Des Moines AMC & Jeep Inc.

222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Des Moines AMC & Jeep Inc . and Lodge No. 254, International Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 18-CA-4752 December 10, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On August 30, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Thomas D. Johnston 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, Des Moines AMC & Jeep Inc., Des Moines, Iowa, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order. I Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and the brief adequately set forth the issues for our consideration Respondent in its answer filed on March 22, 1976, which was amended at the hearing, denies having violated the Act and further asserts Strock was laid off because of a downward trend of business and he was selected because he was the least productive worker in the unit. The issues involved are whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by unlawfully interrogat- ing Strock; and whether it discriminatonly discharged or laid off Strock and denied him reinstatement because of his union or protected concerted activities. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respon- dent,3 I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, an Iowa corporation, with its principal office and place of business located at Des Moines, Iowa, is engaged in the business of the retail sale and repair of automobiles. During the 12-month period ending Decem- ber 31, 1975, a representative period, Respondent's gross revenue derived in the course of its operations exceeded $500,000 and it purchased and received goods, valued in excess of $50,000, which goods were shipped to and received by it at its Des Moines, Iowa, facility directly from sources located outside the State of Iowa. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits , and I find, that Lodge No. 254, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Des Moines, Iowa, on April 15, 1976, pursuant to a charge filed on October 14, 1975,1 by Lodge No. 254, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (herein referred to as the Union), and a complaint issued on February 23, 1976. The complaint alleges that Des Moines AMC & Jeep Inc. (herein referred to as Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein referred to as the Act), by interrogating employees2 concerning their union or protected concerted activities and by discnminatonly discharging Stanley Strock and denying him reinstatement because of his union and protected activities. i All dates referred to are in 1975 unless otherwise stated 2 The General Counsel only contends that employee Stanley Strock was unlawfully interrogated 3 The Charging Party did not submit a brief 227 NLRB No. 42 A. Background Respondent is engaged in the business of the retail sale and repair of automobiles at Des Moines, Iowa. Its facilities include a body shop located on East Grand Avenue.4 - Howard Judah, who has been the proprietor since January 1975, is the president of Respondent and Dwaine May is the manager of the body shop.5 The mechanics employed by Respondent are represented by the Union. However, prior to September the body shop employees were unrepresented by any labor organization. Stanley Strock, the discnminatee, was employed in the body shop as a journeyman body and fender repairman. He along with five other employees worked under the supervi- sion of Manager May and except for several months he was employed there from 1972 until he was laid off on September 30. According to Strock's undisputed testimony he was the second employee in seniority in the body shop. 4 Prior to the first week in June, the body shop was located on Raccoon Street S Respondent admits, and I find, that President Judah and Manager May are supervisors under the Act DES MOINES AMC & JEEP INC. 223 B. The Raise Incident and Unlawful Interrogation Strock testified that at the time he was hired Manager May explained to him they were nonunion but would receive the same pay and benefits which the mechanics, who were members of the Union, were receiving. However, after failing- to receive a general pay raise on September 1, which the mechanics received, Strock stated the employees in the body shop after discussing among themselves their failure to get the raise asked Manager May about the first week in September to find out from President Judah why they did not receive it. May informed them he would and subsequently reported to them he had mentioned it to Judah who said he was thinking about it. James Sage, a working foreman in the body shop, corroborated Strock's testimony. - Manager May acknowledged Strock had asked him why they did not get a raise whereupon he had informed Strock he would ask Judah about it. After asking Judah he told Strock that Judah said he would have to think about it and did not want to make the decision then. About a -week later when May gave them the same answer Strock testified he asked May if it was all right if he himself asked Judah about the raise whereupon- May replied it - was all rights On that same day during his lunchbreak Strock went to President Judah's office and after asking him whether his word was any good he told Judah that he had promised a raise which he did not get. When Judah denied'making such a promise he told Judah that when he took over the business he had addressed the body shop and told them the Company was in the red and all pay raises were frozen but as soon as they got back in the blue everything would be as before. Strock told Judah that before they were getting the same things the mechanics got which had' been promised to them by the previous owner or president. Judah's response was he could not run the Company on sentimentality and told Strock he could only talk to department heads and not to all the employees because he did not have time for them. President` Judah acknowledged that Strock came to his office and told him he wanted to talk to him about the raises for the employees. He informed Strock that in keeping with company policy all department heads talked to him personally and discussed it and he would send the information back. Following his conversation with Judah, Strock explained to the other employees what had happened. Strock testified that later on that same day while in the lunchroom May told the employees in the body shop that President Judah had a notice on Gary Bloomquist's 7 desk to give them their pay raise but since Strock went over and bugged him he went back and tore them up. James Sage corroborated Strock's testimony concerning what May told them about the reasons they were not getting their raise. While May denied seeing Judah tear up their paychecks he did not deny making such statements attributed to him by Strock and Sage whose testimony I credit. Strock testified that after May left the lunchroom the employees discussed -the Union whereupon he informed them he would go to the union hall to find out about-their joining the Union and having it represent them. That same day Strock met with Warren Poison, who is the Union's business representative, at the union hall and received blank application forms for the employees to sign. The next day Strock stated he distributed the application forms to the employees in the body shop who all signed and returned them to him. A couple of days later the employees attended a meeting held at the union hall at which the application forms were given to Business Representative Poison and Strock was elected shop steward. Business Representative Poison corroborated Strock's testimony which I credit. Strock testified that on the next morning, after attending the union meeting held the previous night, upon arriving at work and while passing through Manager May's office, May asked him what he had found out at the union hall last night. Although Manager May denied any knowledge about the union meeting he admitted asking Strock what- he had found out at the union hall. Based upon Strock's testimony and May's partial admis- sions I find that Manager May interrogated Strock about a union meeting he attended. According to Strock at a meeting held that same day in the body shop at lunchtime, Manager May informed them President Judah had told him the pay raise was in then but said he did not want any more static from any of them and if they gave him any more trouble he was going to shut the doors and close the shop for good. Strock's testimony was substantially corroborated by James Sage who placed this conversation as occurring about the middle of September.8 Manager May did not give his version of this conversa- tion. However, on being asked whether he had ever made a statement to Strock that the-only way Judah would give the fellows in the body shop pay raises would be if there was not any more trouble from them replied he really did not remember for sure. I credit the undenied testimony of Strock and Sage concerning May's statements to the employees on that occasion. According to-President Judah the raise was given to the body shop employees in September in accordance with the general policy of giving raises to all employees who worked in the service area which included the mechanics. C. The Grievance On September 25 Respondent voluntarily recognized the Union as the bargaining representative of the employees in the body shop and signed a contract covering them which became effective on October 1.9 Business Representative Poison testified that after signing the contract he went to the body shop whereupon Strock signed it and he informed Strock if any grievances came up which he could not handle with his immediate supervisor to contact him. Strock acknowledged signing the contract as shop steward. 6 Manager May could not remember whether he gave Strock permission to ask Judah about the raise. r Gary Bloomquist is the office manager and secretary-treasurer of Respondent 8 President Judah demed making such statements. 9 The contract was not offered as evidence. 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD According to Strock following the signing of the contract employees complained to him about Manager May per- forming unit work using mechanics' tools because the contract provided that management would not perform shop work with-the union members. Strock, who also observed May between September 25 and 30 using tools to help the apprentices and on at least one occasion perform- ing a job himself, stated that, on September 30, he informed Manager May they were now union and had to live up to the union contract and told him he was not allowed to do any more work in the shop because they were union and if he did he would write him up. May's response was he could do anything in the shop he wanted to because in violation of the same contract they had three guys in the shop who did work at home. Strock denied he had a garage or did work at home and told May he was violating his rights and he was a union member too. After Strock mentioned May could be hardnosed or they could go easy and give a little here and there and be able to work together May's response was, "Well, the union is no darn good, anyway." After telling May he had better read the contract before he made any rash mistakes May took the contract and went to his office. Strock stated about a half hour later May returned, gave him the contract, and said, "Here, I'll hold off for a couple of hours and see what happens." May's version was when Strock mentioned something about his doing production work he asked Strock what difference did it make because they did not abide by the union rules either. May, who placed this conversation as occurring after May 25, denied knowing the employees were in the Union at the time or that Strock was going to be the union steward. Under cross-examination May acknowl- edged Strock had given him a copy of the contract at that time. Further, when asked whether he told Strock that unions were. no damn good and he was going to continue doing the work because the people were not abiding by the contract anyway May stated he did not remember, that. He denied Strock told him he would write him up if he continued working in the shop. I credit the testimony of Strock rather than Manager May. Apart from my observations of the witnesses May testified in an evasive manner and professed an inability to recall things which were reasonably within his own knowl- edge. D. Strock's Layoff Strock was laid off from work on September 30 and has not been recalled. Strock testified that later on that same day after present- ing the grievance to Manager May about his performing unit work May informed him production was down and he was going to have to let a couple of guys go. Upon asking May who was going to be let go his response was really only one guy and pursuant to Strock's further inquiry told him it was him.lo May instructed him to take his timecard to the bookkeeper and get his paycheck. Strock then went to Secretary-Treasurer Bloomquist who gave him his check 10 Strock denied and no evidence was presented to establish that employees had previously been warned about being laid off because of production 11 According to Strock he began work at the new location in February and separation notice signed by President Judah which reflects he was laid off on September 30. May's version of the conversation was that he told Strock. that President Judah said he had to lay two people off, one immediately, and he was the one to be laid off. May could not recall whether he told Strock the reason he was selected. President Judah testified that over a period of 90 days from June through September he had almost daily discus- sions with Manager May concerning production in the body shop during which he informed May if business did not turn up and they did not receive more profit out of that area they could not continue to operate on that basis and he would have to take steps in thinking about laying off two men. Judah. stated in September he instructed May to let two men go whereupon May informed him one man was going to quit. May testified, that in June President Judah told him to watch productivity in the body shop and said they had to keep it up and if the work failed to come in or slowed down there would have to be something done and a man would be laid off. May stated Judah subsequently told him two guys had to go and for him to lay one off right away and he would probably have to lay another off. Both May and Judah denied Judah had instructed May who to lay off and May also denied Judah had instructed him how to determine who was going to be laid off. May stated he determined who to lay off by checking the productivity records to find out who was the lowest in production. According to him his assistant foreman, James Sage, was the lowest in production; however, he took into consideration Sage helped him and that Strock was the next lowest. May denied Strock's union activities were a factor in selecting him and denied any knowledge that May was trying to start a union. Production records for each of the employees in the body shop offered as evidence by Respondent established that among the six employees employed there Strock had the lowest productivity in June, July, and September and was ranked third highest in productivity in August. The next lowest person in productivity during this period was James Sage who was next to the lowest in each of those months with the exception of August when he was the lowest. Under cross-examination Manager May first stated he used the productivity records from June to September in making his selections. However, upon being confronted with a statement given to the Board agent, he stated he used the productivity records for the period January through August. May also admitted under cross-examination that Strock's productivity from January through August was extremely low because he had assigned Strock to work over at the new body shop on East and Avenue prior to moving the body shop there in June from the Raccoon Street address. His assigned duties there admittedly includ- ed cleanup work in getting the shop ready for the move which was not considered productive work.' 1 Secretary-Treasurer Bloomquist testified that at one meeting President Judah told them to watch productivity in and with the exception of a month or two when two apprentices worked there he worked alone before the body shop moved. He estimated 25 to 50 percent of his time during this period was spent on nonproductive work. DES MOINES AMC & JEEP INC. 225 the body shop but he did not recall Judah telling May to lay anyone off. Although Blooinquist testified that based upon company records 12 there was a downturn in business in the body shop during June, July, August, and September these records were not offered as evidence. However, the individ- ual productivity records for the employees in the body shop during the period June through September which were offered as evidence by the Respondent shows the total profits of the -body shop as follows: June-$4,560.77; July-$6,280.74; August-$7,483.66; , and September- $5,571.72. Since Strock was laid off on September 30 Dale Lewis, another employee in the body shop, has left and Judah's son was hired to work there.13 Judah acknowledged that his son, whom he described as being handicapped, does perform some work normally performed by apprentices in the, body shop. E. Analysis and Conclusions The General Counsel contends contrary to Respondent's denials that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act14 by unlawfully interrogating Strock and by discriminatorily discharging and denying him reinstate- ment because of his union and protected concerted activi- ties. Respondent asserts Strock was laid off because of a downward trend of business and his low production record. Having found supra, that Manager May interrogated Strock about a union meeting he attended I hereby find such conduct -interfered with, restrained,, and coerced Strock in the exercise of his rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the-Act. The remaining issue is whether Strock's layoff and denial of reinstatement was discriminatorily motivated rather than for cause as Respondent contends. Section 8(a)(1) of the Act protects, employees' concerted activities engaged in for the purpose of obtaining monetary benefits from their employers. See Union Camp Corporation, Building Products Div., 194 NLRB 933 (1972); KPRS Broadcasting Corporation, 181 NLRB 535 (1970). Further, the filing of grievances, including those by an individual, to enforce provisions of collective-bargaining agreements which affect the rights of all unit employees constitutes concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act 15 and to discharge employees for filing such grievances violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Interboro Contractors, Inc., 157 NLRB 1295, 1298 (1966), enfd. 388 F.2d 495 (C.A. 2, 1967). Moreover, the protection accorded employees under this section is not dependent upon either a correct interpre- tation of the contract or on the merit or lack of merit of the concerted activities. John Sexton & Co., a Division of Beatrice Food Co., 217 NLRB -80 (1975); The Singer Company, Climate Control Division, 198 NLRB 870, fn. 5 (1972). 12 According to Bloomquist the daily operating control records would reflect such information. 13 Neither the hire date of Judah's son nor the termination date of Dale Lewis was established although May stated he thought Lewis left in October. 14 Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Sec. 7 of the Act. Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent The findings, supra, established that Strock not only acted concertedly with the body shop employees in their attempts to get a wage increase to which they felt they were entitled but, after the bargaining unit was established, Struck in his capacity as shop steward acting on the employees' behalf presented Manager May with a griev- ance concerning his performing unit work and informed May if he continued doing such work he would write him up. Manager May reacted to the employees' attempts to get a raise by blaming Strock's meeting with President Judah as the reason for denying them 'their raise and when the raise was subsequently granted threatened the employees that if they gave Judah any more trouble Judah would shut the doors and close the shop. May in rejecting the grievance informed Strock he could do anything in the shop he wanted to; told him the union was no darn good ; and upon returning the contract to Strock informed him he would hold off for a couple of hours and see what happened. That same day Strock, without any prior notice, was informed by May he was laid off because production was down. May's denial of knowledge of Strock's union activities was refuted by his unlawful interrogation of Strock as well as by his admitted receipt. of a contract from Strock upon the presentation of the grievance. Thus, the evidence clearly establishes that Strock engaged in both union and protected concerted activities of which Respondent had knowledge and its union animus was shown through , the unlawful interrogation of Strock. Upon examining those reasons given by Respondent for selecting Strock to be laid off, no records, which admittedly existed, were proffered as evidence to show the existence of a downward trend of business in the body shop . Further, this position appears inconsistent with the individual productivity records which show a substantial increase in profit for the body shop from June through , August, although a decline did occur in September when the raise became effective. Moreover, the claimed decrease in business is further inconsistent with the subsequent hiring of Judah's son to perform unit work without recalling Strock, albeit there may have been other considerations involved in hiring him. However, assuming there existed a downturn in business in the body shop during June through September requiring a reduction in force, May, in selecting Strock, admittedly used a period during which Strock's production was extremely low because of his assignment to the new body shop. The fact that layoffs may be economi- cally justified is no defense if the selection of those employees laid off was because of their union activities N.L.R.B. v. Bedford-Nugent Corporation, 379 F.2d 528, 529 (C.A. 7, 1967) ; N.L.R.B. v. Deena Products Company, 195 F.2d 330, 335 (C.A. 7, 1952); cert. denied 344 U.S. 827. For the reasons indicated I reject Respondent's reasons for selecting Strock to be laid off. Rather, upon considering the entire record including Strock's union and protected concerted activities of which part "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any, term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization .... . 15 Sec. 7 of the Act provides in pertinent part "Employees shall have the right ... to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.- 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent had knowledge, - Respondent's union animus, May's unlawful interrogation of Strock, and the timing of his layoff in relation to his presenting the grievance to-May which occurred without any prior notice, and having rejected Respondent's defenses I am persuaded and find that the Respondent discriminatorily laid off and refused to reinstate Strock because of both his union and protected concerted activities and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE - The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,-and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -1. Des Moines AMC & Jeep Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Lodge No. 254, International Association of Machin- ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By coercively interrogating Strock concerning a union meeting he attended, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act. 4. By laying off Stanley Strock on September 30, 1975, and thereafter refusing to reinstate him because of his union and concerted activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 5. 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 certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Accordingly, Respondent shall be ordered to immediately reinstate Stanley Strock to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, then to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges and to make him whole for any loss of earnings and compensation he may have suffered because of the illegal discrimination against him by laying him off on September 30, 1975, and 16 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 thereafter refusing to reinstate him. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula and method prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and payment of 6-percent interest per annum shall be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 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: ORDER 16 Respondent, Des Moines AMC & Jeep Inc., Des Moines, Iowa, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: - (a) Unlawfully interrogating its employees concerning their union membership, sympathies, or activities. (b) Laying off, refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating against any employee in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because they have engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to discourage membership in, sympathies for, or activities on behalf of Lodge No. 254, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Stanley Str"ock to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, then to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay or other compensation he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in that portion of this decision 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, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze and determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its Des Moines, Iowa, facilities copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 17 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained, by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent 17 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." DES MOINES AMC & JEEP INC. to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re$ondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be, and it, hereby" is, dismissed insofar as the alleged unfair labor practices not specifically found herein. APPENDIX NomGE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of, the United States Government WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees concerning their union membership, sympathies, or activities. WE WILL NOT lay off, refuse to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminate against our employees in regard to their .hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because they have engaged in concerted activities_ for the purpose of 227 collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to discourage membership in, sympathies for, or activities on behalf of Lodge No. 254, International Association of - Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain ,from any and all such activities. WE WILL offer Stanley Strock immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if thatjob no longer exists, then to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges and WE wiLL make him whole for any loss of earnings or other compensation he lost because we discriminato- rily laid him off, plus 6-percent interest. DES MoiNEs AMC & JEEP INC.