Northwest Propane Co., Inc.

506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Northwest Propane Co., Inc. and Local 614, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Vera Boudrie. Cases 7-CA-8790 and 7-CA-8790(2) June 14, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On January 31, 1972, Trial Examiner Arthur M. Goldberg issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, both the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the Respondent also filed a brief in answer to the General Counsel'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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Northwest Propane Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recom- mended Order. 1 Chairman Miller dissents only with respect to the 8(a)(3) allegations of the complaint with respect to employee Tobias He would dismiss them on the ground that the proof of Respondent's knowledge of Tobias' union activity is insufficient The Trial Examiner relies, for this purpose, on an incident during which Respondent's owner and president was standing at or near a window in his office and Tobias was in the back seat of an automobile parked 150 feet away The "Union activity" alleged to have been engaged in by Tobias at this time and alleged to have been both observable and observed was that he called and waved to a union organizer from his position inside, and in the back seat of, the car Chairman Miller believes this to be too fragile and inferential a basis to support a finding of knowledge by Respondent that Tobias was engaging in union activity TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner: Pursuant to an Order Consolidating Cases, Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued by the Regional Director for Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board) on July 29, 1971,' hearing was held in Detroit, 1 Unless otherwise indicated all dates hereinafter were in 1971 Michigan, on October 26 through 28 on complaint allegations that Northwest Propane Co., Inc. (hereinafter called Northwest, Respondent or the Company), had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act). The complaint, based on charges filed on June 21 in Case 7-CA-8790 by Local 614, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein called the Teamsters or the Union), and on July 8 in Case 7-CA-8790(2) by Vera Boudne, an individual (hereinafter called Boudrie ), alleged that on various dates the Company discharged employees Larry Myers, Jeffrey Wright, Jack Tobias and Boudrie because of their union activities and other concerted activities. As well, the Company was alleged to have engaged in two independent acts of interference , coercion or restraint of employee protected activities . Respondent's answer denied all of the material allegations of the complaint. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to present oral argument and to file briefs. General Counsel and the Respondent presented oral argument at the close of the hearing and the Respondent filed a brief. Upon the entire record in the case , my reading of the Respondent's brief and the oral arguments of the parties, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Northwest Propane Co., Inc., a Michigan corporation, maintains its • only office and place of business on Northwestern Highway in the city of Farmington, Michi- gan, where it is engaged in the retail and wholesale sale and distribution of propane gas and related products. During a representative 12-month period the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, derived a gross revenue in excess of $500,000 and purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to its Farmington, Michigan, place of business, goods and materials valued in excess of $10,000, which goods and materials were transported and delivered to said Farmington facility directly from points located outside the State of Michigan. The complaint alleged, Respondent's answer as amended at the hearing admitted, and I find that the Company is now and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and meets the Board's standards for assertion of its jurisdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 614, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 197 NLRB No. 87 NORTHWEST PROPANE CO., INC. 507 in. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES employees worked and when they would be returning to A. The Company's Premises and Operations The Company's premises are located on the southwest- ern side of Northwestern Highway.2 Northwestern High- way runs in a northwest-southeast direction and is a divided highway with a center island in which a number of crossovers are placed so that traffic can switch direction. Starting at the northwest corner of the Company's property is a one-story office building facing directly north. The front of the office building is primarily of glass. On the eastern side of the office building are two private offices, the northern office being that of Raymond Barget, owner and president of Respondent, with a window looking out to the east. Directly to the east of the office building is a driveway from Northwestern Highway which runs past the office building and into the yard area where the Compa- ny's loading dock and storage tanks are located. Approxi- mately due north of the office building and driveway is one of the crossovers over the center island of Northwestern Highway. To the southeast of the driveway heretofore described is an undeveloped area which terminates in a second driveway from Northwestern Highway into the Company's property. Directly across from this southern driveway is a second crossover cutting through the center island of Northwestern Highway. The Company's business consists of delivering propane gas to commercial and residential users. The propane gas is delivered either in bulk by tank trucks and pumped into tanks at the customer's premises or in cylinders of various weights which are attached to the customer's premises and fed into the appliances using the propane. The Respon- dent's business is seasonal in nature and Company President Barget estimated that some 60 percent of the Company's business is transacted in the 5 months starting in November and ending at the end of March. According- ly, the Company's employment has traditionally expanded during the November to March period and contracted during the remaining 7 months when fewer drivers are needed to make deliveries to customers. B. The Organizing Campaign and Company Knowledge Emidio M. Gentile, the Union's organizer, testified that on May 11 or 12 he received a telephone call from company employee Fred Kolberg stating that the employ- ees were interested in joining the Union. At Kolberg's request Gentile explained the organizing procedure which he would follow. Kolberg asked that the Union not send a demand for recognition to the Company as Gentile stated he intended to do after securing a sufficient number of authorization cards. During the same conversation Kol- berg asked that Gentile explain the procedure to another employee who was present with Kolberg when he made the telephone call. As well, Gentile was told the hours the 2 See Appendix A attached consisting of a diagram of the Company's premises 1 Ingman's putative supervisory status is discussed and analyzed below in sec 111,C 4 Boudrie's discharge by the Company is at issue in these proceedings 5 The Company's terminations of Tobias and Myers are at issue in these the Company's premises. Gentile advised Kolberg that he would be at Respondent's property the following day, May 13, to handbill and solicit authorization cards. Gentile arrived at the Company's premises at approxi- mately 4 p.m. on May 13 and was there for "roughly" an 'hour and 40 minutes leaving at approximately 5:40 p.m. During the time that Gentile was handbilling at the Company's premises he was wearing a bright blue jacket on the back of which the word "Teamsters" appears in gold letters and on the left front side in blue and gold appears the Union's emblem with the words "Local 614" written out. During most of the time that Gentile was at the Company's premises on May 13 he stationed himself at the more northern of the two driveways leading into the property waiting for workers to drive in with their trucks so that he could hand them union literature. During this period Kolberg came to Gentile and stated that "the boss" wanted a copy of the union literature. Gentile gave Kolberg copies of the material and Kolberg returned to the company office. Gentile testified that while he was at the Company's premises on May 13 Company President Barget drove into the property, parked his car on the driveway adjacent to the office building, turned in Gentile's direction and then went into the office. Gentile did not see Barget again that day. Gentile testified that while he was handbilling Shirley Ingman, Respondent's office manager,3 came into the driveway from behind the office building, looked at Gentile, paused for a moment and then went back in. Vera Boudrie' testified that she was working in the back office on May 13. However, her duties required her to go out into the front office from time to time. She stated that while in the front office she observed both Barget and Ingman looking out the window at Gentile. Boudrie testified that she observed Ingman looking at Gentile through the window in Barget's office on the east side of the building and had seen Barget observing Gentile through the front window of the office building. Boudrie recalled Ingman saying that she wondered what the union man wanted. Boudrie was certain that Ingman had used the word "union." During this time when driver Paul Goble came in Ingman said something to the effect that the union man should be hit and dragged. Boudrie testified that Barget was present when Ingman made that state- ment. Jack Tobias and Larry J. Myers, former company employees,5 testified that while seated in Myers' car parked on the crossover facing the southern driveway into the Company's premises, approximately 150 feet from the office building, they observed Barget standing in his office window facing in a southern direction where Gentile had stationed himself and Myers' car was parked.6 After Gentile left the Company's premises at about 5:40 p.m., he went to a local restaurant where a meeting had proceedings 6 Myers' and Tobias' testimony as to Barget's being in the window and thus observing both Gentile and the car in which they were seated was introduced by General Counsel to establish company knowledge of the employees' interest in the Union on the date proceeding Myers' termination This testimony is analyzed below in the section of this decision dealing with (Continued) 508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD been arranged with a number of the employees including Kolberg, Myers, Tobias, Yerex, Petrie and Ellerholtz. All of the employees signed union, authorization cards and Tobias took a union card which he said would be signed by his stepson, Jeffrey Wright, who was not at the meeting and had not been at work on May 13. Gentile did not return to the Company's premises after' May 13. Company President Barget testified that he left the Respondent's premises on May 13 at about 10 a.m., went to Lansing, Michigan, for a meeting and did not return to the office until approximately 5 p.m. Barget stated that when he returned to the Company at that time he parked at his normal place and went into his office to catch up on his paperwork. Barget testified that he did not notice anything unusual when he came back to his office, that he would have to say that he did not see Gentile when he drove into the premises, and that the blinds on his office window had been closed all day, were not opened when he returned late in the afternoon and he did not look out the window at any activities taking place on the driveway or on Northwestern Highway. Barget stated that Ingman was still in the office when he returned and that while he "probably" had a conversation with her she did not mention anything about Union Organizer Gentile. Barget stated that he was not handed any union literature on May 13 nor was there any discussion with anyone about the Union or the organizing activities. Barget was not certain when he first heard about the Union, stating that it could have been on Friday, May 14, Saturday, May 15, or Monday, May 17. Barget recalled that he received his first notice of the Union's interest in the Company's employees by mail which was delivered that Saturday or Monday. During cross-examination Barget was shown his pretrial affidavit in which he had stated, "Somewhere around the 14th of May I saw a man standing in front of the plant from my office." The affidavit went on to state that Barget did not know what the man was doing there and he did not see or know at that time that the individual was passing out literature for the Union. However, there is a further statement in Barget's affidavit reading, "-I don't remember when-either Paul Goble or Ralph Hagedorn told me that this was a union man out in front." At the instant hearing Barget testified that he could not recall this happening. Shirley Ingman testified that May 13 was her birthday and she had been in a hurry to get home that day, leaving between 5 and 5:30 p.m. Ingman testified that she did not see Gentile at the plant on May 13, had no conversation with Barget that day and had not discussed the Union with anyone on May 13. Ingman claimed to have first learned about the Union's organizing campaign when a notice from the Board was posted in Respondent's office sometime between May 17 and May 19. Ingman stated that she spoke to no one about the Union prior to the posting of the notice. During her cross-examination Ingman was shown her pretrial affidavit in which the following appears, "When the union man was here on May 13, 1971, I was unaware that he was out in front of the plant. I first found out about the union man being out This testimony is analyzed below in the section of this decision dealing with the terminations of Myers and Larry Wright, sec. III, D front at around 5 p.m. on that day from Win Goble and Vera Boudrie." When this statement from her affidavit was read to Ingman she testified, "That's a mistake, sir." I do not credit Barget's and Ingman's claims that they were unaware of union activity or Gentile's presence at the Company's premises on May 13. The denials of such knowledge during their testimony at the hearing herein is in conflict with the statements contained in their affidavits given during the investigatory stages of this proceeding. Gentile gave credible testimony that Barget arrived back at the plant while Gentile, wearing his loud Teamsters jacket, was carrying out his organizing activities. Vera Boudrie, who created a favorable and credible impression during her appearance as a witness, testified that there was unusual activity in the office while Gentile was carrying out his organizing activity. Thus, Boudrie testified that both Barget and Ingman on numerous occasions went to windows so that they could observe Gentile, Ingman made statements indicating that she was aware of Gentile's union affiliation and that Barget was present when Ingman made those comments. Further, based upon their demeanor while testifying I would not credit Barget or Ingman in any particular unless they were corroborated by a credited witness. In this instance such corroboration is lacking. Thus, I find that during the time Gentile was carrying out his organizing activities at the Company's premises on May 13 the Company was aware of his presence and activities and that those activities were kept under surveillance by Barget and Ingman. C. Shirley Ingman's Supervisory Status The putative supervisory status of Shirley Ingman, a 12- year employee of the Company, is in dispute. General Counsel urges a finding that Ingman is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act whereas in this proceeding the Company claims that she does not exercise supervisory authority. However, in the hearing held June 1 on the Union's petition for election? Company President Barget testified as follows: Q. We have drivers, servicemen and dockmen. Who supervises their work? A. [Barget] Mrs. Ingman and myself. Q. What is Mrs. Ingman's title? A. Office manager. At another point Barget was asked: Q. With the exception of yourself and Mrs. Ingman is there anyone that you would classify as supervisors? A. No sir. Q. Does anyone other than yourself have the power to hire employees? A. Mrs. Ingman has hired when I have been out of town. Q. Does anyone other than yourself have the power to fire employees? A. Mrs. Ingman has done the same. In this proceeding Barget, under oath, as he had been in the representation case, testified that there were no titles at the Company, that only he had the authority to discharge 7 Case 7-RC-10566 NORTHWEST PROPANE CO., INC. 509 an employee and had not delegated this authority to anyone else and that while an applicant for employment might be interviewed by someone other than himself it was he who makes the final decision to hire an applicant. In the instant preceeding Barget testified specifically that Ingman did not have the power to hire. He stated that he could not recall anyone being hired or fired without his authoriza- tion. David L. Horton, Vera Boudrie's son who is presently employed by the Sheriff's Department of Livingston County, Michigan, testified that he had worked in the Company's office in the fall of 1970 answering the phone and helping with the billing . Horton testified that he did not speak to Barget about employment before starting to work at Northwest Propane and that it was Ingman who had informed him that he was hired. Additionally, Horton testified that he had made arrangements with Ingman to leave at times other than the regular hours of work so that he could attend school . Ingman had approved this revised schedule of hours. Ingman testified that she did not talk to Horton when he came to the Company seeking employ- ment. Rather, she testified, Horton went in and talked to Barget. Horton impressed me as a credible witness who was telling the facts without embellishment as he recalled them. Ingman on the other hand throughout her appear- ance on the stand gave the impression of testifying for effect.. She did not inspire confidence in the veracity of her testimony . Accordingly, I credit Horton's testimony that he had been employed for the Company by Ingman without any meeting with Company President Barget. Vera Boudrie testified that when she was hired by the Company in either 1966 or 1967 she had been hired by Ingman . Boudrie testified that she did not speak to Barget before Ingman informed her that she was to be employed. Boudrie testified about the hiring of an office employee named Betty Rose . Boudrie was present when Rose was hired by Ingman who informed Boudne , "This is our new girl. She is going to work for us." Boudne testified that on a number of occasions she had asked Company President Barget for instructions and he told her to see Ingman, because "She was the manager." Larry Myers, a discharged employee, testified that when he wanted to leave work early he had to ask permission to do so from Ingman . It was she who granted such requests. Myers recalled that on a number of occasions when he sought to leave work early Ingman had told him she would have to check if there was anything she wanted him to do and that later she gave him'permission to leave.8 Boudne testified that when she sought time off in advance she would speak to Ingman about such a request and to no one else. On occasion, Ingman signs checks for the Company, including payroll checks. Barget explained that when he goes on vacation he sends an authorization to the bank under which Ingman or his brother sign company checks while he is away. 8 As to the circumstances under which Myers came to work for the Respondent, Company President Barget, at the representation case hearing, testified as follows Q Did you hire [Myers ]9 A I don't know whether I did or Mrs. Ingman Sec 2(11) of the Act provides "The term 'supervisor' means any In sum, the record establishes that Ingman exercises a number of the indicia of supervisory status set forth in Section 2(11) of the Act.9 Thus, apart from Barget's admissions at the representation hearing that Ingman is a supervisor, can hire and fire, may have been the one who hired Larry Myers and carries the title of office manager, the credited testimony establishes that Ingman hired Vera Boudrie, David Horton and Betty Rose. Further, the evidence establishes that Ingman has the power to excuse employees from work, as testified to by Horton, Boudne and Myers and is responsible for the direction of employees as evidenced by Barget's instructions to Boudrie that she was to look to Ingman for her instructions. Accordingly, I conclude that at all times material herein Shirley Ingman was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. D. The Terminations of Jeffrey Wright and Larry Myers 1. Jeffrey J. Wright Wright, Jack Tobias' stepson, was hired by the Respon- dent in the middle of July 1970 as a dockhand loading trucks and filling cylinders with propane gas. When he was first employed, Wright was under the impression that his tenure was to last only as long as Leonard Petrie, the regular dockman, was on vacation. However, on the Friday before Petrie's return* from his vacation Shirley Ingman advised Wright that he had a full-time job with the Company. On several occasions during his employment, Wright went out with truckdrivers as a helper in the loading and unloading of the cylinders of propane gas. Wright was not at work on May 13 when Gentile, the union organizer, handbilled at the Company's premises. Wright did not attend the meeting between Gentile and a group of employees held at a local restaurant after working hours on May 13. That evening Tobias solicited Wright's signature to a union authorization card. Wright testified that on Friday, May 14, he "probably" told everyone he knew was for the Union that he had signed an authoriza- tion card. Wright specifically testified that he had told Petrie that he had signed a card for the Teamsters. However, Petrie testified that on May 14 he had been out on a truck during the day and was not on the dock until the evening. Therefore, Petrie stated that Wright could not have told him about his affiliation with the Union until some time in the evening because Petrie was not on the Company's premises during the day. On May 14, after Myers had come out to the dock and informed the men that he had been laid off, Shirley Ingman asked Wright to take a count of all the 100-pound cylinders. Wright took the count and went to the office where he informed Ingman of the number of cylinders. Ingman told Wright to give the figures to Barget. Wright individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action , if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment " 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD went to Barget's office, gave the company president the count of cylinders and at that time Barget told Wright that he was being laid off. Wright made no comment, clocked out and left. Barget advised Wright that the layoff was because of a lack of work. Leonard Petrie, the regular dockman, testified that following Wright's termination Bruce Barget, Company President Barget's high. chool student son, helped out on the dock, starting work about a week or 2 after Wright was laid off. Petrie recalled that Bruce Barget had worked "just about all summer" before returning to school, performing the same kind of work as did Petrie, moving and filling tanks and loading trucks. In addition, Bruce Barget cut the grass and picked up "stuff" around the working area. On cross-examination Petrie stated that Bruce Barget had worked at the Company for a few weeks during that summer, left and then came back. Petrie stated that Bruce Barget had worked 3 days in some weeks and on occasion a half day on Saturdays. However, Petrie testified that since Bruce Barget returned to high school no one had been assigned to work with him on the dock on a regular basis. Further, Petrie stated that he has not always had a regular helper on the dock during the summer. Company President Barget testified that his son, now age 17, had worked for the Company for the 3 years preceding the hearing herein. During 1971, following Wright's termination, Barget recalled that his son had worked for 1 week in June, had been away for the following 2 weeks, returned for 3 or 4 weeks to work on the dock and then had left with the family for a vacation before returning to school. I find, based upon Petrie's credited testimony as he corroborates Barget, that although Bruce Barget worked from time to time during the summer, the Company did not replace Wright on the dock.10 2. Larry J. Myers Larry Myers was employed by the Company as truckdriv- jer from January 18 until his discharge on May 14. Myers testified that at one time or another during his employment he drove every type of truck utilized by the Company in its operations. There was conflicting testimony as to whether, because of a weak left hand, Myers was capable of handling every run which the Company had in the delivery of various types of containers in which the propane gas is used by its customers. Barget testified that when he hired Myers he was not aware of the weak left hand. Barget sent Myers out on a tractor-trailor for a period with the former driver who reported back that although Myers could drive the truck he could not handle the industrial cylinders which were delivered on that run because of his weak hand. Barget explained that the driver is expected to use each hand to drag a cylinder and that Myers could only handle one cylinder at a time because of insufficient strength in his left 10 Company records show that to the time of the hearing herein there had been no replacement hired for Wright ti This account of the April incident is based upon a synthesis of the testimony of Myers and Barget who corroborated each other on this point 12 This conversation was testified to by Tobias, Myers, and Boudne hand. Barget testified that following this he hired Kolberg to drive the tractor-trailor. Kolberg held that job until he quit in July. Employee James A. Yerex testified that Barget had asked him to make a run with Myers to see if Myers could handle the job and that he had reported back to the company president that he thought Myers did all right. Barget testified that following his discovery of Myers' infirmity he put Myers on a run where the truck used had a powerlift in the rear to help the driver load and unload the 100-pound cylinders. Myers confirmed that he had been told by Barget he had not been assigned to the semitruck run because of Barget's concern that Myers might not be able to handle that assignment because of his defective left hand. Sometime in April, Myers spoke to Shirley Ingman about a raise and she directed him to Barget. Barget told Myers that he did not know if he could give Myers a raise "because [he was] even thinking of laying a couple of guys off." Barget and Myers discussed what other work Myers could do and Barget made at least one telephone call to another employer seeking work for Myers.ii Sometime about May I, Myers asked Ingman and Barget what the prospects were for his keeping his job in view of the coming seasonal slowdown. Both company officials advised Myers that they believed that Kolberg would be leaving the Company and that Myers would be staying.12 Tobias added to the conversation as testified to by Myers and Boudrie claiming that Ingman had said Kolberg would be leaving because of his reputation of being rough on trucks. Tobias recounted two incidents in which Kolberg had allegedly damaged company vehicles by improper handling of the equipment. Neither Boudrie nor Myers referred to such comments about Kolberg's driving abilities. At about 4 p.m. on May 14, when Myers went into the company office to pick up his paycheck, Ingman told him to see Barget. Barget gave Myers his paycheck and then laid him off saying that business had slowed down and the Company could not use his services. Myers asked why the Company did not lay off Kolberg instead since Myers had been working for several weeks longer. Myers claimed that Barget replied that Kolberg was a better driver. Barget testified that the reason he gave Myers for the layoff was an insufficient amount of work to keep the full crew working. E. The Alleged Illegality of the Terminations The consolidated complaint alleged 13 that Myers and Wright were discharged "because of their activities on behalf of, and adherence to the Union and because they engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protec- tion." The Company's knowledge of Myers' union activity is supposedly derived from the incident when, on May 13 Boudne testified that Barget had stated at that time "I think Kolberg is going to quit, so I think we will be able to keep you on." Neither Barget nor Ingman referred to this conversation during their testimony i3 Par. 10 NORTHWEST PROPANE CO., INC. 511 while Gentile was handbilling at the plant, Myers, Tobias and Kolberg left the company premises in Myers' 1967 white Mustang and after driving south on Northwestern Highway reversed direction and crossed the highway stopping on the crossover approximately 150 feet from the company office. At that time Myers blew the horn, Kolberg seated next to Myers on the passenger side of the front seat waved his hand and called to Gentile while Tobias sitting in the right hand passenger seat in the back of the car also called and waved to Gentile. Tobias and Myers testified that at that time they saw Barget standing in his office window in the Company's office building. Myers testified to an incident shortly after he was hired when he parked his car in the wrong place and Barget spoke to him about the proper area for employees to park. Thus, Barget allegedly was aware of the identity of the owner of the automobile parked on the crossover on May 13. Under all the circumstances, I do not find this evidence of company knowledge of Myers' union adherence of sufficient weight to infer that he was selected for termination because of his union activity. Accepting as a fact that Barget was standing at his window at the time that Myers' car was parked on the crossover, Barget could more clearly see that Kolberg and Tobias were waving to Gentile. While the failure of an employer to terminate all employees involved in union activity does not establish that the discharge of one was not unlawful, the evidence presented by General Counsel as to Kolberg's alleged deliquency as a driver would have served the Respondent as a basis for terminating him as well if it sought to rid itself of union adherents. All things considered, the uncontradicted testimony that the Company in years past had pared its working force at approximately the time of Myers' and Wright's terminations, the fact that Myers was not physically capable of performing as much or as satisfactory a job as other drivers, that he had been advised some time in April that his employment would not be continued through the upcoming slow business season, and that the Company did not replace him, I am impelled to find the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of establishing that Myers' discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. As to Wright, there is not a scintilla of evidence in the record which would link his selection for layoff to any union activity on his part or company suspicion of such union activity. Wright's union activity was limited to signing a card in his home the night prior to his termination and there is no evidence that Respondent knew he had done so. The evidence establishes that the Company did not replace Wright after his termination and that while Company President Barget's son did from time to time during the summer of 1971 perform the type of tasks which Wright had been employed to do, he had been similarly employed for 3 years, including 1971. Thus, the only support for a finding that Wright was terminated in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act is the timing of his termination 1 day after Gentile's appearance at the Company's premises. However, it would require a string of inferences to find that the General Counsel has sustained his burden of establishing that Wright's selection for layoff for lack of work on May 14 was tainted by unlawful motivation. F. The Discharge of Jack Tobias Jack Tobias was employed by the Respondent as a driver from 1967 until his discharge on May 25 on the grounds that he had stolen a 100-pound cylinder of propane gas from the Company. During most of his employment Tobias delivered domestic 100-pound cylinders of propane gas, installed the cylinders at the customers' premises and removed and returned the empty tanks to the Company. Domestic users use cylinders of propane gas for cooking, hot water and on occasion for heating purposes. As earlier noted, on May 13 Tobias was in the back seat of Myers' car when the vehicle was parked on the crossover on Northwestern Highway approximately 150 feet from the company office and the occupants of the car waved and called to Gentile, seeking to attract his attention, while Gentile was handbilling at the Company's premises. Myers and Tobias testified that they saw Barget standing in his office window in the office building while the car was on the crossover. At the time of his discharge Tobias resided at 7987 Detroit Boulevard, Walled Lake, Michigan, and heated his home with propane gas. As well, Tobias owned property at 7771 Detroit Boulevard which property was also a propane gas user. Both properties were customers of the Company and both received their propane gas by bulk delivery, rather than using 100-pound cylinders. Tobias testified that he paid for the gas used at his residence by a weekly deduction from his pay which had started in the fall of 1970. However, about April 1, the $25-a-week deduction was stopped. When the deductions stopped Tobias spoke to Ingman and asked that they be reinstated. However, this was not done and instead Ingman would cash Tobias' paycheck and take out $25 in cash. This latter procedure was followed for some 2 or 3 weeks. Tobias testified that on a Sunday, approximately 3 weeks before his discharge on May 25, he received a call from a neighbor of the 7771 Detroit Boulevard rental property who asked that Tobias remove some propane gas cylinders which were lying near the rear of the property line at 7771. That same day Tobias took the cylinders in his car from the rental property to his residence. Tobias stated that he found the cylinders lying just inside the back edge of the rental property, about 5 or 10 feet inside the property line. At that time there was construction going on on the property which abutted the rear of Tobias' rental property. Tobias testified that he did not know how the three cylinders had come to be on his rental property. Two of the cylinders were full and the third was almost full. Tobias recalled that one of the cylinders had the identification "Lee Cylinder," the name of the manufacturer of a cylinder. However, he could not recall if there was any such identification on the other two cylinders. He did state 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that none of the cylinders bore any identification linking them to Northwest Propane.14 Tobias testified that on the Monday after he took the three cylinders from his rental property he told Ingman that he had the cylinders at his home and she asked him to pick them up and bring them to the Company. Tobias brought two of the cylinders to the Respondent and one remained at his home. Tobias testified that the cylinder which remained at his home bore no identification linking it to the Company and that he did not know if the two he brought to the Company bore any identification because he "Never thought of it at the time." At that time Tobias was waiting for a bulk delivery of propane at his home and the tank was running out. Approximately a week and a half after his first conversa- tion with Ingman about the cylinders Tobias told her that if he did not receive the bulk delivery, he would probably have to hook up the remaining cylinder to maintain heat and hot water in his home. He testified that Ingman replied that it would be all right for him to do so. Vera Boudrie testified that on the day Tobias was discharged she had asked Shirley Ingman why Tobias was not working. Ingman replied that he had been discharged for taking gas. Boudne told Ingman that she had heard the office manager tell Tobias that he could hook up the 100- pound cylinder. Boudne testified that Ingman had okayed Tobias' hooking up the tank in his home a week or two before his discharge. Tobias had explained that he was out of gas and that there was the 100-pound cylinder at his home which he would hook up if he did not receive a delivery. Boudrie testified that Ingman replied, "Okay, Jack." Tobias testified that he hooked up the 100-pound cylinder at his home on Friday, May 21, and on Monday morning told Ingman that he had done so. Ingman asked if Tobias had written a ticket on the cylinder. Tobias replied that he had not done so and that was why he was telling her now about the disposition of the cylinder. On May 24 Tobias' timecard was in the timeclock rack and he worked as usual. However, on May 25 his timecard was missing from the rack and when Tobias asked Ingman about his card she told him to see Barget. Tobias went to Barget's office where Barget asked him to be seated and suggested that they talk. After an exchange in which Barget talked about how well he had done by the employees and a compliment from Barget about Tobias' work, Tobias told the company president, "wait, we are not kids. What is this all about?" Barget then told Tobias that he was fired. Tobias asked why and Barget replied because Tobias had stolen gas. Tobias denied the accusation and Barget said that it was a 100-pound cylinder which was in question. Tobias claimed that the Company was discharging him 14 There was considerable testimony concerning identification of the cylinders used in the Company's operations It would appear that the majority of the cylinders bore the Company' s name in letters indented into the metal of the cylinder Others, owned by the Company, had the cylinder manufacturer's name only and there were some cylinders which the Company had purchased from other propane gas companies and might or might not have the name of the former owner In addition, it appears to be the practice in the industry for propane companies to use cylinders which come into their possession from time to time although owned by other propane companies Thus, the fact that a cylinder does or does not bear the Company's name does not definitively disclose whether the gas in that because of "the Union business," which Barget denied. As far as the cylinder of gas was concerned, Tobias told Barget Ingman had known that it was at his home. Barget said that he did not know about this and would call Ingman in. When Barget asked Ingman if Tobias had told her that the cylinders were on his property, she denied that Tobias had ever so advised her. Tobias then reminded her that he had told her some weeks before about the cylinders but Ingman insisted that she could not recall such a conversation. After some further discussion about Tobias' work and the fact that his honesty had never been questioned before, Tobias called his wife to pick him up and his employment was terminated. Tobias testified that the discharge interview was the first occasion in which he had any conversation with Barget concerning the cylinder hooked up at his home. Barget testified that during the morning of Friday, May 21, he was driving to a local country club on a road which passed approximately 20 to 30 feet behind Tobias' home. As he passed the house, Barget glanced over his shoulder and saw that Tobias was using a 100-pound cylinder of propane gas rather than gas out of the 500-gallon bulk tank. Barget then determined to take a picture of the 100- pound cylinder because he felt that if he confronted Tobias about the cylinder it would disappear because Barget was sure that Tobias knew he was doing something that he should not be doing. At this point, Barget was asked: Q. You must have had problems with him before. A. Nothing that I can pinpoint. Suspicions, but nothing definite. Barget testified that he was driving home to obtain a camera when, approximately 4 miles from Tobias' home, he ran into a friend who had a camera in his car. The friend returned to Tobias' home with Barget and took the picture of the 100-pound cylinder in use at Tobias' home.15 Barget testified that he then returned to the Company's premises, told Ingman what had happened and asked her to check with Tobias about the cylinder when he returned from his route. Barget testified that Tobias told Ingman he had obtained the cylinder from a neighbor who had given it to him or had called Tobias and told him about the cylinders at a construction site. Barget testified that he then entered the conversation whereupon Tobias changed his story to say that the contractor or the superintendent on the construction site had given him the cylinders. Barget stated that at that point he had to take Tobias' word but on Monday morning he called Buchannon, the contractor, and asked if they had given the cylinders to Tobias. According to Barget, the contractor replied, "They were returned to the Trenton Plant." 16 After obtaining this information from Buchannon, Barget called his lawyer to cylinder came from the Respondent 15 The picture, allegedly taken on Friday morning, May 21. was not introduced in evidence by the Respondent 16 Barget has a second propane plant in Trenton, Michigan, which carves on the same business operations as Northwest Propane Barget explained that the Trenton plant services Buchannon, "when they build down south " The construction site behind Tobias' rental property is approximately 30 to 35 miles north of Trenton However, Barget claimed that Buchannon had picked up these cylinders at the Northwest Propane plant NORTHWEST PROPANE CO., INC. 513 see whether he should fire Tobias or let him get away with it because of the "labor problems." On Tuesday, May 25, Barget called Tobias to his office and confronted Tobias with the issue of the 100-pound cylinder. Barget asked Tobias why he had-not made a pickup ticket on the cylinder and Tobias just shrugged and said "Tough." Barget stated that at one point in the conversation Tobias stated that he could probably get a letter from the contractor saying that Tobias had permis- sion to pick up the tanks. However, Barget stated that he had never seen such a letter. Barget then fired Tobias stating that the discharge was because Tobias had not made out the pickup ticket and because of the "so-called stealing of the gas in the 100 pound cylinder." Barget noted that other employees had been fired for dishonesty. Shirley Ingman testified that she had her first conversa- tion with Tobias concerning the 100-pound cylinder on May 21. Tobias asked if he could get a load of gas and she said that because he owed a lot of money for gas she would have to clear a delivery with Barget. Ingman advised Tobias to check with Barget about a delivery.17 In this conversation, Ingman asked Tobias if he had a cylinder or more than one cylinder attached to his tank and told him that she did not have a pickup ticket on those cylinders. Ingman testified that on May 25 she was called in on the conversation in Barget's office between Tobias and Barget. Barget asked Ingman what she knew about the tanks and she replied that she knew nothing about them and had no ticket or record in the files. However, Tobias claimed that Ingman did know about the cylinders and that employee Ellerholtz had overheard Tobias telling Ingman about them.is Barget asked Tobias where he had obtained the cylinders, noting that Tobias had first said he had gotten them from a neighbor and then claimed that a contractor had given them to him. Tobias replied that he had picked up the cylinders 2 or 3 weeks before from the contractor. Ingman testified that Tobias offered to call his wife and check on the date when he had obtained the cylinders but when Barget offered the phone to Tobias to make the call Tobias would not do so. Barget then said he would not put up with stealing and discharged Tobias. As with Larry Myers, General Counsel relies on the May 13 incident when Tobias was in Myers' car parked on the crossover some 150 feet from the company office to establish company knowledge of Tobias' union activity. As noted, both Myers and Tobias testified that Barget was standing in his office window with a full view of the incident at the time. While I have found that the circumstances surrounding Myers' discharge do not justify an inference of illegality in his case, the circumstances of Tobias' discharge are sufficiently different from that of Myers to warrant such an inference and to conclude that Tobias was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Thus, Tobias was an employee of longstanding whereas Myers had been added to the working force at the height of the Company's business activities in the winter of 1971. Further, whereas the Company did not replace Myers, a replacement for Tobias was hired on June 1. Additionally, Myers had been notified some time before his termination that the probabilities were that the Company would have no further use for his services when its operations tapered off. Moreover, Myers' and Wright's terminations came on May 14 the day after Gentile's appearance at the Company's premises when the Company had no way of knowing whether the Union's efforts had been successful. By Barget's own admission he knew that the Union had filed its petition for election prior to Tobias' discharge. The final distinction between Myers' case and that of Tobias is the fact that the Company's reason for Tobias' discharge does not stand scrutiny. Thus, Boudrie, who I found to be a credible witness, corroborated Tobias' testimony that some time before his discharge he had advised Ingman that he had the cylinder in question at his premises, that he would be forced to connect the cylinder to his heating system and that Ingman had approved this course of action on his part. Thus, the Company's claim that it first learned the cylinders were at Tobias' home by the fortuitous coincidence of Barget's passing the rear of Tobias' property on May 21 does not conform with the credited evidence. The Company's failure to introduce into evidence the photograph which Barget assertedly took of the cylinder at Tobias' home on May 21 is incomprehensi- ble in the light of Barget's testimony that he took the picture because of his feeling that Tobias would deny the presence of the cylinder at the premises and because of certain undefined suspicions about Tobias' conduct. As earlier noted, I do not credit Ingman and Barget unless they are corroborated by a credited witness. In the case of Tobias' discharge it was Tobias' version of the events which was corroborated rather than that offered by the Company's witnesses. Accordingly, I find that Tobias' discharge was for his union activity, not because he stole gas from the Company, and in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. G. The Discharge of Vera Boudrie Vera Boudne last worked for the Company on June 7 after some 4 or 5 years of employment. Boudrie was hired as a bookkeeper and included among her work assign- ments was handling the cash register, waiting on custom- ers, answering the telephone and filing. On May 14, the day following Gentile's handbilling at the Company's premises, Boudrie had a conversation with driver James A. Yerex in the back room of the office building, which conversation General Counsel cites as an incident from which the Company derived knowledge of Boudrie's union sympathies. Yerex testified that the conversation took place at the timeclock, located approxi- mately 15 feet from the door leading from the backroom into the working office area where Ingman is located. When Yerex told Boudne that employees had signed union cards the night before, Boudrie asked "why didn't you tell me about it so I could go down with you?" Yerex recalled that his reply was to the effect that he had forgotten to inform her or that the Union was just for the drivers. Yerex could not recall whether the door leading from the 17 The Respondent did not introduce any company records to indicate that Tobias did in fact owe money at that point for gas which had been delivered to him i8 Ellerholtz is no longer employed by the Company 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD backroom to the offices was open or closed at the time. Boudrie testified that during her conversation with Yerex she spoke in a voice which was "a little lower" than the volume with which she testified . Examination of the transcript of this proceeding reveals that at four points Boudne was asked to speak up so that persons in the hearing room, including the Trial Examiner , seated 3 to 10 feet from where Boudrie was sitting while she was testifying could hear her answers to questions. Under the circumstances , including the distance from the office door to where Yerex and Boudne had their conversation and the poor carrying quality of Boudrie's voice, I do not find that an inference is warranted that any person located in the separate office area could have overheard the conversation and that the Company could have derived knowledge of Boudrie's union sympathies from this incident. As noted in the discussion of Tobias' discharge, on the day that Tobias was discharged Boudrie remarked that she had heard Ingman tell Tobias that he could hook up the 100-pound cylinder of propane gas to his home . Boudrie testified that after her comment to Ingman , Ingman went directly to Barget's office. Boudrie's statement to Ingman undermined the Company's stated reason for Tobias' discharge. On June 7, Boudrie went to Company President Barget's office to ask "How come I was being mistreated like I was." Boudrie explained that for the several weeks -preceding June 7, Ingman had followed her whenever she went to the restroom or even to get a drink of water. Boudne asked Barget why this was happening. Barget replied that Ingman was following her because Boudrie was talking to employees about the Union, going out to the trucks and talking to the men about the Teamsters. Boudrie replied that she didn't care about the Union and all she wanted was fairness in the place. Boudrie then asked Barget if Ingman wanted her out and Barget replied that Ingman did, explaining that one reason was Boudrie's talking about the Union . When Boudrie said that she didn't know what she was to do as she needed a job , Barget offered Boudrie a number of days off with pay to look for a new job. The following day, June 8, Boudne did not report for work at Northwest Propane and commenced her search for a new job . Boudne has not worked for the Respondent since June 7. Barget's version of this conversation was that Boudrie came to his office to talk about how she was being treated. Barget told her that he had criticized her for a year or two because she was always behind on the books and she needed Ingman to help her finish the month 's figures. Barget complained to Boudrie that she disrupted the office, had "thrown" work back, that it was hard for the office employees to.work in peace, that there was bickering and that therefore "I have to cease your employment." Barget claimed that Boudne said she would return to her former occupation as a beautician and that he gave her some days off with pay to look for a new job as well as telling her to take her vacation at that time. Barget recalled saying to Boudrie that "I definitely had to make a change in the office. . . Barget claimed that in approximately February 1971 he had spoken to Boudne about the time she took in posting figures in her bookkeeping work , had told her that she should look for work closer to her home since she was not happy at the Company and was not doing the work that Barget expected from a bookkeeper . Barget stated that at that time Boudne cried and Ingman tried to calm her down. Barget testified that he did not discharge Boudrie in February because she was having 'money problems with her family, he felt sorry for her and - therefore he just insisted that she keep up her work on the Company's books. However, he testified that there was never any improvement in her work and the bookkeeping tasks were never finished on time. Barget testified that this deficiency in Boudrie's work had been "for a good year" or "possibly a year and a half." Shirley Ingman, as well as Barget, sought to paint a picture of Boudrie as a totally unsatisfactory employee. Thus, Ingman testified that when Boudne was hired she stated that she had taken a night course in typing. Boudrie was not tested on her typing or on the bookkeeping machine before she was put to work. Ingman claimed that Boudne, despite her claim of typing ability, would not do any typing until a new bookkeeping machine with a typewriter built into the equipment was installed and she was forced to do some typing in connection with her bookkeeping duties. As well, Ingman stated that when Boudrie was first employed she was good in her handling of phone conversations with customers but that as time went on Ingman had to keep Boudrie away from the telephone because "she was too caustic with customers." Barget and Ingman cited one complaint from a customer about a conversation that Boudrie had had on the telephone with the customer's wife. Barget, however, admitted that he had had no direct conversation relating to this customer's complaint about Boudrie and Ingman stated that she had heard only Boudne 's side of the conversation in question in which Boudne had asked the customer to pay a bill. Ingman admitted that she did not know what the customer had said to Boudrie. Ingman testified that in February when Barget had complained to Boudrie about her work saying that he would not put up with it any longer , Ingman had taken Boudne home with her that night because Boudrie was in "very, very sad shape after that." Boudrie asked Ingman to intercede with Barget on her behalf and Ingman agreed to do so. However, Ingman testified that she did not talk to Barget about Boudrie's work. As with Barget, Ingman testified that Boudrie could not keep up with her bookkeeping duties and claimed that this had been true throughout Boudrie 's employment. Thus, the picture which Ingman and Barget paint of Boudne would warrant her having been discharged at any time during the 4 or 5 years she worked for the Company. However, she was retained for all of that time despite these alleged deficiencies on her part. The question then arises what was the turmng point which impelled the Company to dispense with Boudne's services on June 7 . Based upon my observation of the witnesses while testifying, I credit NORTHWEST PROPANE CO., INC. 515 Boudrie's version of her June 7 conversation with Compa- ny President Barget19 and find that the Company was aware of Boudne's sympathies for the Union and her talking about the Union with the drivers, and that the decision to dispense with her services was based upon her sympathy for and sponsoring of the Union rather than her claimed deficiencies over the entire course of her employ- ment. Accordingly, I find that the Company discharged Vera Boudrie on June 7 in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. H. Independent Violations of Section 8(a)(1) Leonard Petrie and Vera Boudrie testified to an incident in the latter part of May which occurred while Petrie was standing at Shirley Ingman's desk in the Company's office. Petrie recalled that Ingman stated that if the Union got in the Company would have to lock up the gates. Boudrie testified that Ingman added, "If the Union got in here Mr. Barget may close this place up, and then who's going to feed your six kids?" The only conversation that Ingman recalled having had concerning the Union in which Petrie was involved took place in the backroom of the office building after the Board notice concerning the representation petition had been posted. At the time Boudrie and Petrie were at the coffeepot reading the notice. Boudrie said something which lead Ingman to think that Boudne believed she was affected by the posted notice and Ingman said, "Vera, we are not affected by that. That's the Teamsters. The truck drivers." Ingman stated that she then walked away from Boudne and Petrie. I found Petrie and Boudrie to be credible witnesses and as earlier noted, based upon my observation of her while testifying, I would not credit Ingman except where she is corroborated by a credited witness. Accordingly, I find that as testified to by Petrie and Boudrie, Ingman stated that the Union could lead to the closing of the Company with adverse affects on Petne's ability to support his family. I shall recommend a remedial order to correct this coercive statement. Further, I find that in his conversation with Boudrie on June 7 Company President Barget admitted that the Company had been conducting surveillance of Boudrie's activities because of her sympathy and talking for the Union and that this surveillance constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations de- scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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 engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent unlawfully dis- charged Jack Tobias and Vera Boudne, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer to the employees named immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of Respondent's unlawful conduct. Backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will also be recommended, in view of the nature of the unfair labor practices in which the Respondent engaged,20 that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Northwest Propane Co., Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 614, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in certain described conduct referred to here and above, in section III, F and G, hereof, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By engaging in conduct described in section III, E and F, hereof, Respondent discriminated against Jack Tobias and Vera Boudrie in regard to the terms and conditions of their employment, in order to discourage activities protected by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent has not committed other unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I, hereby issue the following recommended: 21 19 In connection with that conversation I note the juxtaposition of Ingman's surveillance of Boudrle's activities with Boudrie giving the lie to Ingman's claim that she first learned of the 100-pound cylinder at Tobias' home on May 21 by her comment that she had overheard Ingman's approval of Tobias' using that gas some 2 or 3 weeks before 20 See N LR.B v Entwistle Mfg Co, 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A 4) 21 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, (Continued) 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER The Respondent, Northwest Propane Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership and activities in Local 614, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Respondent's employees in order to discourage member- ship. (b) Threatening employees that the Company would close if the Union was successful in organizing its employees or conducting surveillance of the union activi- ties of its employees. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Jack Tobias and Vera Boudrie immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of their discharge in the manner set forth in The Remedy section hereof. (b) Notify immediately the above-named individuals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 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 22 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by 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 read "Posted pursuant of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. (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 recommended Order. (d) Post at its Farmington, Michigan, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 22 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, 'after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.23 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not found herein. to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 23 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." NORTHWEST PROPANE CO., INC. gppENoIx A 2r, 3 S• TLp.K RAMP 0 COnl6 • v LOAp/NG. 4 8L.. r N •l ^ O I-STORY CoNc. 13LpCi 8- sN 0 Ee^ % MGr4i - iTORA66 ry a eo N METAL RooF 517 rxa- 76 7-- 7/ s0•yS o i 14 ^ yo 79. 9s O 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX B NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten employees that the Company will close if the Union organizes our employees. WE WILL NOT spy on the union activities of our employees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with the rights of our employees under the law to engage in union activity or other concerted activity or to refrain from such activity or force them to give up any of their rights under the law. WE WILL offer to Jack Tobias and Vera Boudrie immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniori- ty or other rights and privileges. WE WILL make Jack Tobias and Vera Boudrie whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them with interest at 6 percent added thereto. You are all free to become or remain members of Local 614, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, or to refrain from doing so, and we won't punish you in any way if you do. Dated By NORTHWEST PROPANE Co., INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) We will notify immediately the above-named individuals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. 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 other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.