Ronald Moran Cadillac

RONALD MORAN CADILLAC Ronald Moran Cadillac and Glenn Litscher. Case 31-CA-3222 April 9, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On January 9, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Allen Sinsheimer, Jr., issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge 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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Ronald Moran Cadillac, Torrance, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order, substituting the at- tached notice for the Administrative Law Judge's notice. ' 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 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. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL immediately offer to reinstate Glenn Litscher, Gartward LaCour, and David Cole each to his former or substantially equivalent job without any change in seniority or other privileges he enjoyed before we discharged him and we will pay to him any money lost as the result of his discharge with interest at 6 percent. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi- 1017 nate against employees who take part in protected concerted activities. RONALD MORAN CADILLAC (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- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Building, Room 12100, 11000 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90024, Telephone 213-824-7351. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALLEN SINSHEIMER, JR., Administrative Law Judge: The above proceeding was heard October 17, 1972, at Los Angeles, California. The complaint, issued August 29, 1972, and based on a charge filed on July 18, 1972, alleges violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act by the discharge of three individuals for engaging in protected concerted activities with the purpose of collective bargaining. It also alleges violation of Section 8(a)(1) by threat of discharge of employees if they joined the Union. . Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs of the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a California corporation, engaged at Torrance, California, in the operation of an automobile dealership, has an annual gross volume in excess of $500,000 and annually purchases and receives at its place of business in Torrance, California, goods valued in excess of $50,000 from outside the State of California. Respon- dent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists,, District Lodge 202 NLRB No. 162 1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR . RELATIONS BOARD No. 94, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The" Alleged Discharges Because of Concerted Activities 1. Preliminary activities and meetings Glenn Litscher was employed by Respondent as a transmission mechanic from September 1968 to July 13, 1972; Gartward LaCour was employed as a brake and front-end mechanic from May 1969 to July 13,1972; and David Cole was employed as a heavy-duty line mechanic from November 1969 to July 13, 1972. According to Doral Longacre, the service manager and an admitted supervisor, Litscher's work was "very good. He was an excellent transmission man." Longacre added, "He's as good as I've seen, yes." Longacre said with respect to LaCour, "Mr. LaCour was a good brakeman and front end man." He testified as to Cole, "Mr. Cole's work was fairly good . . . I would say it was average." In April 1972, the Union passed out organizing literature at the.gates of Respondent's service department. Accord- ing to Litscher, he heard Doral Longacre state in the parts department "if anybody joins the Union I will fire them and if the. Union ever gets in I will quit." Litscher said he thought somebody else was present. Longacre denied making such statement. The record does not reflect any detail as to who else was present or how the statement came about and it does not appear to have been directed to Litscher. Under these circumstances, I am not finding any violation therefrom. About 2 weeks later, a meeting was held in the new car showroom at which Louis Knoll, general service manager of Respondent, spoke about the union activity, stating that the workers were old enough to make up their own minds and there would be a change in the relationship between employees and management if the Union came in. Litscher testified he took the floor and said they needed more money, that he thought the Union would be a good thing and was for it and that he asked Knoll if he were familiar with contracts in the area and Knoll replied he was. The foregoing was either not denied or in part corroborated by Knoll. Litscher testified that about the last week in June he had a conversation with Longacre who told him the Company had made application for an increase in the flat rate which would go from $10 to $11 and it had been decided the employees would get 25 cents of the dollar raise. Litscher testified further that, thereafter, he told LaCour and other employees about this discussion.- On July 12, Respondent announced there would be a service department meeting that day at 5:30 p.m. in the conference room. Shortly after 5 p.m., a number of employees met in the employees' lunchroom to discuss the raise. Litscher testified that most of the mechanics were present, naming Cole, LaCour, Bob Anderson, Paul DellaTorre, and Vic Kelly. Respondent witnesses Charles Griffitts, William Nicholson, and Larry Simpson testified they were present. Litscher testified that the 25-cent raise would reduce the employees' percentage from 45 percent to 43 percent in his case and from 43 percent to 40 percent on other employees.' According to Litscher, he, LaCour, Cole, and several others spoke and "we agreed that the 25 cents wasn't enough . . . and that the only thing we could do was let them [the Respondent] know that . . . it [the raise ] wasn't acceptable and that they would stick together." On rebuttal, Litscher further said that Anderson stated they should go in as a group and no man should go in by himself or some heads would roll; that Vic Kelly said, "I'm in. I'm with you"; and that DellaTorre also said, "I'm with you, too, and we should not go in alone. If anybody gets up and walks out, we all walk out." Cole and LaCour corroborated Litscher as to the nature of the discussion and that a number of employees indicated dissatisfaction with the increase. Cole testified that several employees suggested they should discuss it with the Company and explain they thought they should get a larger percentage. LaCour testified: "We decided that 25 cents was not enough, that we should stick together and ask for more." Litscher further testified that, immediately prior to the Employer's scheduled meeting, Longacre met them as they were coming out of the lunchroom and directed them on to the conference room. Longacre did not recall the incident and said he didn't learn about the employees' meeting until 10 o'clock the next day, when the dispatcher told him, and that this was after LaCour, Litscher, and Cole were terminated. At the 5:30 p.m. company meeting, Respon- dent announced the raise . Present were Longacre , Knoll, and Caeser Wackeen, general manager and vice president of Respondent, from management and most of the service department employees. Knoll indicated there were some problems with safety violations and then announced the change in the flat rate and the raise and stated that 25 cents was all that could be given because of wage and price controls. He then opened the floor for questions. LaCour spoke first. He said that the 5.5-percent raise was not enough, that his cost-of-living, had gone up more than 20 percent in the past 2 years. Knoll said the shop was in the red. There was some discussion about whether the flat- rate increase would hurt business. LaCour said that for the little the employees were getting, he'd just as soon pass"'up the flat-rate increase. According to LaCour, Litscher spoke and said that they had forewarning what was going .to happen at this meeting, "We had a meeting before we came up here. We have all decided that 25 cents is not enough. We decided to stick together and ask for more." LaCour testified that Knoll responded that the 25 cents was not negotiable and anybody that didn't like it was free to go. LaCour further stated that Cole directed a question about the profit sharing and asked "if .I decided to leave could I get my profit-sharing?" Wackeen answered he could not get it until he was 65 and that it would be up to the board of directors whether he could get it before then. Litscher testified that he took the floor and told Knoll that they had a meeting prior to this and that "we the employees had discussed this and that we felt it was unfair The accuracy of these figures is not material herein. RONALD MORAN CADILLAC 1019 and unacceptable. It wasn't enough." According to Litscher, Knoll said he wasn't going to discuss it any more. Litscher also testified that Cole brought up the profit- sharing plan and said. he wasn't getting a fair share of the work in his department. Litscher said that no other employee spoke at this meeting. Cole testified that he asked Knoll about the retirement and profit-sharing plan and was referred to Wackeen, whom he asked if it were true that an employee couldn't get benefits until he was 65. Wackeen said this was true. Cole also asked if he would get benefits if he left the State and Wackeen replied that it would take a special vote of the board handling the fund. Cole then asked Knoll if something could be done about the number of men in his department because there wasn't enough work for three men. According to Cole, Knoll said something would be done about it. Thereafter, the meeting ended. Knoll testified that at the company meeting on July 12, Litscher said the raise was unacceptable to "him" and LaCour said the same thing. According to Knoll, the first time he heard there had been a meeting of the men prior to the company meeting was when Longacre told him the next day. Knoll "believed" Longacre was told "by our tower operator" and that was after Litscher, LaCour, and Cole were terminated. According to Knoll, LaCour said the raise was unacceptable because. of "my cost-of-living" rather than "our cost-of-living," and that the same was true of Litscher. (Emphasis supplied) Knoll was asked whether at the meeting of July 12 Litscher prefaced his remarks with a statement that " .. . all the employees had met." He responded, "Not to my knowledge." Wackeen testified that he came to the meeting on July 12 about 5 minutes after it started, that after Knoll was through talking the subject of pensions and profit sharing was brought up by Cole and he responded thereto. Wackeen also said he did not know that the shop employees had a meeting prior to the company meeting. He was asked if he had anything to say about the subject of the increase and responded: THE WITNESS: I may have-I heard the discussion going on, and then when I took on the-talking about the profit-sharing, just before someone mentioned that-that-I-that they weren't satisfied with one program, or the raise, and I told them they were three times seven and do what their conscience, you know- [Emphasis supplied.] Wackeen was asked what preceded the reference to three times seven and testified: THE WITNESS: Well, the discuss was-sir, was that they-basically, there wasn't enough take home pay, that their taxes were too high, and I explained to them we couldn't guarantee-I mean we couldn't-taxes were beyond our control. We did not set the taxes, and we had done everything that was right, whether-you know, to insure that they received, you know, an increase as we received it. [Emphasis supplied.] He was. asked who had said that their take-home pay wasn't sufficient. Wackeen answered, "Well I think basically, LaCour and Cole." Wackeen was asked, "And they had referred to their take home pay not being sufficient?" He responded: THE WITNESS: Yes. They said their-that their taxes were out of line, and that they are making more but they weren't taking home more. Therefore, that-It's be- yond our control, I told them, that we could (not?) insure more take home pay even though they were making more money. [Emphasis supplied.] According to Wackeen, Litscher said at the meeting, "Well that he was-he says, `I'm not satisfied with the increase, the cut.' " Wackeen further testified: "That is basically it, that-the same as-that there wasn't enough take home, and it was hard living. The living conditions and the take home-they were-really weren't progressing as they-you know he felt they should take home more money." (Emphasis supplied.) Longacre; who works under Knoll, testified, with respect to whether he tried to notify the employees prior to the start of the company meeting, that he didn't recall whether he did-or did not. Longacre testified that neither Litscher nor anyone else referred to the prior meeting during the company meeting on July 12 and that he first learned of the prior meeting from the dispatcher about 10 to 10:30 a.m. on July 13 after Litscher, LaCour, and Cole had been terminated. According to Longacre, at the company meeting of July 12, Litscher "was talking about he wasn't satisfied with the wages and he said `it's not acceptable to me.' " Longacre said LaCour then said that he wasn't satisfied with the wages due to the cost of the increase of living and that LaCour "said it wasn't acceptable to him also." Employees Charles Griffitts, William Nicholson, and Larry Simpson, called by Respondent, said that they attended both the company meeting and the prior employees' meeting. Nicholson testified that Glenn Litsch- er had told employees of the meeting. Their recollection was neither detailed nor precise, but they recalled there was discussion of the increase and that , according to Nicholson, Litscher and LaCour did most of the talking at the prior employees' meeting. They also said they had not given authority to anyone to act for them. According to Respondent's witness, Service Supervisor Jack Cozy, who attended the company meeting but not the prior one, Litscher expressed his dissatisfaction with the proposed increase. He indicated that he was unhappy and that "he did not understand why we could not do better ... . Griffitts testified that Litscher was dissatisfied with the increase and also LaCour, but he could not recall just what was said. Nicholson testified that he attended both meetings, that he was happy with the raise, and that Litscher said at the company meeting that he was dissatisfied, but Nicholson couldn't recall just what Litscher, said and that the same applied to LaCour. Nicholson said Litscher stated "he" was dissatisfied rather than that "we" were dissatisfied . Simpson testified that he attended the, prior meeting but that he did not authorize anyone to act or speak for him. He was asked what LaCour said and responded, "Mostly that he was unhappy with the raise" and that Litscher said basically the same thing. On cross-examination, he was asked what LaCour and Litscher said and responded, "They felt like as if we should 1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have more money; we should get a bigger percentage." He thought Litscher said that and LaCour said basically the same thing. 2. Conclusions as to the meetings of July 12 From the foregoing it appears that there was a prior employee meeting on July 12 at which the subject of a raise was discussed and some employees took the position that they should present their views as a group. I am crediting Litscher, LaCour, and Cole in this connection both because of my observation of them and because the recollections of Respondent witnesses concerning this meeting were generally indefinite and not; precise. With respect to the company meeting of July 12, a conflict arises between the testimony of Litscher, LaCour, and Cole that Litscher stated that there had been a prior meeting, that they had decided that 25 cents was not enough, and that they'd act as a group and ask for more and the testimony of Knoll,. Wackeen, and Longacre that they knew nothing about the prior meeting until after the termination on July 13. Other Respondent witnesses, supra, were vague as to what was said. I am crediting Litscher's,LaCour's,' and Cole's affirmative recollections that Litscher made such statements against Longacre and Wackeen's essentially negative recollections and testimony. In addition, in view of the prior meeting, it is most likely that Litscher would assert such a position. I have also noted, supra, references to plural rather than singular from various witnesses, including those called by Respondent. It appears evident from the foregoing testimony and the circumstances that both Litscher and LaCour were indicating the need of the employees generally for an increase exceeding 25 cents per hour, and I so find. Cole, as set forth, brought up the subject of pensions and profit sharing following Knoll's statement that the 25 cents was all they could do and that it wasn't open to argument. Both Cole's question and his status became inextricably related to the situation arising from the company meeting of July 12 where there had been expressed employees' dissatisfaction with the wage increase. 3. The discharges of Litscher, LaCour, and Cole About 8 o'clock on July 13, Knoll and Longacre came up to Litscher who testified Knoll told him, "Glenn pack up your iron . . . you're through." Litscher said he asked if Knoll was making an example of him and that Knoll replied, "No." Litscher then asked why he was being fired. Knoll replied, according to Litscher, that it was obvious that Litscher was unhappy and had been unhappy for quite some time and also he was causing dissension among the workers in the shop. Litscher asked him for a recommenda- tion and Knoll said he would be glad to, give a recommendation, that Litscher was a good mechanic, and that he liked him as a person, but couldn't afford to have him around anymore. Knoll testified that together with Longacre he walked up to Litscher and said, "Glenn, it's obvious that you are not 2 Litscher testified credibly that, at the meeting in Knoll's office on the afternoon of July 13, Cole asked Knoll whether he was fired because of his work and Knoll replied his work was good and "that he was obviously happy. You haven't been happy here for the last year and a half," and at that point, Litscher said, "That's right; it had started about that long ago," and Knoll said, "I really can't see us going on any more." According to Knoll, he then said "I can't-we-we have a pay plan that we have to live with for probably another two years, and if you are not happy now, you are not going to be any happier in the future, and I just think it would be best for all concerned if we just parted company, because it's just not worth the .aggravation of you coming to work unhappy and me coming to work because you're unhappy." Knoll then testified that Litscher answered, "Well, you only beat me to the punch because I figured I'd only work another month and a half anyhow." Litscher denied the latter. According to Knoll, Litscher returned that afternoon along with LaCour and Cole. They wanted to talk to him. He agreed and asked Longacre to join them. Litscher basically did the talking and again wanted to know the reason why he had been let go. Knoll repeated what he said in the morning. According to him, Litscher said he didn't want to be a mechanic anyhow and that this kind of work was not cut out for him. Litscher denied making this latter statement. According to Knoll, Cole wanted to know why he had been terminated, and Knoll told him to talk to Longacre as it was his decision. Knoll said LaCour said nothing in his office. Longacre2 had spoken to LaCour about 5 minutes after Knoll and Longacre both talked to Litscher that morning. Then LaCour came and talked to Knoll shortly thereafter. Knoll said Longacre also dis- cussed Cole. Longacre indicated he was unhappy with Cole's performance including his punctuality and his idea of not working on a job until he was forced to. Knoll then testified Longacre said, " If we are going to terminate Mr. Litscher and Mr. LaCour I'd like to terminate Mr. Cole at the same time." Knoll replied, "Well, that's your decision." Knoll was asked, "What was the discussion between you and he about Litscher and LaCour?" Knoll responded, "That I felt basically that we had a pay plan we had to live with for approximately two years, and if these two men were as unhappy as they had indicated they were that they, could only become more unhappy and-and the situation would become intolerable." Knoll said that Litscher and LaCour had indicated their unhappiness at the service meeting on the evening of July 12. Knoll said that he had instituted changes in LaCour's workload so that his income had increased during the first 7 months of the year and that he felt if Cole wasn't happy with that there would be no way he could make him happy. LaCour had complained about not getting enough work twice in the past and he had instituted changes'to correct that. ' LaCour testified that about 8:10 a.m. on July 13 Longacre went up to him and told him "Gart don't start anything. As of this morning you are no longer employed at Ronald Moran. I tried to talk them out of it but they decided to let you go." LaCour asked Longacre why, but he walked away. LaCour then walked over to Knoll and unhappy too, and that he sympathized with me." According to Cole's credited testimony, Knoll said, "I know that you have been unhappy and that you feel the same way that Glenn does" RONALD MORAN CADILLAC 1021 asked him why he was fired and Knoll told him, "It's evident you're not happy. We've made changes here for you before and you're still not happy. We'd rather see you go." Longacre corroborated LaCour's version and stated LaCour was a good worker, was punctual and worked hard, but wasn't satisfied with the way some things were being done. After terminating Litscher and LaCour , Longacre went to Cole at his work station and told him to pack his tools, that he was through . According to Cole, he asked why and Longacre said these were his orders . Longacre testified that after Litscher and LaCour were terminated he discussed with Knoll the idea of terminating Cole. Knoll left the decision to him. He said he didn't tell Knoll the reasons but, as set forth supra, Knoll said that Longacre wanted to terminate Cole because of his lack of punctuality and because he didn't do jobs he didn't like until forced to do so. Longacre couldn't recall when he warned Cole about his lack of punctuality . He did mention a conversation earlier in the year in which he asked Cole if he could come to work on time and Cole said he'd make an effort , which, according to Longacre , he did. Cole testified he had only been reprimanded once , as set forth, about his punctuality and that was about a year and a half before . Longacre said that Cole's work was "fairly good . .. it was average." Admittedly Litscher and LaCour were considered to be very capable workmen and Cole to be at least satisfactory. The reasons given in essense for the termination of Litscher and LaCour were that they were unhappy about the wage increase and that they had indicated dissatisfaction about other situations which Respondent had endeavored to correct and that since they were unhappy it was necessary to terminate them. In Cole's case, it appears that he was added because of Longacre 's dissatisfaction with him since Cole also indicated some unhappiness . Although his work was apparently not as good as Litscher and LaCour, it was admittedly satisfactory. Respondent has set forth no substantial grounds for Cole's termination other than an evident effort or desire to eliminate employees who had manifested dissatisfaction on July 12. All three who. so indicated such dissatisfaction at the meeting of July 12 were terminated the next day. 4. Conclusions As previously found, I have credited Litscher , LaCour, and Cole that Litscher had stated at the company meeting of July 12 that he was speaking for the employees . It is also evident and I find that LaCour's statements were in conjunction with those of Litscher, followed from the employees' meeting of July 12 and were expressed in plural terms as ' set forth , supra. Litscher's statements were sufficient to have made Respondent aware of the prior meeting. Litscher and LaCour referred , to the plural "we" and manifested the dissatisfaction of employees in addition to themselves . Litscher and LaCour were the only two who brought up the subject of raises at this July 12 meeting, and Cole was the only other person who brought up any subject. From the foregoing t conclude that Respondent had knowledge of the prior meeting before the terminations. In any event, Respondent was informed thereof and definitely .and specifically notified by Litscher that he was speaking for employees . In addition, both Litscher's and LaCour's presentations, as found, were stated in plural terms on behalf of employees . Accordingly, Litscher and LaCour were engaged in protected concerted activity . As set forth, it is virtually admitted that their terminations resulted from their protests at the July 12 meeting, which I have found to be protected concerted activity. In any case, it is also clear that the Respondent's other asserted grounds for termina- tion are without substantial evidentiary support and palpably pretextual . Accordingly, I find that Respondent, by terminating Litscher and LaCour because of their protected concerted activities , violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Cole was the third person who brought up a subject on July 12, even though a different subject, and was added to the terminations for like reasons . Hence, whether his action by itself would have been concerted , it thereby became protected concerted activity . His termination accordingly came about because of protected concerted activity, and I so find . I further find that Respondent by so terminating Cole because of his protected concerted activity thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.3 B. The Alleged Threat As previously set forth, supra, Litscher testified concern- ing an alleged statement by Longacre that if anybody joined the Union they would be fired. However, it was not clear to whom this was directed if anyone and who else was .present and it does not appear to have been directed to Litscher. Under the circumstances I find no violation. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation 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. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging Glenn Litscher, Gartward LaCour, and David Cole. - Therefore , I will recommend that Respondent offer each immediate and full reinstatement to his former job, or if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges enjoyed and make 3 See Buddies Supermarkets, Inc., 197 NLRB No. 70 ; Hugh M. Wilson Corporation, 171 NLRB 1040; and Monark Boat Company, 179 NLRB 872. 1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of his discharge by paying to him a sum of money equal to that 'which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge until the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period, with backpay and interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ' 1. 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. As found above, Respondent terminated the employ- ment of. Glenn Litscher, 'Gartward LaCour, and David Cole because they engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection and Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The unfair labor practices enumerated above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondent has not otherwise engaged in unfair labor practices. 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: ORDER4 Respondent, Ronald Moran Cadillac, Inc., its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from: 4 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, 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. i (a) Discharging its employees for engaging in protected concerted activities. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Glenn Litscher, Gartward LaCour, and David Cole immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or rights and privileges previously enjoyed and make them whole for any. loss of pay suffered as a result of their discharges by Respondent in the manner set forth above under the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, per- sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post in conspicuous places at the Company's place of business at Torrance, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent's- 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 to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 5 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 to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."