In the course of his 20 years' mechanical experience, Steece had worked on similar automotive engines and was familiar with the block and its assembly. On or about July 14 and 17 Steece placed orders with an automotive supply company for parts needed in connection with the overhaul. The parts ordered included a new camshaft. After tearing the engine down, Steece, according to his account, steam cleaned the block, commenced to install the parts on Thursday, July 20, and by 11 o'clock had finished the installation except for greasing of the bearings. Steece testified that he had no difficulty with the installation except that it was tighter than usual and he had trouble with a couple of the bearings and had to tap them in place with a bushing driver, scrape babbitt out with a scraper, and grind their edges to produce a beveled effect.tt He also testified that he ridge- reamed the cylinders with the Respondent's ridge- reamer. On completion of the installation Steece was called to replace a truck driveshaft at Sibley some 45 miles from the shop; he returned to the shop at 4:40 p.m. and the No. 9 engine was gone. Steece asked Leadman MacTaggart where the engine was and was told that it had been taken to Arnold's Mo- tors in Spencer since Steece didn't seem to be able to get to it. Steece testified that he reported for work on the following day, July 21, had some inconsequential conversation with MacTaggart, and about 10 o'clock was called to Spencer and returned to the Milford shop about 1:30 p.m. About 4:30 Gosch came to the shop, showed him a camshaft with a broken lobe, and told him that it had been broken by Steece and that there were also some bearings wrongly inserted and that Steece had failed to cor- rect a taper in the cylinder walls. Gosch asked Steece to turn in his keys which he did but only after protesting that he had not broken the lobe and that Arnold's mechanic, Burdette "Friday" Johanssen, had sold Gosch a rebuilt job. Gosch, called as a General Counsel witness, testified that early on the morning of July 21 he ob- served the engine in question and noted that all the camshaft bearings were pitted and that a lobe on the camshaft was broken; he then instructed Mac- Taggart to order Steece to do no more work on the engine and said that they would take it to Arnold's Motors in Spencer for completion of the installa- tion . When called as Respondent's witness Gosch's testimony was that he observed the installation job on the late afternoon of July 19 just prior to quitting time of 5 o'clock and that he then ordered MacTaggart to tell Steece the next morning to do no more work on the engine.12 MacTaggart's account was that on the morning of July 19 he observed Steece grinding the camshaft bearings and trimming out babbitt with a pocket knife borrowed from employee Earl Fay. In this regard Steece testified that he did not borrow a knife from Fay and I credit Steece's testimony. Respondent's witness Miller, a 15-year employee of Respondent, testified that he observed Steece having trouble with the fuel pump plunger dropping while Steece was installing the camshaft. This, in- cidentally, was referred to by Arnold's mechanic, Burdette "Friday" Johanssen, as a possible manner in which a camshaft lobe could be broken during installation. I do not find Miller a credible witness and credit Steece's account that he had no particu- lar difficulty with the installation except for the tight fit. I do however credit his account, on cross- examination, to the effect that he saw the camshaft when MacTaggart pulled it out in the shop and that no broken lobe was observed. Friday Johanssen testified that he received the engine in question in the form of a short block and that it was so tight he could not turn it over 13 that he found connecting rod inserts badly gouged, bearings wrongly installed, a broken camshaft lobe, and a cylinder wall taper. His testimony indicates that he regarded the cylinder wall taper as the major problem and called Gosch with respect to this matter while not mentioning to him at that time any problems concerning the camshaft or the bearings. The evidence indicates that Respondent's shop did not have the required equipment to test for a cylinder taper and that Steece could not have been regarded as having erred in this regard. This matter of the necessity for reboring was the prime difficulty with the engine in Friday Johanssen's view as appears from the fact that it was the ele- ment on which he made a special call to Respon- dent to get authorization to proceed. I credit Steece's account that he did not cause any of the difficulties with the engine that were en- countered by Friday Johanssen when he first ob- served it.14 While there is no direct evidence of Respondent's knowledge of Steece's support of the Union, it is clear that Respondent was opposed to the union campaign and interfered with employee rights to self-organization as found above. Steece " Steece testified credibly that Chevrolet cam bearings provided by job- bers usually require such a beveling operation 12 As against the accounts of Gosch and MacTaggart , I credit, as noted above, Steece's testimony that MacTaggart told him on the afternoon of July 20 that the reason the engine had been taken to Arnold's Motors was that Steece had not managed to get time to complete the job IS Soon thereafter , however , Johanssen did turn the engine over accord- ing to his testimony 14 The breaking of the lobe on the camshaft could, according to Friday Johanssen, whose qualifications in the field of mechanics are impressive, have been due to a defect in the material of the camshaft and the break in no way establishes improper installation by Steece LAKES CONCRETE INDUSTRIES 901 solicited employees to sign union cards in the area of Respondent's shop and could easily have been observed by Respondent 's officials in his action in that regard . While there had been some complaints concerning some of Steece 's earlier repair jobs they apparently were not sufficient to prevent not only his retention in employment but his receiving in- creases in pay. The testimony of Respondent 's witnesses con- cerning the entire set of circumstances surrounding the discharge of Steece is confusing and self-con- tradictory in my appraisal of it. On the other hand I believe Steece 's account that he took no improper steps in assembling the engine in question and I do not believe either that he was responsible for any serious damage to the engine of the type noted by Friday Johanssen or that Respondent 's officers be- lieved that he was. Steece 's testimony impressed me as that of a truthful man notwithstanding his undoubted stake, and that of the Union , in the outcome of the case. I do not believe Gosch 's denial of knowledge of Steece 's activity on behalf of the Union . It is clear that Gosch could have acquired knowledge of such activity in view of Steece 's solicitations in the area of Respondent 's premises . I appraise the evidence, while far from overwhelming , as preponderating in favor of the conclusion that Steece was in truth discharged not because of any improper workman- ship on the engine No. 9 (or any other alleged im- proper workmanship ) " but was discriminatorily discharged in reprisal for his support of the Union. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , and there found to constitute unfair labor practices , occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent set forth in section I, above , have a close , intimate, and substantial rela- tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing such commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY In view of my findings that Respondent has en- gaged in unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint, I shall recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative ac- tion necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the findings that Robert Steece was discriminatorily discharged in reprisal for his support and activity on behalf of the Union, I shall recommend that he be offered im- mediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position with backpay in accordance with the remedial policies outlined in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Since the unfair labor practices found to have been com- mitted include a discriminatory discharge the cease-and-desist provisions recommended are ap- propriately broad. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4). On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on the entire record in this case , I make the follow- ing: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce 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 coercively interrogating an employee as to whether he had been contacted by a union representative , Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discharging employee Robert Steece because of his activity in support of the Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. Except as specifically found herein Respon- dent has not engaged in unfair labor practices al- leged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended the Respondent , its of- ficers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees as to whether they have been contacted by union representatives. (b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees because of membership in or ac- tivity on behalf of the above-named or any other labor organization. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor or- ganizations , to join or assist the Union or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to en- " 1 credit Steece 's testimony that Gosch had not made any previous com- plaints concerning his work and that MacTaggart had told him that Gosch had said that if Steece couldn 't fix something it couldn't be fixed 902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion. 2. Take the following affirmative action which appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Robert Steece immediate and full rein- statement to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole for loss of earnings in the manner set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy. "'I (b) 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 records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms hereof. (c) Post at its Spencer and Milford, Iowa, plants copies of the notice attached marked "Appen- dix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, shall be posted by the Respondent, after being duly signed by Respondent, immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing , within 20 days from receipt of this Deci- sion , what steps have been taken to comply with the terms hereof.18 " In view of Steece 's age it appears unnecessary to provide for the even- tuality of service in the Armed Forces 14 In the event that 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" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" '" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate em- ployees as to whether or not they have been contacted by Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 427, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise dis- criminate against employees because of mem- bership in or activity on behalf of the above- named or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer- cise of their right to self-organization, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL offer Robert Steece immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substan- tially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges and make him whole for loss of earnings suffered as a result of our discrimination against him. All our employees are free to join or assist Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 427, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion. LAKES CONCRETE INDUSTRIES, INC., MILFORD BLOCK & TILE CO., AND CONCRETE SAND & MATERIALS CO. (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Federal Building , 110 South 4th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, Telephone 334-2611.