C.I. Planning Corp.

C.I. PLANNING CORP. C.I. Planning Corp., and Draper and Kramer, Inc., Joint Employers and Mauro Squicciarini. Case 29- CA-5098 June 27, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On March 29, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Bernard Ness issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings,l 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, C.I. Planning Corporation and Draper and Kramer, Inc., Islip, Long Island, New York, its officers, agents, succes- sors, 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 overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. In his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge refers to a meeting "between Powers and the Union (on) May 21." Since it is clear he intended to state that the meeting was between Powers and Nader. we correct this inadvertent error. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BERNARD NESS, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing in this proceeding was held at Brooklyn, New York, on November 18, 19, and 29, 1976. The complaint, issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on August 12, was based upon an unfair labor practice charge filed by Mauro Squicciarini, an individual, on July 8, 1976. The complaint alleges that C.I. Planning Corp. and Draper and Kramer, Inc., jointly called the Respondent, and referred to individually as C.I.P. and Draper, respectively, discharged Squicciarini on May 27, 1976, in violation of Section 8(aXl) and (3) of the Act, because of his activities on behalf of Suffolk County District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union. The complaint further alleges that Respondent, through Jerry Fuchs, an admitted supervisor, on April 28, unlawful- ly threatened an employee with discharge and other reprisals and unlawfully offered benefits, in violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act. The Respondent, in its answer, has denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. I Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the oral argument made by the General Counsel at the hearing and the brief filed by the Respondent, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Draper and Kramer, Inc., an Illinois corporation, with its headquarters in Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the management of residential and commercial properties. C.I. Planning Corp., a New York corporation, with its head- quarters in New York City, is engaged in performing advisory services to real estate investment trusts, including, inter alia, C.I. Realty Investors which owns various rental properties including a residential apartment complex known as Forest Green Apartments, herein called Forest Green, located in Islip, Long Island, New York. At all times material herein, C.I.P. and Draper have been parties to a contract whereby Draper has been employed as the managing agent for Forest Green. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint Draper purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were transported and delivered to Forest Green from other enterprises located in New York, each of which other enterprises had received the said goods and materials in interstate commerce directly from outside the State of New York. During this same period, Draper performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in and for various enterprises located in States other than the State of Illinois. I find, as Respondent admits, that Draper and C.I.P. constitute a single employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR OROANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The complaint was amended at the hearing to reflect C.I.P.'s correct name as it appears in the caption and was also amended in other minor respects. 230 NLRB No. 72 503 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Charging Party Squicciarini is no stranger to Board proceedings. In Gates Air Conditioning, Inc., 199 NLRB 1101 (1972), in which he was the charging party, he was found to have been unlawfully refused rehire in August 1971 because he had filed a claim for wages with the New York State Department of Labor and he was again unlawfully refused employment in September 1971 because of his activities on behalf of Local 295 of the Operating Engineers. In Colonie Hill Ltd, 212 NLRB 747 (1974), where he was again a charging party, the Board found he was unlawfully discharged in June 1973 because of his persistent opposition to the union which had earlier been found to be a company-assisted union.2 Draper serves as the managing agent for CIP at the Forest Green residential apartment complex. In charge at the site is the resident manager. During the relevant period involved, the staff consisted of two office clerical employ- ees, two to three maintenance employees, two porters, and one to two painters. The staff is supplemented during the summer months. Kenneth Green, assistant vice president for Draper, who resides in Cleveland, Ohio, is in charge of management operations for Draper in specific areas, including the New York area where the Forest Green complex is situated. He normally visits the Forest Green complex one or two times a month and is in telephone communication with the resident manager several times weekly. Squicciarini initially commenced his employment with the Respondent at the Forest Green complex in July 1974 as a maintenance employee. Joyce Kleinfeld became the resident manager in August 1975. On September 26, 1975, Kleinfeld told Squicciarini he was discharged because of personality conflicts and because a superintendent had been hired who would live on the premises.3 Earlier that week John Powers, the Union's business representative, contacted Squicciarini and then met with the employees on September 23. Four employees signed union authorization cards on that date. Two more employees signed cards on September 24. On the latter date, Powers met with Kleinfeld at the complex and requested recognition on behalf of the maintenance employees. Kleinfeld replied she had no authority to grant recognition and would have to relay the request to higher management. On September 29, Powers filed an unfair labor practice charge with the New York State Labor Relations Board alleging Squicciarini was discharged because of his union activities. At or about 2 The Board decision issued on August 6, 1974. 3 Squicciarini was the lead maintenance man but had refused to live on the premises. On weekends and other off-duty hours he had been called upon to return to the premises for emergency maintenance work. Shortly before his discharge he had told Kleinfeld he would no longer cover emergency calls at off-duty hours because he had not received a wage increase promised to him months earlier by Ernest Nader, CIP's vice president. 4 Green testified he was on vacation at the time Squicciarini was dismissed. Kleinfeld testified she discharged Squicciarini without any prior notification to higher management. s Not the counsel who represented the Respondent at the hearing. 6 Nader testified he was unaware Squicciarini had been discharged at the time Squicciarini called and he told Squicciarini he would look into it. He this time Powers met with Green and Kleinfeld. 4 When Green refused recognition, saying he would have to consult with CIP, Powers threatened to pull the men out on strike. Later that evening Green prevailed upon Powers to talk to the Respondent's attorney before taking any strike action. Powers testified that, when he met with the Respondent's attorney on October 7, he was told the Union would be given recognition provided Powers would agree that Squicciarini not be reinstated.5 He refused. In the mean- time, Squicciarini had called Nader on September 26 after he had been discharged by Kleinfeld. He complained that his discharge was unfair and that he would file charges with the New York State Labor Relations Board. Nader responded he got what he deserved because he was responsible for bringing in the Union. 6 About the second week in October, Powers met with Nader and requested Squicciarini be reinstated. They agreed that Squicciarini would be reinstated and the charge would be withdrawn. Squicciarini was reinstated on October 29 with backpay and started receiving overtime pay for work performed during off-duty hours.7 Nader's explanation for reinstating Squicciarini was unconvincing. He testified he visited Forest Green and Kleinfeld told him of the problems she had been experiencing with Squicciarini. He further testified he then told Green that Squicciarini should be reinstated because the complex did not have a maintenance man at the site.8 He also testified he did not tell Green of the pending unfair labor practice charge or that the Union was pressing to have Squicciarini reinstated.9 In any event, when Squicciarini was reinstated, the charge was with- drawn. Nader visited Forest Green about the second week in November 1975.10 Nader and Squicciarini gave conflicting versions of their conversation that day. Squicciarini testified Nader apologized for his comments at the time Squicciarini called him about his discharge. Nader then promised him a raise, provided he got out of the Union and dropped his charge for past overtime pay he had filed with the Department of Labor. Squicciarini further testified Nader offered him a profit-sharing plan or a job at CIP's other projects in the country. Nader also commented that, if CIP had its way, it would get rid of Mrs. Kleinfeld. Squicciarini refused to drop his activities in and support for the Union. Nader, on the other hand, testified his purpose in talking to Squicciarini was to make him aware of his obligations to take orders from Mrs. Kleinrfeld. Squicciarini expressed a reluctance to take orders from her. Squicciarini also said through the Union he could get medical benefits. Nader replied if Squicciarini still wanted the Union, it was testified there was no discussion of unionization. Recognizing Squicciarini's propensity for filing charges and claims with government agencies, I credit Squicciarini's version. It was only 2 days earlier that the demand for recognition was made. It is unlikely such an event would not have come to Nader's attention promptly. 7 After his discharge Squicciarini had also filed a claim for overtime pay with the U.S. Department of Labor. At the time of the instant hearing, it had not been finally resolved. s Contrary to his earlier testimony that he believed a replacement had been put on. 9 Contrary to Green's testimony who said Nader referred to conversa- tions he had with Powers. o1 He visited the complex 12 to 15 times a year. 504 C.l. PLANNING CORP. his voluntary decision to make. Nader denied telling Squicciarini he would give him a profit-sharing plan or offering him a job elsewhere. I was not impressed with the testimony of either witness concerning this conversation. Squicciarini testified at length at the hearing and under- went vigorous cross-examination. His recollection of details was generally good. On the whole his testimony was credible but there were instances where he appeared more concerned with serving what he considered his own best interests than with reporting what accurately transpired. As to Nader, he generally did not impress me as a forthright and reliable witness and his testimony was generally unconvincing. He appeared more devoted to promoting the Respondent's interests. I am reminded of the language in the Universal Camera case 1 ' where the Court said, "It is no reason for refusing to accept everything a witness says, because you do not believe all of it, nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to believe some and not all." It should be noted that the complaint does not allege any of Nader's comments at this meeting to have violated the Act since the event occurred more than 6 months preceding the filing of the charge. After viewing the witnesses as they testified and considering the likely probabilities, I do not accept completely either account of the conversation, but this much can be gleaned from the credited testimony and the events that preceded the conversation. The Respondent was aware that Squicciarini was responsible for attempting to bring in the Union as the collective-bargaining representative for the maintenance employees. Upon Powers' urging after unfair labor practice charges were filed with the New York State Labor Relations Board, Nader caused Squicciarini to be reinstat- ed and the charges were withdrawn. Still pending was Squicciarini's claim for past overtime pay filed with the Department of Labor. I do not believe Nader offered Squicciarini a profit-sharing plan or a job elsewhere in the country. However, I am convinced Nader attempted to dissuade Squicciarini from further promotion of the Union and in processing his claim for earlier overtime pay. In this he was unsuccessful. B. The Union's Efforts To Obtain Recognition Powers initially requested recognition from Kleinfeld on September 24, 1975. Shortly afterward, he met with Green and then with the Respondent's attorney. Powers met with Nader in early October, but this was to discuss Squicciari- ni's reinstatement. Powers testified he had three subsequent meetings with Nader to discuss recognition of the Union and a contract but Nader never made any counterpropos- als or agreed to recognize the Union. The most recent meeting between Nader and Powers before Squicciarini's discharge was scheduled for May 21, 1976, at Forest Green. Powers was there but had been called away and the meeting was not held. Another meeting was scheduled for later in May but this too was not held because of the unavailability of one of the parties. Nader's testimony " N.L.R.B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F.2d 749(C.A. 2, 1950), reversed on other grounds 340 U.S. 474 (1951). 12 Six days before Squicciarini was discharged. Squicciarini testified Powers was at Forest Green on May 21 and earlier that month Nader had mentioned to him he would be back at Forest Green to discuss union matters with Powers. concerning his meetings with Powers is not credited. He testified the meeting scheduled to be held at the complex was in early December 1975 rather than in May 21, 1976.12 Nader testified that, at each of the meetings with Powers, he was repeatedly told by Powers that Squicciarini was pestering him to seek recognition, that Powers was not interested in representing the employees, and Powers kept urging him to give Squicciarini some additional benefits so that Squicciarini would stop bothering the Union. Nader testified that Powers did not seek recognition or make any proposals concerning a contract. Nader testified he kept responding to Powers that Squicciarini would not get any more benefits than other employees and Squicciarini's pestering the Union was no concern of his. Accordingly, I find that since September 1975 the Union was requesting recognition to represent the maintenance employees and, at three meetings prior to Squicciarini's discharge of May 27, this subject was discussed. I also find that a meeting scheduled for May 21 was for the purpose of further discussion of recognition. C. The Discharge of Squicciarini Jerry Fuchs, a CIP property coordinator and admitted supervisor who worked under Nader, visited Forest Green on April 28. He engaged Squicciarini in a conversation. Nobody else was within earshot although Kleinfeld was aware they were conversing outside. Fuchs, who left CIP on about May 21, was not called as a witness. Squicciarini credibly testified they first discussed the complex and the good condition it was in. Fuchs then brought up the Union. Fuchs said the Union was causing a lot of trouble for the Respondent and that the Respondent would have to pay higher wages to the employees with a union in the picture. He told Squicciarini to get out of the Union. When Squicciarini said he would stay with the Union, Fuchs said he would fire him. Squicciarini then asked if Fuchs was threatening him and pointed out that other employees had also signed union cards. Fuchs then said he would fire the entire crew and get new employees. Squicciarini stood firm and said he would still support the Union. According to Squicciarini, Fuchs then asked him if he wanted to be the resident manager or superintendent. Squicciarini replied he was not interested in these positions but through the Union he could get benefits that the Respondent did not provide. Fuchs then told Squicciarini, if he really wanted a union, the Respondent could bring in a union like "Local 32B." Again Squicciarini said he would stick with the Union. Fuchs then said he would get back to Squicciarini in a couple of weeks. He never did. That evening Squicciarini called Powers and informed him of his conversation with Fuchs. Powers in turn called Nader and complained that Fuchs was threatening to discharge Squicciarini and he told Nader he would file charges with the Board.' 3 Nader told Powers, Fuchs was no longer with CIP. Squicciarini was scheduled to work on Thursday, May 27, but had left word he was going to the Veterans 13 Squicciarini, himself, filed unfair labor practice charges with the Board's Regional Office on May 27, before he was aware of his discharge (Case 29-CA-5025). The charge alleged a refusal to bargain with the Union and also alleged as violations of Sec. 8(aX)(1) threats and promises of benefits. (Continued) 505 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Administration Hospital and wouldn't be in that day. That morning he visited the Board's Regional Office and filed the charges referred to above. In the afternoon he visited the hospital. That evening he received a call from one of the employees alerting him that he would be receiving a telegram notifying him of his discharge. His next scheduled workday was Tuesday, June 1. He had not yet received the telegram.' 4 When he came to the office he received the word from Kleinfeld of his termination. Upon his request, he was given a copy of the telegram. The telegram stated he was terminated effective May 27 and read in part: "Due to your inability to accomplish the job assigned, specifically you have not followed the direction given to you by the manager and have not been available for emergency duty as required by your job." D. The Respondent's Defense Assuming the responsibility for Squicciarini's discharge was Kenneth Green, Draper's assistant vice president in charge of the area operations, including Forest Green. Green testified he made his decision to terminate Squic- ciarini in early May but decided to wait until his next visit to Forest Green to effect the termination. He testified he cleared this action with Draper's vice president, Dunn, in Chicago, after consultation with Kleinfeld. Green said he discharged Squicciarini for a variety of reasons - a buildup of complaints received by him from Kleinfeld and there was no last straw incident. Kleinfeld had become the resident manager in August 1975. Bruce Burgess was brought in to Forest Green as comanager on a temporary basis as a troubleshooter, principally to work with the employees in getting apartments ready for occupancy and to take care of the backlog of work orders. He remained at Forest Green from November 1975 to February 20, 1976. During this period, Kleinfeld's responsibilities were pri- marily devoted to internal office affairs. Upon Burgess' departure, she assumed complete charge of the complex. Green said he constantly received reports from Kleinfeld critical of Squicciarini's performance. Initially he testified she recommended Squicciarini's discharge over a several month period but later stated it was first made in May. He kept telling her to try to work it out. He visited Forest Green on May 25. He looked over applications on file in the office and interviewed applicants on May 26. He decided to hire one, Spinosa, that day as a replacement for Squicciarini after clearing with Dunn by telephone, and notified Spinosa to report for work the morning of May 27. When Green came to the complex on the morning of May 27 he learned Squicciarini would not be working that day. He then called Dunn to discuss how to proceed further.15 Green testified that Dunn, Kleinfeld, and he then com- posed the telegram which was sent that morning to Squicciarini. His testimony does not reveal that he spoke to Nader at all in contemplation of the discharge or in connection with the telegram. Yet, Nader testified, Green made on April 28, obviously referring to the Fuchs conversation and also alleged assistance to Local 32B. The charge was later withdrawn to permit further processing of a petition filed with the New York State Labor Relations Board. An election was held on July 2, 1976. Local Union 307, Building Trades Service Employees, received a majority of the ballots cast. The Union also appeared on the ballot. called him on the morning of May 27 and he instructed Green to send the telegram. Nader also testified he did not discuss any decision to terminate Squicciarini with Green or any other Draper official prior to May 27, but learned of the decision from Green about May 25 "or so." When asked why so many management people became involved in Squicciarini's discharge and the telegram to be sent he testified as follows: "Because Moe [Squicciarini] after my conversations with him with the threatening of bringing a union in if we didn't do certain things for Moe, himself, made it a case that had to come to the attention of our company through Draper and Kramer." Kleinfeld testified that on numerous occasions she reported to Green problems she was having with Squicciar- ini. Referring to her comments to Green regarding Squicciarini, she testified as follows: "I explained to him on several occasions the things that were going on and I had just about had enough of it. I guess you would say it was in May it started to build up more to a point where I couldn't take any more of it. And then I told him I would like to fire him." I find it unnecessary to recite all the incidents she described. I am convinced that in some situations Squic- ciarini did not act properly, but, on the other hand, it appeared that Kleinfeld was exaggerating incidents and trying to dredge up everything but the kitchen sink.16 Although she mentioned it was in May that she finally made her recommendation to Green for Squicciarini's discharge, she only pointed to one incident clearly occurring in May. That involved the installation of an air- conditioning unit. Kleinfeld testified she had instructed Squicciarini to install the first unit that became available into the apartment of a particular tenant before installing one in another apartment. Yet, Squicciarini did not follow her instructions - he installed the unit in the other apartment on May 5. Green testified, Kleinfeld had reported this incident to him in early May. But towards the end of her testimony, Kleinfeld admitted she was not aware of the installation of the air-conditioner until after Squicciarini was discharged. Obviously this could not have been one of the reasons for the discharge nor could this have been reported to Green before the discharge as Green testified. One of the reasons given in the telegram was Squicciarini's unavailability for emergency duty. Kleinfeld described an incident which she said occurred in either March or April 1976. She testified that on a weekend a heating problem arose and the answering service informed her they were unable to locate Squicciarini; that his wife had said he was away on Naval Reserve duty that weekend. Kleinfeld then had the work done by a fuel cbmpany. She testified that when Squicciarini reported for work the following Monday she asked him where he had been and he told her that the other maintenance man, Thompson, had been told. Although she initially attempted to fault Squicciarini for not being available, her testimony was inconsistent. She also testified that the practice was for Squicciarini and Thompson to decide who would be on call 14 He had received a post card that an undelivered telegram was at the Hempstead office. 15 In his testimony he stated he called "my superior again to discuss how to proceed further." In earlier testimony he referred several times to Dunn as his "superior." 16 Squicciarini was primarily a plumber. 506 C.I. PLANNING CORP. and then they would tell her. She later conceded that Thompson was equally at fault in not notifying her. Thus, Squicciarini could hardly be faulted for being "unavail- able." She also testified she was aware Squicciarini went to Naval Reserve training on weekends but "I didn't keep tabs on the weekends he went." She also referred to a tenant incident which she said occurred after Burgess left - sometime from March to May. She testified she received a complaint from a tenant that Squicciarini had threatened to hit her small daughter and told the girl he'd be glad when "you and your fat mother move." She further testified that when Squicciarini came to the office he told her he had attempted to have the girl curb her dog and she called him an "SOB." She first testified that Squicciarini said he "threatened to hit her." But then she changed her testimony and stated that Squicciarini told her "if he had a daughter like that he'd slap her or something, she was fresh and she call him an 'SOB.' " Analysis and Discussion In September 1975, the Respondent was aware that Squicciarini was the moving force in attempting to bring in the Union as the bargaining representative for the Respondent's maintenance employees. I do not believe Kleinfeld was alone in causing his discharge at that time. As Green testified, Squicciarini was discharged "by my superiors." Kleinfeld does not qualify as his "superior." Particularly unimpressive was Kleinfeld's testimony that when Green told her Squicciarini was to be reinstated she exhibited no curiosity nor did she inquire as to why Squicciarini was to be reinstated. This I find incredible if she, herself, was responsible for the discharge. Nader, himself, was involved in causing Squicciarini's discharge at that time as evidenced by his remarks to Squicciarini that very evening of the discharge to the effect that Squicciarini got what he deserved for bringing in the Union. This occurred just 2 days after the Union first requested recognition. After Squicciarini was reinstated and, recog- nizing that he was the moving force behind the Union, the Respondent attempted to dissuade him from further support of the Union. This was evidenced by Nader's attempt in November 1975 to discourage him from further promotion of the Union and in processing his claim for overtime pay with the Department of Labor. And on April 28, 1976, Fuchs offered benefits to Squicciarini to induce him to refrain from further support of the Union and threatened him with discharge in his unsuccessful attempts to swing Squicciarini away from the Union. Kleinfeld testified she observed Fuchs talking to Squicciarini but did not know what they discussed. She stated that Fuchs came to the office after the discussion and she asked Fuchs "if everything was okay." Fuchs laughed and said "we had a conflict of personalities." I do not credit her testimony that nothing further was said. Rather I believe she, as well as Respondent's higher management, was informed of Fuchs' unsuccessful attempts to discourage Squicciarini from supporting the Union. Although it cannot be said that the Union frequently pressed its demand for recognition, equally true is the fact that it did not abandon this objective. A meeting between Powers and the Union was scheduled for May 21 but this was aborted. It was obvious to the Respondent the Union was still demanding recognition when it discharged Squicciarini 6 days later. I am persuaded Squicciarini had shortcomings in the manner in which he conducted himself, but, as stated earlier, the testimony of Green and Kleinfeld concerning his deficiencies was overly exaggerat- ed. I am convinced that, had Squicciarini acceded to Fuchs' request to give up his support of the Union, he would not have been discharged when he was. According- ly, I find, as alleged in the complaint, Respondent on April 28, 1976, through its agent, Fuchs, threatened Squicciarini with discharge and offered him benefits to induce him to refrain from further supporting the Union. Such conduct violated Section 8(aXI) of the Act. I further conclude that Respondent's discharge of Squicciarini on May 27, 1976, motivated as it was by his refusal to give up his efforts to support the Union, violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the 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 of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By offering benefits to employees and threatening discharge or other disciplinary action to dissuade employ- ees from supporting the Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(aXl) of the Act. 4. By discharging Mauro Squicciarini because of his union activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting 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, I will recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Mauro Squicciarini, it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to offer him full and immediate reinstatement, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and to reimburse him for any loss of pay he may have suffered. Backpay shall be 507 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD computed on a quarterly basis, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), from the date of discharge to the date reinstatement is offered. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend- ed: ORDER 17 The Respondent, C.I. Planning Corp. and Draper and Kramer, Inc., Islip, Long Island, New York, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in, support for, or activi- ties on behalf of Suffolk County District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminating against its employees in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, because of their union membership, sympa- thies, or activities. (b) Threatening employees with discharge or other reprisals because of their union activities. (c) Offering or promising benefits to discourage union activities. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Mauro Squicciarini immediate and full rein- statement to his former position or, if his job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered in the manner set forth in the section 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 the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its Forest Greern complex in Islip, Long Island, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."'8 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by 1" 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. 18 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." Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immedi- ately 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NoncE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice; we intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the following. The Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through representative of their choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge or other reprisals in order to discourage union activi- ties. WE WILL NOT offer or promise benefits in order to discourage our employees from engaging in union activities. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against our employees because they join or suport Suffolk County District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to engage in or to refrain from engaging in any or all of the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act. WE wnLL offer Mauro Squicciarini immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. We wvLL make whole Mauro Squicciarini for any loss of earnings he may have suffered because we discharged him, with interest at 6 percent per annum. C.I. PLANNINO CORP., AND DRAPER AND KRAMER, INC., JOINT EMPLOYERS 508