Farmers Grain Elevator

564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thomas Mezger, d/b/a Farmers Grain Elevator and James Rodriguez. Case 20-CA-10929 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE October 21, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On July 21, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Roger B. Holmes issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support of the Deci- sion of the Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs 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 Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Thomas Mezger, d/b/a Farmers Grain Elevator, Dufour, California, his agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule 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 are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings 2 Respondent in its exceptions requests that the Board find Billy G Reyn- olds was an independent contractor while cleaning seed, and in support thereto now seeks to introduce new evidence into the record in the form of a letter from a division of the California Department of Industrial Rela- tions In view of the fact that Respondent does not contend that such evi- dence is newly discovered or that it was unavailable at the time of the hearing, the Respondent's motion to reopen the hearing is denied Wisconsin Rubber Products Co, Inc, 160 NLRB 166, 167 (1966). In any event the record evidence fully supports a finding that Reynolds at the time in issue was an hourly paid unit employee and his discharge was a violation of Sec 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act ROGER B. HOLMES, Administrative Law Judge: The origi- nal charge in this case was filed on December 22, 1975, by James Rodriguez, herein called Rodriguez, and a first amended charge was filed on February 3, 1976, by Rodri- guez. The complaint was issued on February 10, 1976, on behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela- tions Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Di- rector for Region 20 of the Board. The complaint alleges that Thomas Mezger, d/b/a Farmers Grain Elevator, here- in called the Respondent, has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. ' The Respondent filed an answer to the complaint and denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. The hearing was held before me on April 29 and 30, 1976, at Sacramento, California. Briefs were timely filed by June 4, 1976, by the General Counsel and by the Respon- dent and have been duly considered. Upon the entire record and based upon my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: I FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Thomas Mezger, d/b/a Farmers Grain Elevator, has been at all time material herein a sole proprietorship with places of business located at Woodland, DuFour, and Ar- buckle, California, where Respondent has been engaged in feed and grain processing. During the past year, the Respondent has made sales and provided services valued in excess of $50,000 to firms, each of which firms in turn made sales or purchases of $50,000 or more directly to or from customers located out- side the State of California. Upon these admitted facts, I find that the Respondent has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It was stipulated that Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Help- ers, Local 150, of the International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of .the Act. i The General Counsel has moved to correct the transcript Without op- position, the General Counsel's motion is hereby granted 226 NLRB No. 93 FARMERS GRAIN ELEVATOR 565 III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The principal issues presented in this case are: 1. Whether the Respondent constructively discharged Billy G. Reynolds on or about December 5, 1975, because of his union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, or whether Reynolds voluntarily quit his em- ployment. 2. Whether the Respondent reduced the working hours of James E. Rodriguez on and after November 6, 1975, and laid Rodriguez off from work on or about January 23, 1976, because of his union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, or whether the Respondent took such actions for economic reasons due to a lack of work. 3. Whether the Respondent in November and Decem- ber 1975 interrogated employees about their union activi- ties; made threats of reprisals; made promises of benefit; or withdrew the offer of a bonus because of employees' union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. B. The Background Union activity among the employees at Respondent's DuFour, California, facility began around July 1975. Billy G. Reynolds, James E. Rodriguez, Thomas W. Patten, and Ralph Robles began to talk among themselves about hav- ing a union to represent them. They were employees at that time at the DuFour facility where the Respondent receives and stores grain, processes and cleans seed, and processes feed for cattle. The grains involved are wheat, barley, and oats. About the first of October 1975, Reynolds contacted a representative of Teamsters Local 150 from whom Reyn- olds obtained union authorization cards. Reynolds distrib- uted the cards among the employees at DuFour and four employees out of the five employees working there at that point in time signed union cards. Three of the cards were authenticated and introduced in evidence at the hearing. Patten's union card indicates that he signed the card on October 12, 1975, and the union cards of Reynolds and Rodriguez reflect that they were signed on October 13, 1975. A card which bears Robles' name was identified, but not introduced in evidence. On November 4, 1975, Reynolds telephoned another representative of the Union, Tony Santos, and asked for his help since the first union representative was busy. San- tos promised Reynolds that he would be over the next day. The following day, November 5, Santos arrived at the DuFour facility about 10:40 a.m. and spoke with Thomas Mezger, who is the sole owner of Farmers Grain Elevator, and with Mark Mezger, who is one of the four sons of Thomas Mezger and who is a' supervisor? Santos told them that the Union represented^the employees and asked if they would like to see the authorization cards. Santos showed the cards to them and they looked at each card one-by-one. 2 Another son of Thomas Mezger is Dan Mezger who supervises the Re- spondent's facility at Arbuckle, California, which is approximately 20 miles north of the DuFour facility. Thomas Mezger said, "I can't believe they want to be union." Santos stated that he would like for Thomas Mez- ger to recognize the Union, but that if Thomas Mezger did not recognize the Union, Santos would file a petition with the Board. Santos then left. He estimated that the conver- sation lasted about 10 minutes. Two petitions seeking a representation election among the DuFour employees were filed on November 12, 1975, with Region 20 of the Board. One petition in Case 20-RM- 1920 was filed by the Respondent and another petition in Case 20-RC-13202 was filed by the Union. Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, a Board-conducted election was held on Friday, December 5, 1975, between 11 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. at DuFour. Of the five eligible voters in the election three cast ballots for the Union, and one cast a ballot against the Union. Rodriguez served as the election observer for the Union. On Decem- ber 15, 1975, the Regional Director of Region 20, on behalf of the Board, issued a certification of representative to the Union as the representative of the employees in the follow- ing described bargaining unit: All warehousemen, forklift drivers and scoop driv- ers at the Employer's Yolo County, California, facili- ty; excluding all other employees, including office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act .4 At the time of the hearing on April 29 and 30, 1976, a collective-bargaining agreement had not been reached by the Respondent and the Union. C. The Events in Early November On the same day that Union Representative Santos showed the union authorization cards to Thomas Mezger and Mark Mezger, there were two conversations between Thomas Mezger and employee Patten at the DuFour facili- ty.' The first occurred sometime between 11 a.m. and noontime. Thomas Mezger approached Patten at work and told Patten that he understood that Patten was dissatisfied with his job and Mezger wanted Patten to look for work elsewhere. Patten asked if Mezger wanted him to leave then and Mezger replied "no." Patten asked who had told Mezger that Patten was dissatisfied with his job. Mezger replied, "Actually, nobody told me. I assumed this. I think you've been talked into something I'm not going for." Mezger then left and Patten resumed his work. About an hour later, Thomas Mezger returned to where Patten was working and told him that he had discussed the matter with his son, Mark, and it was a poor time of the year to look for another job. Mezger said that they were going to keep Patten on at work so he could support his family. Mezger added that if he was going to be letting 3 This account is based on the testimony of former union representative Santos regarding his visit on November 5 to the DuFour facility 4 The foregoing findings regarding the representation proceedings are based upon documentary evidence and stipulation of the parties. For clanfi- cation, it should be noted that DuFour is located within Yolo County 5 Patten was not an employee of the Respondent at the time of the hear- ing He had worked for the Respondent from May IS, 1974, to March 17, 1976, when he voluntarily quit work to accept another job The following is based on his testimony 566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD anybody go, it was going to be someone other than Patten. Then Mezger asked Patten if the Union had ever given him advances on his wages and Patten said "no." Mezger next asked Patten if the Union had ever made work for him to keep him busy so Patten could support his family. Patten replied "no." Mezger asked if the Union had ever lent him any money and Patten again replied in-the negative.6 The following day Thomas Mezger told Patten that the starting time was 7 a.m. and that he did not want Patten to punch in before that time. Patten explained at the hearing that 7 a.m. was the normal starting time, but he had in the past been able to punch in 15 or 20 minutes early. He also testified that several times during the winter months he had gone to work as early as 5 a.m. In his opinion, Thomas and Mark Mezger were not as friendly towards Patten as be- fore, but his working conditions did not change, and he felt that he worked hours consistent with the needs of the mill which he was operating. Thomas Mezger denied that he ever told Patten to go look for work elsewhere or commented to Patten later that he and Mark Mezger had decided to keep Patten on at work. Mezger pointed out at the hearing that he had known that Patten was a teamster when he hired Patten, but that made no difference to him. Mezger acknowledged that he had made a loan of $400 to Patten at Patten's re- quest in order to purchase another car. The first knowledge of Mezger that there was any union activity at the facility occurred when Santos handed the cards to him according to Mezger. Mezger stated that on that particular day, "I asked each one of them if they want- ed a union to represent them and they said yes." According to Mezger, that was the end of the conversation he had with the employees whom he talked with singly. He denied that he made any other statements to employees that day. He denied that he made any statement about terminating employees on that day, or at any later time, except that he might have talked about a layoff sometime prior to that time due to a reduction in cattle feeding. In choosing between these two versions, I have decided to accept Patten's version as the more accurate and com- plete account. Patten was not employed by the Respondent at the time that he, gave this testimony. He had voluntarily left Respondent's employment and the record does not dis- close any acrimony in his leaving. He is not an alleged discriminatee in this case and the record does not disclose that he is biased or prejudiced against, the Respondent. Furthermore, Patten's testimony fits in with a pattern of other events which occurred on and after November 5, 1975, and which, will be discussed later. Based on this anal- ysis, I have decided to credit Patten's testimony throughout this proceeding. The day following the visit by Santos to the DuFour facility, Thomas Mezger showed Santos' business card to employee Billy Reynolds and said, "A friend of yours was by." Reynolds only responded with "Good." On November 5, 1975, Thomas Mezger had a brief con- versation with employee Rodriguez. According to Rodri- 6 At some point in time, Patten had asked Thomas Mezger for a loan of $400 in order to buy another car Mezger loaned the money to Patten who repaid it. guez, Mezger showed him the business card of Tony Santos and told Rodriguez that this person had come there. Rodri- guez looked at the card and gave it back to Mezger with the comment "Okay." Rodriguez said that the following day the Respondent hired a new employee, Jesus Berarra, and on the same day reduced his working hours. He said Berarra worked at the company about a week. He also said that after Santos' visit to the Respondent's facility that his working hours were reduced to 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. or 2 p.m. from that time until his layoff from work on January 23, 1976. He,had previ- ously worked 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., 5 p.m., or 6 p.m. and had worked overtime hours "almost every payday" between August and November 1975. Also, Rodriguez said that his job duties were changed by Thomas and Mark Mezger at that time so that from then on he was ". . . just sweeping, standing by the pit, and hoeing; that's all." He did not observe any other employees having to leave work earlier than he did, nor did he see any employees having to leave work at the same early time that he did .7 'Mark Mezger gave the reason for reducing the hours worked by Rodriguez as "lack of work." However, he add- ed that after Rodriguez' return to the DuFour facility from Respondent's Arbuckle facility that: "I could see a definite change, not only in his work, but his attitude, kind of like a chip on his shoulder, no interest, mad at something." Mark Mezger asserted that his brother also told of Rodriguez' change in attitude around July 1975. Thomas Mezger testified that: "Prior to August 1975, 1 considered Jimmy Rodriguez a son. After August, 1975, I was disgusted with Jimmy Rodriguez's attitude." In Mezger's opinion it was an attitude of indifference, but also one of belligerence when Mezger had called to Rodri- guez' attention the fact that Rodriguez had left the screw conveyor plugged in. According to Mezger, Rodriguez re- plied, "If you don't like my work, why don't you fire me." Mezger acknowledged that other employees had left the screw conveyor running in the past and that the cost for the electricity was minimal in this situation. Nevertheless, Mezger lost confidence in Rodriguez and became con- cerned about the possibility that Rodriguez might mix the different types of grains. Mezger explained at the hearing that if wheat grain was mixed into barley grain, or vice versa, the value of the product would be reduced greatly. However, Mezger candidly stated, "You are always con- cerned, certainly" about any employee making a mistake and mixing the grains. Mezger said that his son, Dan, had told him of a change in Rodriguez' attitude as early as May 1975 and that his son,' Mark, had done so in October 1975.8 7 Rodriguez had worked for the Mezgers as far back as 1969 when he performed yard work for them In the summer of 1972, he began working at the DuFour warehouse and continued to do so after school hours In June 1973, he began working approximately 40 hours a week and, although he returned to school in the fall of 1973, he continued to work 'at DuFour in the afternoons and evenings In January 1975 he began working full-time dur- ing the days For the period from about May 1975 to August 1975, Rodri- guez worked under Dan Mezger at the Arbuckle warehouse. He received an extra 25 cents an hour there for gasoline so that his rate of pay was in- creased to $3 25, but his hourly rate was reduced to $3 an hour when he returned to DuFour in August 1975 From that time until his layoff, he worked at the DuFour facility 8 Dan Mezger did not testify at the hearing FARMERS GRAIN ELEVATOR In contrast to the testimony given by Thomas and Mark Mezger, Rodriguez testified that Dan Mezger was pleased with his work at the Arbuckle facility where he had worked from May to August 1975. Rodriguez said that Dan Mez- ger told him on four or five occasions: "About how good of work I did for them that year, and everything. It was the first year he ever had so good-me helping him out that year." Rodriguez also said that Dan Mezger had told him that "someday I'd become foreman at Arbuckle's ware- house." Because Rodnguez' wife needed his car, Dan Mez- ger gave rides to Rodriguez to and from work at the Ar- buckle warehouse. Rodriguez said that he admitted to Thomas Mezger that he had left the auger plugged in and that he would not do it again. He said that he, Reynolds, Patten, and Robles had previously left the auger plugged in during prior years. Rodriguez said that it was after that conversation about the auger being plugged in and about November 12, 1975, that Thomas Mezger told him that he could not trust Rodriguez anymore. Rodriguez later returned to talk with Thomas Mezger and told him, "If I wasn't doing your work, why don't you lay me off a long time ago; if you can't trust me anymore." In weighing the foregoing testimony, I have decided to credit Rodriguez' testimony. His testimony concerning Dan Merger's complimentary remarks about his work at Arbuckle stands undenied. That testimony contradicts the reports from Dan Mezger which were testified to by Thom- as and Mark Mezger. Leaving the screw conveyor plugged in had occurred several times before, and while that mis- take is not to be overlooked, it would not seem to signal such a complete change in Rodriguez' attitude as testified to by Thomas and Mark Mezger. No other incidents were specified and the concern about mixing the grains is a con- tinuing serious concern applicable to all employees. Based on the foregoing analysis, I have decided to credit Rodri- guez' testimony. D. The Events in Mid-November About November 12, 1975, which was a week after Union Representative Santos' visit to the DuFour facility, there was a conversation between Mark Mezger and em- ployee Patten at an elevator where grain was being loaded on a truck. Patten testified that Mark Mezger asked him, "I just wanted to know some of your reasons for wanting to go union." Patten replied that all of them could use more money and discussed Rodriguez and Reynolds. Patten said that Mark Mezger responded: "He told me what went on between him and James Rodriguez was his business and none of mine. And as far as Bill Reynolds was concerned, he was making money hand over fist, across the street." Then Mezger asked Patten if the Union had ever lent any money to Patten or advanced wages to Patten. Patten re- plied "no." Then Mezger asked if the Union had ever lent him money interest free and Patten again responded "no." Mark Mezger did not specifically contradict the fore- going although when asked about any discussion concern- ing the Union, he mentioned only one time 3 or 4 days prior to the election among his father, himself, Reynolds, and Patten. That conversation will be discussed later. He 567 denied making any threats to employees about their union activities or making any promises of benefit. For the rea- sons previously stated, I credit the testimony given by Pat- ten. In mid-November 1975 there also was a conversation between Mark Mezger and Reynolds at the seed cleaning plant which is about 100 yards across the road from the main building at DuFour. Mark Mezger told Reynolds, "That he had been trying to hold his tongue but he would like to know why I signed the card to have the Union represent us-or me, I should say." Reynolds told Mezger, "That there were several things that were eating me: That he was a friend of mine, except when it came to paying me a living wage during the winter; and when it came to pay- ing medical bills that I felt was his." 9 Mark Mezger asked Reynolds who was responsible for the Union and Reynolds answered, "That he was talking to the one who started it." Mezger told Reynolds that he was making good money and was foolish; "That what I was really getting involved in was protecting a Mexican who was incompetent to han- dle his job and an idiot." Reynolds also testified: "He said after he had paid for James' baby being born, that he thought he was an ungrateful little son-of-a-bitch for sign- ing the card; that he had treated him just like a brother." During this same conversation Mark Mezger told Reyn- olds that Patten would be on welfare if it was not for the job which the Company gave him. Reynolds further stated that Mezger told him that he and his brother, Dan, had talked that day about giving Reynolds a $500 bonus "and that now I could get my bonus from the Union." At the hearing Reynolds explained that a bonus had previously been mentioned to him about June or July 1975, "assuming I finished the season and be there quite a while longer." He said that he had never previously received a bonus from the Respondent. Mark Mezger denied the remark attributed to him by Reynolds regarding getting his bonus from the Union. He said that a $500 bonus for Reynolds had been discussed in September or October 1975 on the condition that Reynolds finish out the seed cleaning season. He said that he had not discussed the matter with his father, but that he had dis- cussed it with his brother. After considering all of the testimony of. Reynolds and Mark Mezger and the entire record, I have decided to ac- cept the testimony of Reynolds as the credible account of the foregoing and subsequent events. Especially the De- cember 5, 1975, incident which will be detailed later reveals a sharp contrast between the account given by Reynolds and that given by Mark Mezger. My analysis of the De- cember 5 incident is that Reynolds gave the believable ac- count of the confrontation which caused him to quit work that day. Mezger's account of that same incident is im- probable when viewed in the context of the Union's elec- 9 That had reference to the accident which occurred in the summer of 1975 involving one of the two teenage sons of Reynolds while they were working for a few days at the Respondent's facility doing cleanup work Reynolds took his injured son to the hospital and told them that he had been hurt in a farm accident, which was not true, and I have considered that and weighed it in reaching a credible determination with respect to Reyn- olds Reynolds gave no explanation at the hearing for his statement to the hospital. 568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion victory a few minutes earlier and in view of the fact that Reynolds was performing a task which was part of his duties. I have found Reynolds' testimony with regard to the December 5 incident to be the credible one. Therefore, I have decided to credit his testimony as to other matters also, including the foregoing conversation just described. On November 14, 1975, Thomas Mezger gave a warning letter to Rodriguez which reads as follows: To Jim Rodriguez: For the past three or four months, there has been a great deterioration in the quality of your work. At first I thought it might be a temporary thing and there would be a noticable change for the better. There has been no improvement and finally I felt I had to men- tion it to you. I discussed this with you on November 12, 1975. Your attitude at that time leaves me no alter- native but to inform you that if there is not an imme- diate improvement in your work, you will be dis- charged without further notice. FARMERS GRAIN ELEVATOR THOMAS MEZGER Rodriguez testified that none of the things in the letter were true. He said that his attitude towards his work had not changed, nor had there been any slacking off in his work.' As previously indicated, I have found Rodriguez' earlier testimony credible and I find this to be also. While the Respondent claimed that Rodriguez' attitude had changed and his work deteriorated, nevertheless Thomas Mezgei was still willing to call Rodriguez back to work after Rodriguez was laid off on January 23, 1976. Thomas Mezger testified that he told Rodriguez on that occasion, "That we had run out of work for him and I would call him back if and when worked picked up." Thus, Rodriguez was not laid off or discharged for a poor attitude or poor work, notwithstanding the other testimony from the Respondent about his attitude and work. E. The Events in Late November and Early December In late November or early December 1975, there was a conversation between Thomas Mezger and Reynolds in Mezger's pickup truck. According to Reynolds, Mezger told him that "the Union was a bunch of grafters. To look at Tony Santos' car he was driving." Mezger continued by saying that the Union was not to their benefit; that the Union was not going to help them "because any man who voted for that Union would not be there six months after all was settled; and it would be settled in six months." Thomas Mezger denied that he made any threat to ter- minate employees. For the reasons previously stated, I have found Reynolds' testimony to be credible as to other matters and I will accept it here also. About the last of November or the first of December 1975, Reynolds received a two-page letter from the Re- spondent. The letter dealt with several matters under the headings: "Why is this Union so interested in getting into our firm?"; "What would the Union be able to do?"; "What about job security?"; "Will anyone know how you vote?"; and "What about strikes." The letter from the com- pany caused Reynolds to compose a letter in response. He had his mother-in-law type the letter four times because of some typographical errors and -because there was no car- bon paper at his house. He selected one typed copy and put it in an envelope addressed to Tom Mezger and he said he placed the proper postage, on it for ordinary mail. Reyn Olds then placed the envelope in his own. mail box in front of his house. He lives on a rural route and, according to Reynolds, he customarily sends as well as receives mail at his own mail box. There is an issue as to whether Reynolds' letter was ever received by the Respondent who asserts that it was not received. At my request both the General Counsel and the Respondent's attorney researched the California law on this issue and argued the matter in their respective briefs. Both have cited California Evidence Code Section 641 which provides that a letter which has been correctly ad- dressed and properly mailed is presumed to have been re- ceived' in the ordinary course of business. I find that the Respondent's attorney's argument is persuasive that sec- tion 641 creates a rebuttable presumption-and not a con- clusive one-which could be overcome by affirmative testi- mony that the letter was not received. The General Counsel had subpenaed the original of the letter from Re- spondent and Respondent was unable to produce it. Re- spondent's attorney asserted on the record that the letter had not been seen before the day of the hearing when a copy was tendered and he objected to the receipt of the copy in evidence, inter aha, on the grounds that it was not received by the Respondent. In these circumstances and considering the manner in which the letter was "mailed" by Reynolds by putting the letter m- his own mail box in front of his house, and further considering the total ab- sence of any mention of Reynolds letter by the Respondent to him or anyone else, I view the evidence as insufficient to show proof of receipt of the letter by-the Respondent. In early December 1975, there was a conversation among Thomas Mezger, Mark Mezger, Reynolds, and Pat- ten at the DuFour office where employees punch the time- clock. According to Patten, Thomas Mezger explained that he did not want a union so he would be able to maintain his prices on selling feed and seed at a reasonable cost. He asked Patten how he felt about the Union coming in and Patten responded that he did not know whether they could do better with Mezger or the Union. Mezger replied, "I'm sure you can" and told him that after the Union was voted out, they would be able to sit down and-negotiate "and reach an agreement within 30 minutes to an hour that we would not be able to reach with the Union in six months to a year." Patten continued by testifying that Mezger told them that Rodriguez had earlier demanded to see the books to see what kind of money Bill Reynolds was,mak- ing across the street. Either Thomas or Mark Mezger said that if the facility went union, Rodriguez would be trans- ferring across the street where there was more' overtime. Reynolds spoke up and said that he knew that. Mezger also said that Rodriguez was supposed to have turned in his uncle Sammy to the Immigration Service and that his uncle Sammy had gone to jail because of that.10 According to 10 At the hearing Rodriguez denied having done so FARMERS GRAIN ELEVATOR Patten, Thomas Mezger also told them they could have a raise and a health and welfare plan, and "After the Union was voted out we would be able to sit down and discuss and reach an agreement." Patten asked if Rodriguez would be able to sit at the negotiation table with them "and-that's when he told us no matter which way the voting went, Jimmy was going down the road." Reynolds also testified with regard to that conversation. He said that Thomas Mezger told them that Mezger knew the union election was coming up and that he did not see why reasonable men could not sit down and discuss their problems without having a third party involved. According to Reynolds, Mezger also mentioned that Mark Mezger did not have a health insurance policy at the mill and that he thought health insurance was a good thing; that on Mon- day they would sit down and talk out their differences after the union election was over. Thomas Mezger told them that Reynolds knew how much money was in the business and, what did they think was reasonable. Mark Mezger brought in some papers showing the wage rates at another company's warehouse. Reynolds responded that his broth- er-in-law worked at a rice mill where the starting wage rate was $5 an hour. Thomas Mezger said, "This was not a rice mill. If I wanted to work at a rice mill, why didn't I go there and go to work." Reynolds responded that he liked his job where he was. Then Mezger said that Reynolds had made a tremendous amount of money this year; asked if Reynolds could estimate his earnings, and commented that with the $500 bonus Reynolds would make quite a tremen- dous amount of income for 1 year. Mezger said that on the Monday following the election that they could sit down and discuss all of their differences on wages and that he felt a health and welfare plan was a good idea. Then Patten asked if Rodriguez or any others were going to be in on the discussion on the following Monday. According to Reyn- olds, Mezger told them: "He said that Mexican was fired no matter how the election came out." Mezger also told them that Rodriguez had reported his own uncle to the immigration authorities and that Rodriguez had demanded to see the books to see how much money Reynolds had made. Later that same day, Reynolds told Thomas and Mark Mezger that he and Patten had talked it over and that they had decided not to go with the Union. The Mezgers made no comment. Thomas Mezger denied having made any threats or promises of benefits. He described one occasion when Reynolds and Patten voluntarily came in his office and Reynolds told him that they had "some second thoughts about the Union." Mezger said he asked Reynolds what prompted him to join the Union and Reynolds told Mezger that1e had hired someone off the street and paid him the same wages as the employees there. Mezger 'also testified that on one occasion he said to Reynolds, "Don't you think you could do as well for yourself by coming and talking to me as the Union could do for you?" Mark Mezger testified that 2 or 3 days before the elec- tion Reynolds volunteered that he had second thoughts about going union and his father asked "whatever pos. sessed him to ever want to join the Union." According to Mark Mezger, Reynolds replied that Mezger-had hired a 569 man off the street and paid him the same as the employees. Then, Thomas Mezger said, "Bill, don't you think that if you would have come to us, you could have gotten the same or done as well, than as if you had gone to the Union?" Mark Mezger also testified that the day before the elec- tion Reynolds told his father that he had decided not to vote for the Union. For the reasons already discussed, I credit the testimony of Patten and Reynolds regarding this matter. I recognize that there are minor differences between the two in relating the entire conversation which was lengthy, but I do not view those variations as significant. F. The Events on December 5, 1975 The Board-conducted election was held between 11 and 11:15 a.m. on Friday, December 5, 1975. Earlier that morning about 8 o'clock, Reynolds had the first of several conversations with Mark Mezger that day. Reynolds said that he asked Mark Mezger what was going to happen to Rodriguez if the Union was voted out. Mezger replied that he did not feel that was any of Reynolds' business. About 10 o'clock that morning Reynolds again ap- proached Mark Mezger and again asked about Rodriguez. Reynolds said he felt responsible for getting Rodriguez into this "if you have to send him down the road." Reyn- olds asked if Mezger could give the $500 bonus to Rodri- guez and Mezger told him that he did not feel this was any of Reynolds' business, "But there is one thing I want to make clear: That is not `our' little Mexican, that is `your' little Mexican." About 5 minutes after the ballots were counted in the election, Reynolds asked Mark Mezger what he would like for Reynolds to do. Mezger told him to go over to' the seed plant and clean the "dust house." ti Reynolds proceeded to the seed plant where he was in the process of emptying treated seed from a box when Mark Mezger entered the warehouse and told, him, "I thought I told you to get your f- a- down there and clean that dust house." Reynolds replied, "Okay, Mark," and went to the dust house which was about 30 or 40 feet away. When Reynolds arrived at the dust house, the fol- lowing took place according to Reynolds' testimony: Q. (By Ms. Hunt) What did he say? A. "Do you know what you are? You are a dirty son-of-a-bitch." Q. Did you answer? A. No. Q. What did you do? A. I proceeded to open the dust house. This is a latch. I just open the door and let the dust come out. i Reynolds testified that he had performed this task a half-dozen times in the past Reynolds began working in 1969 for the Respondent and contin- ued working only during the seed season from June to November or De- cember until June or July 1973 From that time on until December 5, 1975, he worked regularly for the Respondent When he was not occupied with seed cleaning, for which he was paid on a production basis, he did warehousemen's work for the Respondent. 570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Did you have any difficulty opening the latch? A. No. Q. Did Mark help you open it? A. No. Q. After you opened the door, what did you do? A. Proceeded to shovel the grain. Q. Did Mark Mezger say anything further? A. Yes. Q. What was that? A. I think his words were, "You are the most no- good bastard I have ever know." Q. Did you answer him? A. I don't believe so. Q. What did you do? A. I proceeded to shovel the dust. Q. What did Mark Mezger do? A. He left then. He rather stormed out. Q. About 10 minutes or so later, did anything hap- pen? A. Yes. Q. What was that? A. Mark returned. Q. What, if anything, did he say? A. He walked around on the' side of the box where I was shoveling. He put his face about six inches to a foot from mine-I'm not sure of the distance, but at any rate, it was right up in my face, and screamed, "You dirty bastard. You no-good son-of-a-bitch." Q. How was he standing when he screamed this? A. With his face right up to mine and his arms raised up, fists somewhat doubled; you know, an atti- tude of complete loss of temper. Q. What did you say? A. "Okay, Mark." Q. What did Mark say? 'A. "Don't `okay' me, you son-of-a-bitch. Get to work." Q. What did you say? A. "Okay, Mark." Q. What did Mark say? A. "You smart son-of-a-bitch." Q. Did you say anything? A. I said, "Okay. I give it to you, Mark. I can make out my time." Q. What did Mark Mezger say? A. "Fuck you." Q. What did you say? A. Walked across the street to where the time clock was at and punched my time clock and went home. Q. Approximately what time was that? A. About 11:30 or 11:45. Reynolds testified that he and Mark Mezger were friends and that he had never been cursed in the past by either Mark or Thomas Mezger. He estimated that Mark Mezger was 15 to 20 years younger than he was and he concluded that he had to "either leave or fight." On his State of California unemployment insurance form, Reynolds answered the question: "Why are you no longer working on your last job?" with the words: "I quit." At the hearing on his unemployment claim, he said that he had good cause to quit other than the cursing which in- cluded, inter aha, his son's medical bills resulting from the accident and the wages of his sons while they worked at the Respondent's facility. Mark Mezger gave an entirely different account of the events which occurred after the counting of the ballots in the election on December 5. According to him, the follow- mg took place when he gave Reynolds a job assignment: Q. (By Mr. Schuering) What did you tell him to do? A. I told him to go over to the seed plant and clean out the dust house. Q. Would you relate what took place following this? - A. Oh, probably 10 or 15 minutes later I went over to see if he needed any help; there was a door over there that usually had pressure on it and you needed help to open- it. I went into the seed plant and Bill was standing in a box elevated in the air, over another box, shoveling grain from one box to the other. Q. What did you do? A. I said, "Bill, we have got to get the dust house clean. Let's get it cleaned up." and I left. Q. Did he respond to that-statement? A. He said okay. Q. Then what happened. A. I came back about 10 minutes later and asked- went over to' see if he needed help with the door; he had the door 'open and he was shoveling the dust into a box.- I walked in and I turned around and started to walk out. And, he said,, "I quit; I'm not going to do this janitorial 'wo'rk." 'Q. Did you make any comment when you went walking in? A. No. Q. Did you use any obscene language toward Mr. Reynolds? A. No. Q. Did you cuss' him out? A. No. Q. Did you threaten him? A. No. Q. Were `you abusive? A. No. Q. What happened then? A. I walked out of the building; got in my car and drove down to the mill and from there I went to the office. His card was laying on the desk. He had punched out. According to Mark Mezger, Reynolds had-donejanitori- al work once or twice a week; cleaned the dust house two or three tunes a year, and had never objected before to his work. Mark Mezger said that they were friends; he knew Reynolds' wife and children and that they had a friendly working relationship at all times that Reynolds worked there. Thomas Mezger said that he spoke with Reynolds' wife about December 3, 1975, when she came to the plant and volunteered the following: FARMERS GRAIN ELEVATOR She said she had just heard of the union activities and she was disturbed by it. She didn't think the union was for the best interest of her husband. She told us she didn't want him to become involved and she was pretty sure he was going to quit any way. Thomas Mezger said that he then asked Ms. Reynolds what he was going to do and Ms. Reynolds said-that Reyn- olds had an offer for a job at a place known as "Fat City" and also he had jobs trimming trees. Reynolds denied telling anyone that he planned on quit- ting work and denied discussing with anyone the possibili- ty of going to work at "Fat City." Reynolds said that he did perform tree trimming work during the winter time to make extra money because he had 11 children. He said: "My wife was worried that I was going to lose my job over going along with this Union and my instigation of this Union. And I told her that I could find other work." After considering all of the foregoing and the entire re- cord, I credit Reynolds' testimony. As pointed out earlier, Mark Mezger's version of the events on December 5 is improbable considered in the context of the union election victory a few minutes earlier and in view of the fact that Reynolds was performing one of his assigned tasks which he had done previously without objection. Ms. Reynolds was not called as a witness to testify re- garding her conversation with Thomas Mezger and thus his account of that conversation is undenied. In view of Reyn- olds' testimony, it appears that his wife was expressing her own opinion when she indicated that she was "pretty sure" that her husband was going to quit work. At the hearing Reynolds gave the appearance of being genuinely surprised when asked about the establishment known as "Fat City" and this is reflected in the transcript. As Reynolds ex- pressed it, he was "slightly bum-fuzzled" by the question from the Respondent's attorney. In the absence of any tes- timony from Ms. Reynolds, I can only conclude that her statement to Mezger about the job offer at "Fat City" was based on her own notion or based on some misunderstand- ing by her. G. Events Subsequent to December 5 On Friday, December 19, 1975, Thomas Mezger told Rodriguez to take Christmas week off. Rodriguez was not paid for that time. He returned to work the following Mon- day, December 29, 1975, and was told to go home around noon. He was placed on vacation from Monday, January 5, 1976, to Monday, January 19, 1976. He worked the week of January 19 and was laid off from work on Friday, Janu- ary 23, 1976. Rodriguez said that he was told that ".. . work had slowed down, and he was going to lay me off until work speeded up." Patten testified that he was asked to work overtime hours on two Saturdays during November and December, but he declined to do so. He said that the employees worked close to 40 hours a week during those months, but at times 38 hours, then'45 hours. He said that Robles, Aba- los, and he worked during Christmas week and that during the period of December 1975 through February 1976, he 571 saw Robles and Abalos performing work which Rodriguez had done. Thomas Mezger testified that no new employees had been hired from the time that Rodriguez was laid off on January 23, 1976, and the time of the hearing in this pro- ceeding. He also said that no employees had been recalled from layoff-during that time. He pointed out that Patten also had quit work in that period of time. Mezger said that the business had always had a slack season during the win- ter months, but in 1975, due to the lack of cattle to be fed, the business fell off drastically starting the first part of October 1975. Mezger said with regard to the feed portion of his business: "From the first of October through Decem- ber, I'd say forty percent less than what it had been the year before." In 1973 Respondent sold 74 million pounds of cattle feed. In 1974 the total was 73 million pounds. In 1975 the total declined much further to 62 million pounds. Company records show the following for the last 3 months of the last 3 years in millions of pounds of feed: 1973 1974 1975 Oct. 6.2 8.2 4.9 Nov. 5.3 7.0 3.6 Dec. 4.9 6.2 5.1 Mezger said that the normal seed cleaning season would be from July 1 through December 15, but because of the unusually dry weather, the last seed was not delivered until February 12, 1976, which was very unusual for the Respon- dent. Although he said that business had not picked up, Thomas Mezger gave a raise of 50 cents an hour to his employees in April 1976. H. Final Conclusions In view of the foregoing credited testimony, I find that Thomas Mezger interrogated Patten on November 5, 1975, about his union feelings and activities and again interro- gated Patten and Reynolds in early December 1975 about their union activities. I also find that Mark Mezger interro- gated Patten on or about November 12, 1975, and further interrogated Reynolds in mid-November 1975 concerning their union activities. While the persons were on friendly terms, the Board has recently stated in Quemetco, Inc, a subsidiary of RSR Corporation, 223 NLRB 470 (1976): A more serious error lies in the premise that a "friendly" interrogation does not interfere with an employee's Section 7 rights. An employee is entitled to keep from his employer his views concerning unions, so that the employee may exercise a full and free choice on the point, uninfluenced by the employer's knowledge or suspicion about those views and the pos- sible reaction toward the employee that his views may stimulate in the employer. That the interrogation may be suave, courteous, and low-keyed instead of boisteri- ous, rude, and profane does not alter the case. It is the effort to ascertain the individual employee's sympa- thies by the employer, who wields economic power over that individual, which necessarily interferes with 572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or inhibits the expression by the individual of the'free choice guaranteed him by the Act. Accordingly, I find the foregoing interrogations of em- ployees violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Furthermore, the Board has held that although a union has been certified as the collective-bargaining representative of employees, a remedy for interrogation is still appropriate. Amoco Oil Company, Marketing & Transportation Division, 223 NLRB 946 (1976).- - I also find that Mark Mezger withdrew a previously of- fered bonus of $500 to Reynolds in mid-November 1975 by telling him that he could get his bonus from the Union. I find that conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In late November or early December 1975 Thomas Mez- ger threatened Reynolds that employees who voted for the Union would be discharged. I find this threat to have vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I further find that in early December Thomas Mezger promised benefits, such as a raise and a health and welfare plan, to Reynolds and Patten if the employees voted against union representation in the Board-conducted elec- tion. I find such a promise, conditioned on employees re- jection of a collective-bargaining agent, to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. With regard to Rodriguez, I conclude that the Respon- dent reduced his working hours on and after November 6, 1975, and laid him off from work on January 23, 1976, because of his union activities and, therefore, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The timing of the reduction in his hours on November 6 "is convincing evi- dence of Respondent's unlawful motive." Highlight Equip- ment Co., a Division of the Highway Equipment Company, 224 NLRB 918 (1976). In the instant case the timing of the reduction took place the very next day after the Respon- dent learned for the first time of the union organizing at its facility. The proximity of Rodriguez' protected activity and the reduction in his hours is clear. See Union Camp Corpo- ration, Building Products Div., 194 NLRB 933 (1972). In addition, the hiring of a new employee, Jesus Berarra, contemporaneous with reducing the working hours of Ro- driguez is inconsistent with the claim of lack of work. It thus appears that work which Rodriguez would have per- formed was shifted to Berarra for the short time that he was there. Patten, however, testified that he thereafter ob- served others performing work which Rodriguez had done previously and also Patten testified that he was offered overtime work on two Saturdays during November and December. He also pointed out that employees were work- ing close to the 40-hour schedule at that time, but some- times 38 hours and sometimes 45 hours. In considering the foregoing and the context of the independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) found in this case, I also find that the layoff of Rodriguez on January 23, 1976, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Since there is evidence of a decline in Respondent's feed business, it may be that Rodriguez would have been laid off at some future point, even absent any discrimination against him, although he had not been laid off in the past after he began working a regular sched- ule for Respondent. However, that is a matter for a back- pay determination in the compliance stage. On the present record" Patten observed that others performed work done by Rodriguez at least through February 1976, and, accord- ing to Thomas Mezger, the last seed was not delivered until February 12, 1976. Also, according to the credited testimo- ny of Rodriguez, his work at the Arbuckle facility was pleasing to Dan Mezger who even suggested that Rodri- guez might be a foreman there someday. Considering that fact'and his longtime relationship with-,the Mezger family and business, it appears that Rodriguez would have been retained in employment, but for his union activities, which I conclude resulted in his reduction in working hours and eventual layoff from work. With regard to Reynolds, I conclude that he quit work involuntarily because of the language and manner used by Mark Mezger towards Reynolds immediately after the Board-conducted election on December 5, 1975. Since Reynolds' leaving employment was involuntary and due to the Respondent's conduct towards him because of his union activities, I conclude that the Respondent construc- tively discharged Reynolds on December 5, 1975, in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The timing of the confrontation by Mezger which pre- cipitated Reynolds' quit is significant. It occurred just a few minutes after the Union had won the election. It seems to me that Mark Mezger said things to his friend which in calmer circumstances, he would not have said in view of their longstanding friendship. Nevertheless, considering the timing of the incident and in the context of the inde- pendent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I conclude that the Respondent constructively discharged Reynolds because of his union activities and thus violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. With regard to providing for reinstatement in "a difficult and awkward situation" where personalities have clashed the Board has recently held in Trustees of Boston University, 224 NLRB 1385 (1976): As noted by the Administrative Law Judge, the re- turn of a discriimnatee to the employ of a less than receptive employer frequently leads to a difficult and awkward situation. In this case, the apparent personal- ity conflict between Schiffer and Stephanou will not make any easier the restoration of the status quo prior to the unfair labor practices. Nonetheless, the remedi- al nature of the Act and its policy favoring reinstate- ment to a discriminatee's former position outweigh the difficulties attendant to Schiffer's returning to her for- mer job. Where, as here, the employer's provocations as well as its illegal discrimination contributed sub- stantially to creating a suspicious and tense atmo- sphere, the employer cannot allege that its own illegal actions warrant restoring a discriminatee to a Job other than his or her former one. The Board has long held that an employer can restore a discriminatee to a "substantially equivalent job" only when the discriminatee's former job is no longer available. It is a significant consideration that other employees be made aware, through the discriminatee's return to his or her former job, that their rights to engage in con- certed activity are protected by the Act. Finally, de- spite the difficulties, we believe it is incumbent upon the employer, in order to comply with our Order, and FARMERS GRAIN ELEVATOR 573 the discriminatee, in order to fulfill the legitimate job requirements of the position to which he or she is to be reinstated, to attempt to work together harmoniously and forget past animosity. 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 de- scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Thomas Mezger d/b/a Farmers Grain Elevator is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local 150, of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interrogating employees about their union sympa- thies, activities, and desires, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By withdrawing a previously offered bonus to an em- ployee because of his union activities, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By telling an employee that employees who voted for the Union in a Board-conducted election would be dis- charged, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning, of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. By promising benefits to employees, such as a raise and a health and welfare plan, conditioned upon the em- ployees' rejection of a collective-bargaining representative, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices with- in the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. By reducing the working hours of James E. Rodriguez from on and after November 6, 1975, and by laying off Rodriguez from work on or' about January 23, 1976, be- cause of his union activities, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 8. By constructively discharging Billy G. Reynolds on or about December 5, 1975, because of his union activities, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices with- in the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I, shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent unlawfully reduced the working hours of James E. Rodriguez and subsequently laid him off from work, and also constructively discharged Billy G. Reynolds, I shall recommend that the Respondent offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub- stantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their se- niority or other rights and privileges. I shall also recom- mend that the Respondent make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination against them by payment to them of sums of money equal to that which they normally would have earned as wages from the dates of the discrimination against them until said offers of reinstatement, less net earnings during such peri- od. Backpay is to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner prescribed by the Board in F W. Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and with interest thereon as prescribed by the-Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). In view of the nature of the Respondent's unfair labor practices found herein, I shall recommend that the Re- spondent cease and desist from infringing in any other manner on the rights of its employees guaranteed by Sec- tion 7 of the Act. Brom Machine and Foundry Co., 222 NLRB 74 (1976); SKRL Die Casting, Inc., 222 NLRB 85 (1976); N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941). Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu- sions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER12 Respondent Thomas Mezger, d/b/a Farmers Grain Ele- vator, Dufour, California, his agents, successors, and as- signs, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees about their union sympa- thies, activities, and desires. (b) Withdrawing a previously offered bonus to an em- ployee because of his union activities. (c) Telling employees that employees who vote for a union in a Board-conducted election would be discharged. (d) Promising benefits to employees such as a raise and a health and welfare plan, conditioned on his employees rejection of a collective-bargaining representative. (e) Reducing the working hours of employees, laying them off from work, or constructively discharging employ- ees because of their union activities. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or 12 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 574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD coercing his employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer James E. Rodriguez and Billy G. Reynolds im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi- tions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. (b) Make whole James E. Rodriguez and Billy G. Reyn- olds for any loss of earnings suffered by them as a result of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records neces- sary to analyze and compute the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its DuFour, Woodland, and Arbuckle, Cali- fornia, facilities copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- pendix." 13 Copies of the said notice, on forms to be pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by the Respondent, shall be posted by the Re- spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date, of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 13 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to present evidence, the National Labor Relations Board found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice. The Act gives employees the following rights: To organize themselves To form, join, or help unions To bargain as a group through representatives they choose To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refuse to do any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT question our employees about their union sympathies, activities, or desires. WE WILL NOT withdraw a previously offered bonus to our employees because our employees engage in activ- ities in behalf of Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local 150, of the International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT tell employees that employees who vote for a union in a Board-conducted election will be discharged. WE WILL NOT promise benefits to employees, such as a raise and a health and welfare plan, conditioned on our employees rejection of a collective-bargaining rep- resentative. WE WILL NOT reduce the working hours of our em- ployees, lay off employees from work, or constructive- ly discharge our employees because of their activities in behalf of Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local 150, of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. WE WILL offer James E. Rodriguez and Billy G. Reynolds immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL pay to James E. Rodriguez and Billy G. Reynolds the amounts of money which they lost as wages as a result of the discrimination against them together with 6-percent interest. WE WILL NOT-in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. THOMAS MEZGER d/b/a FARMERS GRAIN ELEVATOR