Jocquel Supply Co., Inc.

JOCQUEL SUPPLY CO. INC. 485 Jocquel Supply Co., Inc. and Local 297, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of' America. Case 25-CA-3945 August ^ 3, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER' BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On March 10, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent ' had engaged in certain unfair labor practices 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 Respondent filed exceptions to the TrialExaminer's Decision and a supporting brief. The' General Counsel=filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision and the Charging Party fileda brief opposingthe Respondent's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National' Labor Relations. , Act, as amended, the National Labor - Relations Board -has delegated its powers vin 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 recommendations of the Trial Examiner. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT , OF TIM CASE MAx RosENBERG, Trial Examiner: This case was tried before me in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on January 6and 7, 1971, pursuant to a complaint filed by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an answer filed thereto by Jocquel Supply Co., Inc ., herein ' called the Respondent.' The issues , presented relate to, whether Respondent violated Section 8(axl) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as, amended. Briefs have. been received from the.General-Counsel and Respondent, which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record made in this proceeding and my observation of the witnesses who testified, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS I. THE RESPONDENT'.s BUSINESS ,,Respondent, an Indiana corporation, has at all times material herein maintained its principal office and place of business in'Fort Wayne, `Indiana, where it has engaged"°in the wholesale sale and distribution of building construction supplies and related products. During the pertinent annual period, Respondent purchased, transferred,, and-delivered ,to its facility, -goods, and materials Valued in excess of $45,000 which' were transported to said ,facility directly from States "other than the State of Indiana. In the same period, Respondent purchased,transferred, anddelivered to its facility building supplies and other goods ,and materials valued in excess of $11,000 which were° transported to this installation from, and received -from, other enterprises located in the State of Indiana, which other enterprises had received the said goods and materials directly from States other than the State of Indiana. During the material annual period, Respondent also sold and distributed products valued in excess of 3186,000. The =complaint 'alleges,,' ` the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an -employer engaged in -commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,, as 'amended, the, National Labor Relations Board adopts,'as'its Order the Recormmend- ed Order-of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Jocquel Supply Co., Inc., Fort' Wayne, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set'forth-in the trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 1 In sec. III, par. 2, of his Decision; the Trial' Examiner stated that on September 4 Union President Dunfee drafted and delivered a letter to Donald Stinson, Respondent's president, requesting representational rights. The, record reflects that date , to be -September 2. We hereby correct the inadvertent error of the Trial Examiner. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 297, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, is a labor,organization-within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges that, on or about September 10, 1970,2 Respondent violated' Section 8(axl) of the Act by coercively interrogating its, employees,, concerning their union activities and ' desires and those of their fellow employees, by changing the,-hours of work for its employees;°by ate, teririg the length of 'their; lunch period, and, by advising them that they would henceforth be required to ' The-complaint, which issued on-October 30, 1970, is, based on a charge filed on September 15,,1 970, and served on September 16, 1970. 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter fall in 1970. 192 NLRB No. 68 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD punch a timeclock,,solely because they joined or assisted the Union in its attempt to obtain representative status at Respondent's business:operation 'in'Fort Wayne, Indiana. the complaint further alleges that Respondent violated Section S(aX3) of the statute by ' discharging employees Junior Wine,- Samuel' Moreno,' and Russell Lahr, on or about September 15, ' an'd 'by changing their terms and conditions ^of` 'employment' as described `immediately above.3 ' 'Respondent`denies' the-' commission of `any labor practices proscribed' by the Act. > It ` is' undisputed and I findlthat, on or'about August 28, John- Dunfee, the Union's-president, received a telephone call from Junior Wine, one'of-the alleged discriminatees, in which the latter inquired as to how the' employee's at Respondent's, business, establishment -mightobtain'collec- tive -- representation. Dunfee`,invited -junior 'to visit the Union's offices for a briefing on the procedures involved. The next evening, Junior and his brother Russell Lahr, another alleged discriniinatee, called on Dunfee at his office. Dunfee explained - the mechanics for procuring representational status. ' On September 1, the Union conducted a: meeting- at its, headquarters which was attended-by Junior Wine, Lahr, Chester Wine„and`alleged discriiniuatee Samuel ,Moreno. In, the course; of this meetiu'g,-gall four,employees= signed union authorization ;,cards.* Dunfee then,tojsl-`the men that-he would present a -letter letter to -, Respondent the, following ,_,day demanding exclusive recognition as.,their ,bargaining agent." On the morning of September 4, Dunfee drafted a letter addressed to - Donald _Stinson, Respondent's , president, requesting representational rights- among the unit of employees theretofore found appropriate and suggesting -a bargaining session ,for September S. Later that day, Dunfee, delivered the document to,,Stinson who, after reading it, remarked, "O.K,,,we'll be in touch.", ,It,, is-uncontroverted and I find that, on September 4, Dunfee was., contacted, by Donald , Strutz, Respondent's counsel. Strutz opened the telephonic conversation ,,by advising, -that ohe-,was,- ,a, personal friend of Stinson- and suggested that ,the ,panties consent to an election to poll the sentiments of Respondent's employees regarding unioniza- tion. Dunfee thereupon telephoned the Union's attorney for instructions, and was informed by the latter to investigate-the composition of the unit. On the same date, Dunfeee called Strutz to obtain this information. Although Strutz "assured Dunfee `that he would obtain the 'desired data that -day, "Strutz, failed to contact Dunfee for the remainder ,of theweek despite Dunfee's repeated attempts to reach Strutz. - It is undenied and I find that, on September 2, Stinson learned that the Union represented employees junior Wine, Lahr,, and Moreno when he recieved Dunfee's letter demanding, ,recognition on that date'." At the conclusion of a The complaint also averred that Respondent- refused, in violation of Section 8(aX5), to bargain with the Union-on and after September 4 as „the duly , designated bargaining, agent for ,all-full-time and regular part-time employees at its facility, exclusive of all office clerical employees, casual employees, professional ' employees- anti' all supervisors ' as defined in' the -Act, a-unit which,I ' find-to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the statute.,It additionally charged ,that-Respondent offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(5) when, on September 10 and 11 , Respondent unilaterally altered-the existing-hours of employment and the lunch periods for employees ; unilaterally changed -the, workday on September„ 10,„Stinson handed letters ,to Junior Wine :and Lahr which read, "As, ofSeptember' 11, 1970, your newihours will be from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00'.P.M. You will also 'have a one hour break forlunch.Tiine will be kept by a time clock." Junior Wine testified that, when he received the foregoing communication on-September 10, Stinson inquired, "I guess you want the union," to which Junior replied, "Yes, sir, but I'm not the only one..., .; I believe all of us want the union." Lahr testimonially recounted that, upon being handed the letter on September 10 regarding the changes in working conditions; ,Stinson remarked, "I` understand' that you and Junior [Wine] want'a union in here." When Lahr replied in the affirmative with the statement "We're not the only ones,", Stinson inquired "Who else is' there?",, Lahr thereupon mentioned the name of Moreno.FThe_following day, and according to the testimony of Moreno, he engaged in a conversation with Stinson at theend of the work `shift. During-the coiloquy',Stinson asked Moreno "if I was a part of the-well, if I was in'with the boys-oil the union. I said, yes, I was in with them. And then he-told me he`felt kind of bad about the, deal,'the way,, the pay -was, and everything, and he was going to contact each one of us individually and see what he could come up with for, us . And then,,-, that everything he told me from then on would be-in writing." On September 11,` Respondent installed a :,time clock' in Stinson's office -building. 'Stinson 'testified that he` had received complaints, from` Junior Wine-and Lahr-that- the clock was defective, in consequence of which=he instructed his secretary to type .a letter which recited "Due to thefact that the time clock we have is not working properlywe will not begin working on the time stated in the letter written to you on September, 10,1970. The new hours stated' in-that letter '-will not go` into effect until'further notice." However, this document was'never delivered by Responderitdireedy to Junior Wine or Lahr. - On the evening of September -10, Junior Wine and Lahr paid a call on Dunfeeat .the,latter's'office. Hind that,^in an ensuing conversation,,,these employees informed,Dunfee that they had_received,a,letter,from Stinson,that day setting forth the changes "in working conditions, ' Junior told Dunfee that he had been interrogated by Stinson concern- ing Junior's involvement with the Union's organizational campaign, and Lahr added that Stinson had questioned him "about Sam Moreno and about Junior Wine and me wanting the union in." The next day, September 11, Dunfee telephoned the Union's counsel to report on the intelligence which he had obtained from Junior Wine and Lahr. On Sunday, September 13,,Dunfee summoned Junior Wine, Chester Wine, Lahr, and Moreno to'the union hall where ,a meeting Was,-conducted., During' the conver'sation,l`Dunfte briefed the men'o'n the 'events' which' had transpired, noting that, it , appeared— to film `that there were unfair labor older terms and conditions of employment suchias requiring employees, to punch a timeclock ;`aud offered to bargain directly and individually with the employees , in the ` above-described ' appropriate unit. Prior ' to the commencement of the hearing on January 6, 1971,° the parties executed an informal settlement agreement, subsequently approved by the, Regional Director for Region 25 on January , 15, 1971, which removed the alleged violations of,Section8(ax5) from the instant litigation. - 1i At'this time, Respondent also had in its employ an individ ual named Paul Frantz, thus ''Waking a total of five employees in the appropriate unit. JOCQUEL SUPPLY CO. INC. 487 practices committed; that,the lack of courtesy from counsel representing, the employer was a-that it was a stalling tactic, that we were in a poor position at that point andwe should do something about it." Thereupon, a strike vote was taken and-the men unanimously manifested their, desire to cease work-the =following day. Dunfee instructed his members- to, report for strike' duty at 7:30 a.m. on September 14. At the appointed hour on the latter date, the work stoppage commenced. - It is undisputed and I find that, with the commencement of the strike on September 14, Stinson` prepared Indiana 'Employment Security Form No. 501 which he handed to JuniorWine, Lahr, and Moreno while they picketed on that date. In a space entitled "Reason For Unemployment," Respondent'typeddin the-notation-'On-Strike for Recogni- =tion." During, his testimony,- Stinson admitted and I find that, as of=September 1'4,he"did not consider them [Junior Wine, Lahr, and Moreno] to be' employees" of Respondent .5 The strike continued unabated-until Decem- ber 18,'when,-as all parties concede, and I find, Respondent ceased business operations for nondiscriminatory reasons. It' is uncontroverted andI=''fifid`that, at no time during the period from September 14 to December 18, did any of the strikers indicate to-Respondent' that they unconditionally wished to terminate their work stoppage. Respondent also has ` acknowledged ' and I find that none of the strikers were permanently placed in-the course of the strike. Respondent contends' that the change in working conditions which it announced to the employees in its letter of September 10 was prompted by considerations, totally unrelated to their engagement in protected, concerted activities. I find no merit in the contention. Respondent, through Stinson, . concededly was aware , as early as September 2 that Junior Wine, Lahr,, and Moreno had thrown their lot in with the Union and, I find, based on the credited testimony of Wine, Lahr, and Moreno, that Respondent - buttressed this awareness when, Stinson interrogated them on September 10 and 11, regarding their union adherence and that of their fellow employees. - With respect to installation of, the timeclock on September -10, it is clear on this record and I find that, prior ,to, that date, it had been the. uniform practice for the employees to yrecord their own time on cards and turn them in to the office on a weekly or monthly , basis. Indeed, Stinson acknowledged on the stand that-he felt no need to utilize a 'timeclock to keep track of his employees' hours of work during the entire period of employment ,of Junior Wine, Lahr, and Moreno, which spanned almost 2 years. According to Stinson, he first noticed about a week prior to September _10 that he was" experiencing difficulty' in contacting' the men in the warehouse to report to his office s Lahr testified that, while picketing on September 14 or 15, Stinson approached the line and` stated that "-You know that the State and the Social Security both recognize that you lost your job when you walked off" and that "he would see that we never worked for him again:' Lahr further ,testified that,-on,or about October 9, Stinson approached the picket line and informed Lahr, and Moreno that "he guaranteed that none of us would ever be employed by him again, and that he would be there longer than Any of, Eus."" Sam Moreno related that, approximately a week after the work stoppage commenced, "Stinson came to the picket line to discuss the matter of a loan which Moreno owed Respondent. During their conversation, Stinson "said we no longer worked for him, we were fired," About a week later, Stinson visited the strikers and "wanted to know what we were doing and obtain their delivery orders. ^ He testified that he installed the apparatus to insure that the men would appear in the office at- the start of their shift to receive the orders. However, when shown a sworn affidavit which hegave,to a board agent on -October -14; Stinson confessed he stated therein that "In the past these mein""[Junior Wine and Lahr] had kept track of their time by,writing it on the time card" and that "I had no particular, . reason. in installing .it [the timeclock] for use. 1I just decided to do -so." No mention°was made in 'the-affidavit of'any^commun'cation gap between Stinson and his men as-the predicate for,the installation of the device. 'Regarding, the change in working -hours-which was instituted on September 10, Stinson admitted and I find that, prior to that date, , the affected- employees commenced work 'at 7:30 a.m. and ended their shift at'' p.m. on weekdays, while the- trick extended from 7:30 a.m. to 12 m. on Saturdays: If they so desired, employees were permitted to take one-half hour for lunch, or no lunch break at all, with the result that they could escalate the number of weekly hours toiled and be paid for them. However, beginning on September '10, Respondent made it mandato- ry that the men thereafter report-for duty at 8 a.m. and work until 5 p.m., and that they take,a compulsory 1-hour lunch respite. According to-S[inson; this step was dictated by slack business conditions which developed on'Septem- ber 10, `although` he steadfastly maintained that the employees did not suffer economically as a result thereof. I 'find Stinson's explanation in this regard, implausible' if not incredible.Thus, despite the assertion made- in hiss sworn affidavit that business normally tapers off"'during the fall and winter months" and normalizes in the spring, Stinson testimonially allowed as how sales did not commence to fall off until "a week after the strike started" on September 14. Furthermore, Respondent made no effort to support this contention by the production of business records:„ Moreo- ver, although Stinson claimed that the men continued to work 9 hours per day, after September L0, such aclaim is belied by ,simple mathematics which clearly establish that the employees were able ,to work only,4 hours,daily, after being required to take an hourly work break. In sum, I am convinced and find that, faced with the Union's demand for recognition on September. 2, and its knowledge that Junior Wine, Lahr, and Moreno, had enlisted the collective support of that labor organization, Respondent set out on a ,course to penalize them for engaging in concerted activities protected,by the Act. This chastisement, took the form of forcing the men to,punch a timeclock when reporting for work,, a, requirement, not theretofore imposed, and of curtailing the weekly number of hours of ,work by ,making it mandatory that .the out there , when we no longer worked' there : "Stinson added that "he'd guarantee me I'd -never workfor-him again, never'riv"oik anyone of us.-In his testimony, Stinson proclaimed that he did, not engage in any of the foregoing colloquies on advice of counsel . I do not credit. Stinson's testimony, not only because he conceded that he "did not consider" that Junior, Wine, Moreno, and .Lahr were employees of Respondent- on September 14, but ,also because they impressed me,as sincere and honest witnesses who earnestly sought to utter , the truth while- on the ,stand. Accordingly, I find that, when Stinson ;proffered the= men the Form =No, 501, on September 14, Respondent thereby discharged these-employees on this date, a personnel action which was, reiterated to them when Stinson subsequently announced ,that they "were fired. 488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees take anvunpaid lunch hour, and by reducing.the work, shift by-one-half hour.,- . Based on credited: testimony; I have "heretofore found that, on-September, 10 and 11; Stinson coercively interrogat- ed " Junior Wine, Lahr; and. Moreno --concerning': their activities on-behalfof the Union and those of their, fellow employees.,.By this 'conduct, I conclude' -that"Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)-o€ the Act. Ihavefoundthat, on September 10, Respondent-changed the hours,,of -employment- for, its. employees,, altered the duration „of their- lunch period, and, required tthat A hey punch a timeclock, because they joined and assisted the Union.-.in its, ;campaign to" organize -Respondent's- employ- ees. I ,conclude ,,that; by engaging in such conduct, Respondent violated- Section 8(a)(l),and (3) of,the.Act. , .,, , I have also found that, on September 14,E Respondent discharged Junior Wine, Lahr, and Moreno, because, they engaged, in, 4 work stoppage protected under the-statute. By the foregoing conduct, I conclude that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(3).6 IV. THE EFFECT- OF THE UNFAIR, LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above,, occurring in, connection" with the, operations of Respondent` set forth insection I, , above,, have a close, intimate, and `substantial, relation to. trade, traffic, and commerce amongT the several",States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening aiid'obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof." Having found that, Respondent has engaged in-certain unfair'labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist" therefrom - "and and, take "'-certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the A'ct. I' have heretofore ' found `that, on - September 14, Respondent's ,employees, engaged f in it protected work stoppage for Which Respondent discharged "Junior'Wine, Russell Lahr, and" Samuel Moreno on that date.`I have also found that, on December 18, Respondent ceased` business operations for' nondiscriminatory reasons and that none of the strikers had been permanently -replaced during this period. I have'-further found that "none' of the strikers unconditionally; manifested to Respondenttheir`-intention to abandon the walkout prior to December' 18. Or'dinariily; discriminatorily discharged ' employees are awarded -backpay from -the "date of their discharges to =the date when a' `valid -reinatatement'offei is' made to'them Here, however, the discharged employees were engaged in'a protected, strike on, and,after, the date of tht=,discrimination against them ;which ', continued, until' Respondent, closed its operations for, economic-reasons. The'Board''s established 6 Comodore'WatchCase Co., Inc., 114NLRB 1590; , At the "hearing; the General Counsel,sought to establish that the work stoppage constituted an unfair-' labor practice` strike at its inception . In this connection, , Dunfee testified , that employees voted to quit work on Seotember 14 because of their consternation over Respondent's refusal to meet, with the unions reprtatives to hammer out a collective , agreement as-well as 'because Respondent had' committed unfair labor practices=in altering their working conditions and unlawfully interrogating them. Some practice is not-to award backpay to employees discrimina- torily, discharged while on strike, on" the-theory that; 4until it appears that the -employees, who desire, employment have given up the strike,.it cannot be,established that theloss^of pay --; was , conclusively,- attributable to the „employer's conduct.7 Accordingly, Ishall not,afford a backpayaward in this-,case based on the -discharges. -However, as- the Respondent Js- no -longer in, business, I -shall recommend that, in the event it resumes--, operations in the future, Respondent, shall;,. upon their unconditional application for reinstatement, offer to Junior _ Wine;;,Russell : Lahr, ,and Samuel -Moreno,' as well as, Chester Wine, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially""equiva- lent;positions. I. have also found that Respondent curtailed the hours of work for employees because they engaged in , activities protected.by, -the -,Act.-As,it is-not entirely clear,pn this record which of the employees suffered financial loss,, or,the extent ^of: the,,-loss-,if any, as a result of the foregoing discrimination, practiced against„them, .I shall;; recommend that Respondent, aftercappropriate, complianceproceed- ings, make the affected, employees'whole for any loss ofwpay incurred. Backpay. in: this -, regard shall be,, computed-„in accordance with the:;Board €ula.set, forth in F. -W Woolworth Company 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at the rate of •6 percent, per annum computed, inthe manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating;Co., ,138 NLRB 7.1}6. , Upon the basis of the foregoing -findings of , fact and conclusions, and upon, the- entire record in the case, I make the following: ' • _ r ., ^_ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent ` is an employer engaged commerce within'the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)76f the Act. 2.' The Union is: a' labor" organization within the meaning' of Section 2(5)'of the Act. 3. By discharging- Junior' Wine, Russell ` Lahr, 'and Samuel Moreno; thereby"discriminating in regard -to their hire and-"tenure 6-employment; inorder'to discourage their membership in- and' activities =on, behalf' of the Union, because th ey" engaged in ' a 'concerted work stoppage protected by the Act, the Respdndenthas engaged in and is engaging n unfair labor practices within'the"meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the=Act. 4'." "By curtailing' -the "' hours' of work and requiring that employees 'punch a, timeelock, 'in order to discourage membership ^ in 'and- activities on "behalf' of the Union, thereby discriminating in' regard to- their hire and tenure of employment, the- Respondent has engaged in and Is engaging in unfair labor'-practices within the me Of Section 8(a)(3)-of3the Act. " ' - 5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing; eni- -ployees in, the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the, Act, the Respondent has engaged in,-and, •is employee ^ witnesses testified that the unfair labor practices in which Respondent indulged alone triggered their walkout, while others stated that these 'practices played no role in their decision' tot uit work . I deem-it unnecessary` ,to pass on,the"General Counse'l's contention for, under the peculiar circumstances, of this case, the remedial order toy be fashioned herein would be the same regardless of whether the-strike was an unfair labor practice strike or an economic work stoppage. 7 See ' GopherAviation, "Inc., 160 NLRB 1688, 1701. JOCQUEL.SUPPLY CO. INC. 489 engaging in unfair-labor practices within the purview of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices-within the meaning of Section 2(6)-,and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER and Chester Wine,, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 25, shall be duly signed by a representative of Respondent prior to mailing. (f) Notify the RegionalLector for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith.9 - Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Jocquel Supply Co., Inc., Fort Wayne, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging employees, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to discourage membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, or any other labor organization, because they engage in protected, concerted work stoppages. (b) Curtailing the hours of work for employees and requiring them to punch a timeclock, in order to discourage membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, or any other labor organization, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment. (c) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union sympathies and activities, and the union sympathies and activities of their fellow employees. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form labor" organizations, to join or assist the Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of theilr own choosing, and 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 I find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) In the event Respondent resumes business operations in the future, and, upon their unconditional application for reinstatement, offer to Junior Wine, Russell Lahr, Samuel Moreno, and Chester Wine, immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions. (b) Make any affected employee whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against him, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Upon the resumption of operations, notify Junior Wine, Russell Lahr, Samuel Moreno, and Chester Wine, if 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, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) 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 ascertain any backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (e) Mail to Junior Wine, Russell Lahr, Samuel Moreno, 8 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. In the event that the Board's Order is enfort5d by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Mailed by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Mailed Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board:' 9 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith:' APPENDIX NOTICE MAILED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge our employees for engaging in a lawful strike against our Company. WE WILL NOT cut down the hours of work for employees or require them to punch a timeclock because they join or assist Local 297, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. WE WILL NOT ask our employees about their activities on behalf of the Union or the activities of their fellow employees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL, in the event we go back into business in the future, offer to Junior Wine, Russell Lahr, Samuel Moreno, and Chester Wine, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions if they unconditionally ask us for reinstate- ment. WE WILL pay any employee who is entitled to such payment any wages lost because we changed the hours of work and lunch periods. WE WILL, in the event we go back into business, notify Junior Wine, Russell Hahr, Samuel Moreno, and Chester Wine, if 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, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. All our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR , RELATIONS BOARD JocQUEL SUPPLY Co., INC., ,(Employer), Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and. must not be defaced by anyone. This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days, from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any othermaterial. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone 317-633-8921.