J. P. Chnapko, Inc.

252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD J. P. Chnapko, Inc. and Amalgamated Local Union 355. Case 22-CA-4638 March 7, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On April 13, 1972, Administrative Law Judge i Ivar H. Peterson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and an answering brief, and the Respondent filed an answering letter in lieu of an answering brief to the cross-exceptions. On June 23, 1972, the Board remanded the case to the Administrative Law Judge to make further findings concerning matters raised by the General Counsel in his cross-exceptions, and to make certain resolutions of credibility. On November 1, 1972, the Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Supplemental Decision in this proceeding. Thereaf- ter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief to the Supplemental Decision. 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 Administrative Law Judge's Decisions in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and conclusions of the Adminis- trative Law Judge,3 but not his Conclusions of Law, Remedy, recommended Order, or Notice to Employ- ees, instead of which the Board substitutes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 4. By coercively interrogating employees and threatening them with closure of the plant in the event the Union came in, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By denying overtime work to Kleinschmidt and Szabo because of their union activity, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 6. By promising De Jewski benefits to discourage union activity, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain conduct prohibited by Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, we shall order the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and take specific affirmative action, as set forth below, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondent having discriminatorily dis- charged employees Harry Kleinschmidt, Atilo Szabo, and Elsa De Jewski, we shall order it to offer them full reinstatement (except De Jewski), with backpay computed on a quarterly basis, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, from the date of the discharge to the date reinstatement is offered. In the case of De Jewski, backpay stops as of November 10 when she was offered reinstatement and declined. Having also found that Kleinschmidt and Szabo had been denied overtime work for discriminatory reasons, we shall order that they be made whole for any losses in pay or other benefits sustained as a result of such denial computed as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Harry Kleinschmidt and Atilo Szabo on October 20, 1971, and Elsa De Jewski on October 22, 1971, because of their support of the Union, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. i The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law Judge" effective August 19, 1972 2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, J. P. Chnapko, Inc., Newark, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting Amalgamated Local Union 355, or any other union. convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C A 3). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 3 Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record in this case , including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties 202 NLRB No. 39 J. P. CHNAPKO, INC. 253 (b) Coercively interrogating or threatening any employee about union support or union activities. (c) Denying overtime work to employees because of their union activity. (d) Promising benefits to employees to discourage union activity. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which we find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Harry_ Kleinschmidt and Atilo Szabo reinstatement to their former jobs or, if the jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them and Elsa De Jewski whole in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Make Kleinschmidt and Szabo whole for any losses in pay sustained as a result of their denial to work overtime as provided in "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its premises in Fairfield, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaf- ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able 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 22, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 4 In the event that this 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 to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a full trial in which all parties had the opportunity to present their evidence, it has been decided that we, J. P. Chnapko, Inc., violated the law and we have been ordered to post this notice. We intend to carry out the Order of the Board, the judgment of any court, and abide by the following: WE WILL offer Harry Kleinschmidt and Atila Szabo full reinstatement, and pay them and Elsa De Jewski for the earnings they lost as a result of their discharge, plus 6 percent interest. WE WILL make whole Kleinschmidt and Szabo for any losses in pay or other benefits sustained as a result of their denial to work overtime, plus 6 percent interest. WE WILL NOT discharge or discriminate against any employee for supporting Amalgamated Local Union 355, or any other union. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees about their union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees because of their union or concerted activities. WE WILL NOT deny overtime work to employees because of their union activity. WE WILL NOT promise benefits to employees to discourage union activity. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and engage in other concert- ed activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right is affected by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. All of our employees are free to become and remain members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, or to refrain from doing so. J. P. CHNAPKO, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) We will notify immediately the above-named indi- viduals, 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 compli- 254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Building, 16th Floor, 970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-2100. respectively, president and general manager of the Respon- dent. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE IVAR H. PETERSON, Trial Examiner: This case was tried in Newark, New Jersey, on February 10, 14, 15, 16, and 17, 1972. The amended complaint was issued on December 27 on charges filed by Amalgamated Local Umon 355, herein called the Umon, on December 10, 1971 (the original charge was filed on October 22). Briefly stated, the amended complaint alleged that Respondent, on October 20, closed its body shop and discharged two employees, because of their concerted activities on behalf of the Union, that in consequence the employees engaged in an unfair labor practice strike beginning October 21 and ending on November 23, that Elsa De Jewski was terminated because her husband was on strike, and that in other respects the Respondent unlawfully interfered with employee rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, all in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. In its answer, the Respondent denied the allegations in the complaint concerning unfair labor practices regarding the closing of the body shop, and alleged that this was done "for a strictly business reason unrelated to any union activities or any rights guaranteed to its employees under Section 7" of the Act; stated that the Respondent "was economically justified in closing its body shop"; that the decision to close the shop "was made prior to any request for representation by its employees and/or the Charging Party"; and that the decision "was justified for reasons of safety and the well being of its employees." The Respon- dent's motion to dismiss the complaint is denied. Upon the entire record in the case, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and consideration of the brief filed by counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondent on March 27, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Respondent, an automobile dealer, maintains its principal office and place of business in Fairfield, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the retail sale and service of automobiles, principally Mercedes-Benz, Admittedly, its annual gross revenue exceeds $500,000 and during the same period its ships and transports products valued in excess of $50,000 from its place of business to States other than the State of New Jersey, and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 which are transported directly from States other than New Jersey. It is admittedly, and I find, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union, I find, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. At all times material, Joseph Chnapko and Al Scialo, were, On October 13, Frank D'Isa, a business agent for the Union, had a conversation by telephone with Harry Kleinschmidt, one of the two employees in the Respon- dent's body shop. Arrangements were made for a meeting with the employees on October 18. At 5 p.m. on Monday, October 18, 13 employees met with D'Isa and another organizer at a lunchroom. One employee had to leave before the meeting closed, but the other 12 signed union cards on that occasion. The following morning, at about 9:30, D'Isa visited the body shop and there obtained seven additional cards from a mechanic, Robert Frusciano. About an hour later, D'Isa spoke to two service writers, Thomas and Riedenger, in a lockerroom upstairs in the service area. Later in the day, D'Isa, accompanied by another organizer, Mr. Gola, went to Scialo's office and, with the union cards in his hand, told Scialo that he represented the service department employ- ees for purposes of collective bargaining. D'Isa informed Scialo that the Union represented two other shops in the immediate area and that they had "found having a union wasn't the end of the world, that the employer still maintained certain rights." During the course of the conversation, Scialo paged Service Manager Zola and when he arrived, Scialo, whom D'Isa said was "very choked and very red faced," asked Zola whether he knew that his shop had gone union. D'Isa and the other organizers then left and D'Isa stated that he would be back at 2 o'clock. They then proceeded into the shop and, in a brief meeting with employees, related what had happened. Scialo came over and told D'Isa to stop "wasting our men's time." At about 2 o'clock, D'Isa returned to the showroom and a few minutes later he was told that Scialo was on the telephone and wished to speak to him. Scialo told him that the Company had employed an attorney and that he should get in touch with him. He took the attorney's name and telephone number and called him, but the attorney said to call back in half an hour. D'Isa then went back into the shop and "told the fellows what had taken place, and that I would be back, be in touch with them." He then left. As he was in the process of leaving Scialo and another gentleman came by and D'Isa was told that he should not "hang around the place, to get out." About a half hour later he called the attorney and advised him that the Union normally would go out on strike if they did not obtain recognition. The attorney asked that the Union not do so until he had a chance to speak with Mr. Chnapko. He thought that he would not be able to do so until Friday. On Tuesday, D'Isa spoke to Kleinschmidt and informed him of this conversation with the attorney. The following day, Wednesday, he called the attorney at about 3 o'clock, and informed him that one of the body shop employees had been called into the office and "given some heat by Chnapko." He told the attorney that he understood they had an agreement that there would be a truce until Friday. On Thursday morning, October 21, before work, D'Isa met with about 15 employees in the parking lot. By that time, J. P. CHNAPKO, INC. the Union had been informed of the discharge of Szabo and Kleinschmidt. The employees voted to go on strike in protest of this action. When the strike started on October 21, there were 20 or 21 of the approximately 26 total complement on the picket line. Kleinschmidt testified that on October 19 he was paged on the intercom and directed to report to Chnapko' s office. Present were Chnapko, Scialo, and Zola. According to Kleinschmidt, Chnapko stated that he thought Klein- schmidt was his friend and asked, "What is this with the Union coming in here?" Kleinschmidt replied that all the employees wanted the Union and Chnapko then inquired if he had signed a card. He replied in the affirmative and Chnapko asked him why he had done so. In response, Kleinschmidt stated that things in the shop were getting worse instead of better. Thereupon, Kleinschmidt testified, Chnapko stated that there would be no more overtime and the body shop would close at 4:30, whereas customarily the employees worked until 8 p.m. The three representatives of the Respondent denied that this incident had occurred. According to Chnapko, he was not even at the Fairfield location that Tuesday or the preceding day; however, he later testified that he had not said that he was absent from the shop on Tuesday and then later stated that he had been present on Monday as well. Scialo testified that he had talked to D'Isa just before he (Scialo) left for an auction and that he did not return until 2 p.m. Scialo further related that Chnapko had telephoned him a few minutes before he left for the auction and informed him that D'Isa had been there. Scialo also stated that Chnapko called him back a half hour later and gave him the name of the lawyer whom the Respondent would consult with regard to D'Isa's claim that the Union represented the service shop employees. Szabo stated that when Scialo asked him on Tuesday, October 19, if he had signed a union card, which Szabo acknowledged having done, Scialo told him that this was not "too good" for Szabo. Scialo denied that this conversation occurred. Both Kleinschmidt and Szabo testified that at about 4:25 p.m. on October 19, Scialo directed them to stop work, although as noted, they usually worked until approximate- ly 8 p.m. Scialo denied so informing the employees and stated that they could work until midnight and make "the same money." However, he later conceded that by working more hours the employees would make more money.' Kleinschmidt complained to D'Isa about this matter and in consequence D'Isa telephoned the Respondent's attorney the following afternoon and told him that one of the employees of the body shop "was given some heat by Chnapko." About an hour after D'Isa's telephone conver- sation with O'Connell, the attorney, Chnapko came into the body shop waving his arms wildly and shouted to Kleinschmidt that he could gather up his tools and "get out." Kleinschmidt inquired why and Chnapko responded that he did not have to tell him and told him in an obscene manner that he did not have to tell him a thing. Moreover, Chnapko stated in a loud voice that he was closing "this 1 The employees in the body shop worked on piece rates with a minimum guarantee. Y The initial bid had been submitted under date of January 29 and it stated that the price for the rehabilitation would be $23,290. Under date of June 4, a representative of the insurance underwriter wrote to the insurance 255 body shop forever." As he was proceeding to leave the body shop he told Szabo "and you too." Service Manager Zola, pursuant to Chnapko's order, stationed himself in the body shop for some 30 or more minutes watching while Kleinschmidt packed his tools. Chnapko's account is that he told Kleinschmidt that because of the faults found by the state inspector and the price increase made by the building and general contrac- tor, it was no longer profitable to keep the body shop going and, accordingly, it would be closed down.2 Scialo told him that a Porsche-Audi dealer named Shulman was looking for a bodyman and that if Scialo found a job for him he would call Szabo. However, he never did call. Chnapko and Scialo both stated that Chnapko called a controller of Shulman during the course of the earlier discussion in the body shop in order to find jobs for Kleinschmidt and Szabo. In further justification for the closedown of the body shop, Service Manager Zola and General Manager Scialo testified that "comeback" caused by faulty work in the body shop averaged about 10 to 17 percent of all the work performed in the shop. However, an analysis of the financial statements (Charging Party's Exh. 1 and 2) discloses that a figure of 3 percent is more accurate. Late in November, Chnapko invited Kleinschmidt and Szabo to his home and discussed with them the prospects of their doing bodywork for the Respondent on an individual contractual basis or as employees of another company. The Termination of Elsa De Jewski When the service employees struck on October 21, Jurgen De Jewski, a foreman, was among those picketing the plant. Mrs. De Jewski, who worked as a bookkeeper, testified that on that day Chnapko told her that he did not want to lose her husband as he was a capable worker, that he disliked seeing him on the picket line while she was in the office, and suggested that she talk to her husband and tell him that he should come to the office the following day. In addition, she testified that Chnapko told her that if her husband did not come to the office the following day he (Chnapko) would have to let her go. She further testified that he repeated this several times to make sure that she understood him and then added that if her husband did come in the following day she would get a raise and her husband would get a pension at age 60. At approximately 5 p.m., so she testified, she asked Chnapko if he desired that she come to work the following day, October 22, in order "to finish the books" even if her husband did not wish to come to the office. According to Mrs. De Jewski, Chnapko consulted Scialo and she was then advised that this arrangement would be all right. Chnapko and Scialo testified that Mrs. De Jewski told them that she could not work for the Respondent while her husband was picketing. She did, in fact, work on October 22, although the picket line was still there. She was offered reinstatement to her job agency handling.Chnapko's account, acknowledging receipt of a proposal for a new building with approved sprinkler baths . It should be noted that the state inspector was not scheduled to visit the shop until mid-1973, and had last visited the plant in May 1971. 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on November 10. However, she chose not to return to work. Concluding Findings There is no dispute that Kleinschmidt arranged for a meeting of the Respondent's service employees for Mon- day evening, October 18, at which 12 employees executed authorization cards for the Union. The following morning an additional seven cards were handed to Union Repre- sentative D'Isa in the body shop. Nor is there any doubt that the Respondent was aware of this activity on the morning of October 19, when D'Isa informed General Manager Scialo that the Union had authorization cards from a majority of the employees in the service depart- ment. On the following day, October 20, Kleinschmidt and Szabo were terminated and informed by Chnapko that the body shop was closed "forever." I think there can be little doubt, upon the foregoing facts, that the termination of the two body shop employees and the closedown of the shop were discriminatorily motivated. On the other hand, the Respondent argues that Chnap- ko, during the weekend preceding October 20, had decided that the body shop was not making sufficient money and in consequence concluded that he would close it down. A close examination of the testimony of Chnapko and the accountant, Nassaur, plainly indicates that the asserted basis for closing the body shop was an afterthought. Thus, Chnapko told Klemschmidt that the body shop was being closed because of a visit by a state inspector (which had occurred some 6 months previously), and because of a price increase in the cost of erecting a separate body shop (of which he had been notified some 5 months earlier). Richard Ilg, controller of Shulmans, testified that about the middle of October he had conversations with Chnapko in which the latter stated he was closing his body shop and was trying to find positions for the two body shop men. He added that Szabo applied for a job sometime before the strike began at the Respondent's plant. The Respondent's Defense In substance, the Respondent contends that it had decided to close down the body shop 1 or 2 days before the employees signed union cards on October 18. There is no dispute that for something more than 5 years the body shop facility in Fairfield was unsatisfactory and that for about a year the Respondent had considered erecting a separate building to house the body shop. Despite the inadequacies in the body shop, Chnapko felt that it created good will with customers. It is undisputed that, after each of the previous visits by the state inspector, Kleinschmidt reported the violations found to Chnapko, but the latter replied in obscene terms that he would pay no attention to the inspector. While Service Manager Zola testified that the body shop was not producing any revenue, the Respondent's accountant testified that net profit for the body shop in 1970 was 24 percent of gross earnings and for the year 1971 the figure was 21 percent. It will also be recalled that less than a month before the closedown the Respondent received a blueprint for a separate building to house the body shop. According to Chnapko, he and his accountant, Joseph Nassaur, on October 16 engaged in a half-hour discussion about applications that had been filed to fill the bookkeep- er's job. He was unable to recall if they discussed the closing down of the body shop. On the other hand, Nassaur testified that he discussed the bookkeeper applica- tions with General Manager Scialo at the plant and later talked with Chnapko at the latter's house about the body shop closedown. According to him, Chnapko had the financial statements for the year 1970 and September 1971 with him, whereas Chnapko testified that Nassaur fur- nished the statements. Nassaur subsequently testified that the monthly statements are normally prepared by the end of the following month, from which it would appear that it is doubtful whether the statement for September 1971 was available to them on October 16. According to Nassaur, he and Chnapko discussed percentages of profit, whereas it is Chnapko's testimony that they did not discuss percentages. At one point Nassaur testified that Chnapko was not definitely committed to closing the body shop. In Nas- saur's view, the net profit figures of the body shop were out of line and did not reflect certain insurance costs which should properly be attributed to the body shop. The basis for this conclusion rested on discussions he had had with Chnapko's brother-in-law, Mr. Beyer, some 9 months earlier. Under date of May 20, 1971, the W. G. Beyer Insurance Agency, which is operated by Beyer, received a letter from Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company, the insurance underwriter, concerning the Chnapko property, as follows: We have found it necessary to have frequent inspec- tions on this property due to the type of operation and its location, which is in an area where the public protection is not adequate. For some time, it has been indicated that a paint spray booth was in the planning, but apparently this idea has been abandoned for the moment. Because of the numerous recommendations developed on our last inspection, we feel the risk does not measure up to our underwriting standards for this type of occupancy. However, with compliance of recommendations and a guaranteed assurance that an adequate spray booth will be provided within the next 45 days, we can consider remaining on this risk. Otherwise we will find it necessary to ask for the return of our policy for cancellation or direct notice of cancellation will be released on July 6, 1971. We hope the insured will be receptive to these conditions. Again under date of October 14, Lumbermen's Mutual wrote as follows to the Beyer Agency: In April of this year after numerous inspections, you were advised that consideration be given to compliance of essential recommendations that were submitted to the insured. The body shop area which is not cut off did not have adequate paint spray booths and operations should be corrected. It does not appear that any corrective measures have been taken to date and unless you can assure us that J. P. CHNAPKO, INC. some action will be taken, we will find it necessary to ask that this coverage be replaced or we will send direct notice of cancellation. We hope this will not be necessary. We would appreciate hearing from you within the next 30 days. It should be noted that the Respondent did not submit any specific figures respecting additional insurance cost to be charged against the body shop and it is admitted that the premiums for fire insurance coverages to be allocated to the body shop are fixed and that it might take some 6 or 7 months from the date of the hearing to have these charges adjusted based upon the shutdown of the body shop.3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discharging Harry Kleinschmidt and Atilo Szabo on October 20, 1971, and Elsa De Jewski on October 22, 1971, because of their support of the Union, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By coercively interrogating employees and threaten- ing them with closure of the plant in the event the Union came in, the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. THE REMEDY In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find it necessary that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from like or related invasions of the employees' Section 7 rights, and to take certain affirmative action. The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged employees Harry Kleinschmidt, Atilo Szabo, and Elsa De Jewski, I find it necessary that it be ordered to offer them full reinstatement (except Mrs. De Jewski), with backpay computed on a quarterly basis, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 and Isis Plumbing & 'Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, from the date of the discharge to the date reinstate- ment is offered. In the case of Mrs. De Jewski, backpay stops as of November 10, when she was offered reinstate- ment and declined. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] 3 Nassaur, the accountant, produced photostatic copies of billing statements used by his firm and stated that part of the handwriting thereon was his and part of it was that of a bookkeeper in his office Later in the hearing, the originals were produced and then Nassaur testified that on his own personal timesheet he inserted, sometime in October, a reference to the discussions with Chnapko on October 16, concerning applications for the bookkeeper's position and the body shop closedown, however, he admitted that two employees in his office in transferring those notes onto other documents noted that the discussions pertained only to job applications, and he then testified that he added the reference to the body shop operations in mid-November SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION IVAR H . PETERSON, Administrative Law Judge : On April 13, 1972, I issued my Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, exceptions were filed by the Respondent as well as by the General Counsel. Under date of June 23, the Board remanded the matter to me to make further findings and additional resolutions of credibility . By reason of some 257 inadvertence, the Board's order remanding was not brought to my attention until very recently. In its Order remanding, the Board stated that "the General Counsel, in his exceptions, takes issue with the failure of the Trial Examiner to make additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to recommend an appropriate remedy in regard to the allegation raised in the complaint that the Respondent unlawfully reduced the overtime of Harry Kleinschmidt and Atilo Szabo and made unlawful promises of benefits to employee Elsa De Jewski." The Board went on to state that while it was of the opinion "that the Trial Examiner's Decision has adequate- ly summarized the testimony and evidentiary conflicts contained in the record, he has not sufficiently evaluated the evidence and made the necessary credibility findings to support his conclusions of law and recommended remedy. Moreover, certain issues raised by the General Counsel's exceptions regarding allegations in the complaint not ruled upon cannot be fully resolved without further findings and credibility resolutions." Accordingly, the Board stated that by reason of "these omissions in the Decision" it felt constrained to remand the matter to me for "preparation of a Supplemental Decision containing resolutions of the above issues." The language of the Board's Order puzzles me some- what. I have carefully reviewed my Decision in this case and note, firstly, that in my recommended Order I stated that the Respondent and its officials should cease and desist from "Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting Amalgamated Local Union 355, or any other union," secondly, cease and desist from "Coercively interrogating or threatening any employ- ee about union support or union activities" and, thirdly, "In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act." After reviewing my Decision and the supporting findings of fact, I am somewhat at a loss to understand the basis for the General Counsel's exceptions. Assuming, arguendo, that I should have made "additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to recommend an appropriate remedy in regard to the allegation raised in the complaint that the Respondent unlawfully reduced the overtime of Harry Kleinschmidt and Atilo Szabo and made unlawful promises of benefits to employee Elsa De Jewski," I note that in my recommended Order I provided that the Respondent and its representatives should, among other things, cease and desist from in "any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act." Affirmatively, I recommended that the Respondent make whole the employees found to have been discriminated against. In the section of my Decision entitled "The Remedy," I provided that the Respondent offer reinstate- ment to Harry Kleinschmdt and Atilo Szabo, but that as to Mrs. De Jewski there would be no backpay awarded her subsequent to March 10 "when she was offered reinstate- ment and declined." In compliance with the remand, I have reviewed the record again and, consistent with the conclusions previous- ly made and the remedy recommended, my evaluation of the testimony and my judgment of the relative credibility 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of witnesses is that General Counsel's witnesses are to be credited and, to the extent the witnesses presented by the Respondent contradict General Counsel's witnesses, they are not to be believed. In my view, the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses is consistent with the objective facts. Moreover, as I pointed out in my Decision, Chnapko and his accountant, Nassaur, differed in their testimony regarding the meeting of October 16, 1971, at which the closing of the body shop was discussed. Upon the entire record, I find as a fact and conclude as a matter of law that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by reducing the overtime of Klein- schmidt and Szabo on October 19,197 1, and that it should make them whole for that action . Moreover, I also find as a fact and conclude as a matter of law that the Respondent unlawfully promised benefits to De Jewski if her husband would cease picketing and return to work. [Amendments to recommended Order omitted from publication.]