Doughboy Recreational, Inc.

DOUGHBOY RECREATIONAL, INC. Doughboy Recreational, Inc. and Barbara J. Dery. Case 3 1-CA-6239 April 29, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO AND WALTHER On February 9, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Gerald A. Wacknov issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions 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, Doughboy Recreational, Inc., Cucamonga, California, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GERALD A. WACKNOV, Administrative Law Judge: Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to this matter was held before me in Los Angeles, California, on December 2 and 3, 1976.' The charge was filed on June 29, by Barbara Dery, an individual. The complaint, issued on August 13 and amended at the hearing, alleges violations by Doughboy Recreational, Inc. (herein called Respondent), of Section 8(aXl) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act). Respondent's answer, duly filed, denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Each party was afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence. Since the close of the hearing, briefs have been received from the General Counsel and from Respondent's counsel. I All dates or time periods herein are within 1976, unless stated to be otherwise. 229 NLRB No. 65 Upon the entire record, and based on my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and my consideration of the briefs submitted, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of swimming pools and related equipment, with its corporate headquarters and one of its plants (the facility involved herein) being located in Cucamonga, California. In the course and conduct of its business operations Respondent annually sells and ships goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of California, and has annual gross revenues in excess of $500,000. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted that the Southern California District Council of Laborers and its affiliated Hod Carriers and Building Laborers, Local Union No. 783, AFL-CIO, (herein called the Union), is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The principal issues raised by the pleadings are: I. Whether Respondent, in violation of Section 8(aX I) of the Act, threatened employees with loss of benefits and plant closure, interrogated employees concerning their own union activities and sympathies and those of other employees, and created the impression of having engaged in surveillance of employees' union activities. 2. Whether Respondent, in violation of Section 8(aX3) and (I) of the Act, laid off or discharged employee Barbara Dery on or about May 28, and has since failed and refused to reinstate Dery to her former position of employment. B. The Facts 1. Background facts Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of portable above-ground swimming pools and related filters and other accessories. It operates two plants, one being located in West Helena, Arkansas, and having an employee comple- ment, prior to seasonal layoff, of about 100 employees. The Cucamonga plant has an employee complement, prior to seasonal layoff, of approximately 40 employees, and is engaged in the manufacture of filters and filter accessories for swimming pools. The employees at the West Helena plant are represented by a labor organization. 381 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On March 1, the Union filed a petition with the Board (Case 31-RC-3431) seeking a representation election among Respondent's Cucamonga plant production and maintenance employees. The election was held on April 30, and a majority of the votes was cast against representation by the Union, the vote being 18 votes in favor of, and 22 votes against, representation. No election objections were filed and on May 10, the result of the election was certified. 2. The 8(a)(1) violations Beginning shortly after the filing of the representation petition on March 1, Dave Nelson, Respondent's president, conducted approximately 10 employee meetings with the entire employee complement of the plant apparently in attendance at each meeting. While many of the meetings were directed toward the discussion of Respondent's then existing benefits as embodied in a booklet entitled "Rights, Work Rules, Regulations, and Information" (herein called the employee handbook), a copy of which is apparently given to each employee upon being hired, it is clear that the meetings were primarily designed to present the employees with information which would allow them to make an informed choice in the forthcoming election. According to employee Barbara Dery, Nelson discussed the Union at almost every meeting, emphasizing the concept that a union wasn't needed because of the "one big happy family" relationship that then existed at the plant. At one such meeting Dery recalls Nelson stating that there were three employees working very diligently for the Union. Dery does not recall whether this remark was asked by an employee in response to a question. Also, according to Dery, at the April 9 meeting Nelson explained that Respondent provided its employees with very good benefits and that if there was a union the employees would not receive all the benefits. 2 Additionally, Nelson stated, according to Dery, "something about the company would probably go on strike or it would go on strike if the union [did] 3 get in," and added, "I don't want to move to New York. Do you?" 4 Employee Patsy Fox, who quit her employment on April 30, testified that at one meeting, perhaps the April 9 meeting, Nelson advised the employees that they were receiving good benefits and that if the Union came in the employees would probably not, or may not, get these good benefits. Additionally, according to Fox, Nelson stated that, "[T]here possibly could be a strike and something of that nature and it could wind up the shop could move to New York," Nelson then emphasizing this statement, according to Fox, by "holler[ing] pretty loud" and stating, "I don't want to go to New York. Do you?" Further, Fox testified that at one of the meetings Nelson said that he knew the identity of three people who were working very hard for the Union. 2 At this particular April 9 meeting, according to Dery, Mike Smith, then personnel manager, distributed to each employee a paper entitled "Certifi- cation of Employee Benefits paid by Doughboy." One side of the paper, in the form of a check stub, lists the various benefits and monetary amounts thereof paid in 1975. The other side contains a facsimile of a check payable to both the named employee "and family" made out in the amount of the total 1975 benefits. :* Certain errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected. Nelson testified that not only did he not conduct the meeting during which the certification of benefits was distributed, but, moreover, he did not even attend that particular meeting. Further, Nelson testified that he never specifically discussed the document, as this was distributed and discussed at a meeting conducted by Plant Manager Tom Braden. However, Nelson admits stating, pursuant to a question asked by an employee regarding improved benefits, that he was not at liberty to either increase or decrease benefits and could not even talk about increasing benefits. Nelson maintains that he further told the employees that "If you do elect the Union, then everything becomes negotiable. However, I think I would fight pretty hard to keep from negotiating away any of the benefits that you have because I think they are all good benefits." Nelson then told the employees that an attempt by the Union to take away benefits could possibly result in a strike because "You should keep all the benefits you have." At one meeting someone asked the question, "Gee, Dave, if you get a union, are you going to get fired?" Nelson replied that he hoped not, and added, "but if I don't have a happy family out here, they might move me to New York and I sure don't want to live in New York."5 Tom Braden, plant manager, testified that he, not Nelson, conducted the meeting during which the certifica- tion of benefits was distributed to each employee and that Nelson was not present. Braden further testified that at a meeting late in the campaign one employee asked Nelson whether he (Nelson) would be fired if the Union won the election; Nelson said no, and made a statement which implied that should his boss ask him to move to New York, he wouldn't want to move. During the course of a group meeting held several days prior to the election, Nelson recalls an employee asking, "Who supports this Union anyway?" Nelson replied that he probably had a good idea of the names of some of the people, and that at least 30 percent of the employees must have wanted an election, but that there would be no preferential treatment for anyone who supports Respon- dent and no discriminatory treatment for anyone who supports the Union. According to Braden, Nelson said he had a pretty good idea of the identity of two or three employees who supported the Union, and certainly the Union had to have the signatures of 30 percent of the employees in order to have the election. Several weeks prior to the election Smith called Fox into his office and asked her how the union meeting went, which had apparently been held the previous night. Fox replied that Smith should ask someone who knows, and Smith stated, "It really doesn't matter because we have a list of everyone that was there." Smith had asked similar questions to Fox, in passing, on other occasions, and on 4 The statement regarding moving to New York was in reference to the fact that Respondent's parent company, named the Lomart Company, maintains a plant in New York which has the capability of producing the products manufactured at Respondent's Cucamonga plant. In addition, Nelson testified that the West Helena plant, and a plant apparently belonging to another subsidiary of the Lomart Company, located in Maquoketa, Iowa, could perform the said work. I This statement is not alleged as a violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act. 382 DOUGHBOY RECREATIONAL, INC. that day, according to Fox, was also asking similar questions of other employees. 6 Smith denies that he ever asked Fox anything regarding the Union. Apparently sometime around the first part of March, Smith called employee James N. Clay into his office and asked Clay a series of questions; namely, why the Union was needed, who had complaints, and what Respondent was doing wrong. Smith showed Clay a list of all Respondent's employees, named them individually, and asked whether each named employee attended the union meetings. Clay named about 18 or 20 employees who attended the union meetings, including the names of Barbara Dery and Patsy Fox. Smith, in a friendly manner, asked why these people felt they had grievances against Respondent and why they felt union representation was necessary. Clay mentioned Cherrell Pierce, a leadlady, as one of the reasons for the employees' discontent and stated that the complaints varied. Clay's impression was that Smith wanted this information in order to discuss the matters with the named employees, rather than for the purpose of retaliating against them for attending union meetings. Smith, who had then been personnel manager for Respondent for only about 30 days, testified that as a result of the unrest which he believed had resulted in the organizing campaign, he invited Clay into the office the first week of March to discuss the various complaints and problems of employees with the intent of identifying and correcting the problems. Smith admits asking Clay to identify the grievances or complaints of each employee, but denies asking Clay who attended the union meetings. Smith testified that he had no similar conversations with other employees, and, as noted above, denies the conversa- tion with Fox. Around the end of March, Smith recalls attending a supervisors' meeting conducted by Nelson, who explained, using an NLRB publication as a guide, both Respondent's rights and employees' rights during the course of an organizational campaign. Nelson explained what conduct of Respondent was prohibited, said he would not tolerate any breach of the provisions of the NLRB rules, and that Respondent's managers and supervisors were to follow them and not engage in prohibited conduct. According to Dery, on the day prior to the election, Braden, who had that day been discussing the Union with other employees, approached Dery and asked her why she felt a union was needed. Apparently Vern Rueter, her supervisor, was also present. Dery replied in a very direct manner that seniority and job security were of primary importance to her, and that her husband worked in a union shop and she would not want her young sons to work in a nonunion shop. She then asked Braden to clarify an apparent discrepancy explaining that Nelson had said at most of the group meetings that if a union got in employees would not be required to join, while certain unnamed union representatives had stated that union membership would be mandatory. Braden asked if Dery was willing to talk to someone about this and Dery replied affirmatively. F Smith and Fox were not friendly at the time, and considerable animosity existed between the two apparently because of personal matters unrelated to Respondent's operations. I Fox testified that during her employment with Respondent, but not Shortly thereafter Dery was paged on the loudspeaker and was told to come to Nelson's office. A call was placed by Braden to the Board's Regional Office, and, with Dery listening on an extension, Braden posed the question to a Board agent, who replied that the matter of union security was a subject for negotiation should the Union win the election. Thereupon, Dery asked either Nelson or Braden if she could go out into the plant and tell employee Rosemary Rodriguez, and apparently other employees, about the conversation. She was given permission to do so. That night Dery attended a union meeting. Braden denies that he initiated the above-related conver- sation with Dery by questioning Dery regarding the Union. Rather, he maintains that Dery asked for a clarification of the union-security matter, which prompted the ensuing phone conversation, after which Dery asked whether she could go into the plant and tell the other employees about the conversation. Rueter, who was present during the initial conversation, corroborates Braden's testimony, and states that he and Braden were touring the plant for work- related purposes when Dery approached them and posed the question regarding union security. Rueter, who left before the conversation concluded, had no further involve- ment in the matter. Dery testified that about 9 o'clock the next morning, the day of the election, Nelson passed Dery on the stairway as she was going to the dining area, and stated, "And you didn't even tell the people." Dery replied, "Dave, I did. That was my first question at the meeting last night." Later that afternoon Dery was called to be an observer for the Union at the election. As she walked into the polling area, Nelson said, "That was a wasted telephone call." Dery didn't respond. Patsy Fox quit her employment on April 30, the day of the election, and phoned Nelson the following Monday to explain that she would not be returning to work. She told Nelson that she could no longer take the abuse of her leadlady, Cherrell Pierce, and that Nelson should talk with employees to discover the trouble or problems created by Pierce, specifically suggesting that he talk with Dery and apparently also mentioning the names of several other employees. Nelson replied, according to Fox, that he didn't trust Dery because he had arranged a phone call for Dery's benefit and Dery didn't relate the answer to employees. Fox replied that Nelson was incorrect, and that Dery attended the union meeting the night before and did advise those present of the information she had received during the phone conversation. Nelson then asked Fox if she had a union meeting at her house, to which question Fox replied no; he asked whether Fox thought a union was needed and Fox said yes. Nelson said that he was sorry to lose Fox, that she was a good worker, but that he could not discharge leadlady Pierce. ? Nelson testified that he made no effort to discover whether Dery communicated the substance of the phone conversation to the employees, and did not pass Dery on the steps the next day or have a conversation with her until during the above-related phone conversation, she had been offered a leadlady job, apparently to remove her from Pierce's area. Fox refused to accept the job, however. 383 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about 2 p.m., when Nelson learned, a few minutes prior to the election, that Dery was going to be the observer for the Union. At that point, during the preelection conference, Nelson testified that he said to Dery, "Gosh, I guess we wasted a phone call." 8 Nelson testified that he did have a phone conversation with Fox on the Monday following the Friday election. Fox stated, according to Nelson, that because of the Union losing the election she could no longer work for the Company, and Nelson replied that the fact the Union lost the election did not mean she had to resign. Thereupon, Fox replied that she could not get along with the leadlady and Nelson then suggested that Fox could be given ajob somewhere else in the plant. Fox again replied no, stated that she could not work for the Company, and proceeded to give Nelson the names of various employees, including that of Dery, suggesting that he talk with them about the difficulty of having to work under the leadlady. Nelson replied that in this situation, involving personality conflicts, he didn't know whose word to take, and that since he couldn't rely on anyone being objective, he just didn't want to get involved. Nelson denies that he mentioned the phone call incident involving Dery, and further testified that Fox stated, "I am sure Mike Smith has told you that I am having union meetings at my house, but I didn't." Nelson replied that Smith never told him that, and asked, "Do you really believe we need a union?" Fox replied, "Yes, I do," and the conversation concluded with Nelson stating that he was sorry that Fox was quitting. On Monday, May 3, at a group meeting, Nelson advised the employees that, although they had rejected the Union, there were no winners or losers; that the vote was very close, thus indicating that Respondent was doing some- thing wrong; that he had been taught a lesson; and that there would be no preferential treatment for those who did not support the Union, and no discrimination against those who were in favor of the Union. Nelson invited the employees to express their views and suggest solutions to the problems that existed at the plant. 3. The discharge of Barbara Dery Dery was first employed by Respondent in May 1974 and worked in the production area assembling filter parts and performing some packing duties.9 She was laid off in May 1975 as a result of seasonal layoff, recalled to work in August 1975, and again laid off shortly thereafter. In September 1975 Dery received a phone call from a secretary in the front office informing her that she was again being recalled and instructing her to report to the customer service department. Dery had not previously signed a bid sheet for a job in this department, and was later told by Tom Braden, plant manager, that he had 8 Braden also recalls Nelson making this remark. 9 The record does not indicate where these particular packing duties were performed. 'o Upon returning to work as an inspector Dery received a 10-cent-per- hour raise after 30 days, and an additional 30-cent-per-hour raise shortly thereafter. I For purposes of clarity, the larger area is hereinafter referred to as "packing," the remaining area as "quality control," and both areas, collectively, as packing/quality control. 12 Respondent places crucial significance on its contention that quality recommended her for the position. John Gregg was Dery's supervisor for an unspecified time, and Gregg required each employee to record, on a posted sheet of paper, the number of hours spent performing inspection work or customer service work during each day. Dery was classified as an inspector. She considered the customer service job to be a promotion, stating that she received more payO° and that the working conditions or the nature of the work was more to her liking. A fenced-off area of approximately 1,200 square feet is located at one end of Respondent's facility. Approximately 900 square feet of this fenced-off area is variously referred to as the customer service area, customer service depart- ment, and/or packing area. The remaining portion of approximately 300 square feet, located near the receiving door, is variously called the quality control department or, again, the customer service area or department, and/or simply quality control. tI There is no posted sign identifying the two respective areas, and the only physical demarcation between the two areas is a row of storage racks, which apparently does not extend the entire length or breadth of the fenced-in area, there being frequent movement of employees between the two areas.?2 There are two classifications of employees, namely, inspectors and customer service attendants, whose duties are material to an understanding of the respective positions of the parties. The inspectors, when they are inspecting, perform two primary functions (I) receiving inspection, the inspection of incoming supplies, parts, and materials for use in the production process, and (2) line inspection, which work involves inspecting the various items produced or assembled on the subassembly filter lines, and also inspecting the final product, this inspection work being called "main line" inspection. Main line inspection work consists of visually inspecting the finished filters, which have been assembled from the various components, indicating that the filters have been inspected by stamping them with an inspection stamp prior to their being sealed, recording the serial numbers on warranty cards, and apparently maintaining a list of these serial numbers for warranty work purposes. Both subassembly line inspection work and main line inspection work consists of visual inspection, as noted, and is performed in the production area of the plant; the receiving inspection work apparently requires the use of special tools and the reading of blueprints, in order to ascertain whether the incoming supplies and materials meet specifications.13 Such work is performed in the quality control area. In the packing area the primary work is that of filling customers' orders by obtaining the ordered merchandise from the storage racks and packing the items in prepara- tion for shipment. It is also necessary for those employees who happen to be working in the packing area to come control is a separate department. General Counsel maintains that quality control is not a separate department, but is merely a subdivision of the customer service department. 13 The record does not indicate the extent to which incoming materials must be checked against the blueprints. Nor does the record show who repairs returned or defective filters and parts or where, if at all, such work is performed. However, it would appear that work necessitating the reading of blueprints constitutes only a minimal portion of the work of customer service attendants, and that most of this particular work is performed by an inspector, John Baca. 384 DOUGHBOY RECREATIONAL, INC. around to the quality control side of the storage racks in order to obtain certain parts, apparently for shipping, and to work in the quality control area where they receive incoming returned merchandise, perform the necessary paperwork, and move the merchandise into the packing area, apparently returning it to the storage bins located on the packing area side.14 While employees who work in packing/quality control are classified either as inspectors or customer service attendants these classifications appear to be no more than a very superficial description of the particular employee's work, as the stated policy and practice has been to assign inspector and packing work on an indiscriminate basis to both inspectors and customer service attendants. Dery's unrebutted testimony in this respect is quite significant. Thus Dery testified that Rueter, supervisor over the packing/quality control area, "wanted everyone back there to do everything." Dery testified that she alternated between working as a floor inspector and working in the packing area, each job occupying 50 percent of her time, some entire days or even weeks being spent in performing one function or the other, and some days or, apparently, weeks being spent in alternating between the two. While her work as a floor inspector did not require the ability to read blueprints, she was at one time being taught to do so by her leadman, John Baca, also classified as an inspector, who spends most of his time inspecting incoming materials, such work apparently necessitating the reading of blue- prints and the use of precision tools. Respondent's manufacturing operations are somewhat seasonal due to the nature of the product. About April or May of each year Respondent ceases its "main line" operation, involving the assembly of the final filter product, but apparently continues, throughout the year, its paint line and subassembly manufacturing operations,' 5 in addition to its shipping, receiving, and related operations. The 1976 seasonal layoffs occurred on May 28.16 Nelson testified that on May 13 he told the employees that he was sorry to have to inform them of a general layoff, that he didn't know exactly which departments would be affected but everyone should consider that it was going to affect every department; that bid sheets were going to be posted and everyone, including "temporary" employees, should sign the bid sheets if they were interested in working during the layoff. As a result, bid sheets were posted in the following categories: customer service attendant, production spray painter-plater, stripper room attendant, and stockroom attendant. Braden corro- borates Nelson's testimony, adding that Nelson stated that everyone including temporary and probationary employees should sign the bid sheets.' 7 14 There is no record evidence that any inspection functions are performed in the packing area, or that employees working in the packing area have occasion to utilize blueprints or precision tools in their work. Rather, it appears that all such work of this nature is performed in the quality control area. However, there is a paucity of record evidence in this regard. 15 The record does not provide details of the nature of production operations remaining subsequent to the seasonal layoff. is The parties stipulated that Respondent's need to lay off a large group of employees in late May was caused by legitimate business reasons; Dery's testimony is quite different. She maintains that a meeting was held during the week of the layoff, on May 25 or 26, that Nelson explained there would be a big layoff which would affect only employees in those departments that were or would be posted, and that he was sorry to have to advise the employees of the layoff. Nelson, according to Dery, went on to say that if an employee received two checks at the time of the layoff, one check apparently including accrued vacation pay, the employee was thereby laid off. On May 25 the following was posted: MEMORANDUM May 25, 1976 TO: All Plant Employees FROM: Tom Braden SUBJECT: Production Layoff I regret to inform you that there will be a layoff at the end of the work shift Friday, May 28, 1976. The following areas will be affected: All filter production areas Welding shop The personnel affected in the above areas who are eligible to bid to be transferred to other areas according to the provisions of the Employee Handbook, (Section V, B, 1, c) should indicate their preference on the attached sheet prior to the close of the work shift Thursday, May 27, 1976. I wish to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your support during this very difficult year. The things we have learned will do much to insure our success next season. The "attached sheet," to which the above memorandum refers, was posted adjacent to the memorandum, and states as follows: 18 The following areas are open to bid by eligible employees who are affected by the layoff. Those wishing to be considered, please indicate by signing below. Below the above-quoted language appear columns entitled "paint line," "shipping department," and "receiving de- partment." Many employees, all of whom were then working in either the filter production areas or in the welding shop 19 signed the bid sheet for jobs in the posted classifications. 2 0 namely, the seasonal nature of Respondent's production business "and not by anti-union or any other improper reasons." 1r Apparently, prior to May 28, Respondent employed both temporary and probationary employees. '8 General Counsel's brief is incorrect in stating that this particular bid sheet was posted on May 13. 19 With the exception of employee Jim Clay who was a forklift driver in shipping. 20 1 find that the bid sheet was posted as a result of the March 25 meeting by Nelson and that Nelson said nothing regarding a potential layoff in any (Continued) 385 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rueter, supervisor over packing/quality control, main- tains that around mid-May Braden informed him of the general layoff. Upon being told by Braden that main line production was going to shut down, Rueter testified that he immediately reached the conclusion that he would have to simultaneously lay off one inspector, because of the diminution in the work to be inspected. Rueter maintains that he did not consult with anyone in arriving at the immediate conclusion that Dery would be laid off, as the only other inspector, Baca, was a leadman, and had higher qualifications and more seniority than Dery. Thereupon, Rueter testified that he notified the personnel department that Dery would be laid off, and instructed personnel to prepare the necessary paperwork. Emerson, a probationary employee who was hired on April 13 to work in production and who thereafter, pursuant to bidding for the posted customer service attendant job, was awarded the job, became classified as a customer service attendant on May 17, less than 2 weeks prior to Dery's discharge. Torres, according to Dery's uncontradicted testimony, "liked doing nothing but pack- ing and he swore he would never go out on the floor and inspect. That was just his way. .... He had an inspector stamp. So he was qualified to inspect, too, but there was no way he would . . . just in customer service he would do inspecting back there." 21 Herrin also had an inspector's stamp, and performed, as did Dery, both inspection and packing work on an alternating basis. 22 Emerson, prior to May 28, was learning how to pack and performed mostly packing work, but also performed some inspection work; and Rueter testified that after Dery's discharge Emerson performed floor inspection work. Rueter's testimony regarding the nature of the work performed by those employees classified as inspectors and those employees classified as customer service attendants is highly illuminating: Q. (By the General Counsel) Do you recall if employees in the customer service department have inspection stamps? A. No, not all of them. Q. Some of them do? A. Some of them do, yes. Q. That's customer service and not quality control? A. Well, that's right. It's customer service. Q. Does that mean that customer service atten- dants do some inspection? A. That's correct. Q. As of May 28, in that area and before, did the inspectors do packing? A. Yes. Q. Did the customer service attendants do pack- ing? departments other than the posted departments, namely, "all filter production areas" and "welding shop." I further find that the bid sheets posted on or about May 13 were posted, and removed, prior to the announcement of the layoff. 21 Dery is apparently referring to Torres' performing receiving inspection work in the quality control area, the entire packing/quality control area often being called customer service. 22 The record does not indicate the percentage of time Herrin spent performing each function. 23 The record does not show the nature of the duties of public relations manager. A. Yes. Q. Isn't it true that the inspectors and customer service attendants at that time were pretty much the same as far as what they did? A. Well, yes and no. Some of them did pretty much the same and some of them didn't. * * * Q. (By General Counsel) Do you recall the term "visual inspector"? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have employees working for you that were visual inspectors? A. Yes. Q. As of.. . May 28, 1976 who were your visual inspectors? A. Barbara Dery. Q. You had no other visual inspectors other than Barbara Dery as of May 28, 1976? A. Well, not in the classification. I had other people doing visual inspection work. [Emphasis supplied.] Q. Who were they? A. Mike Herrin would be one and Torres could have been one. Q. But Herrin was one? A. Yes. Emerson could have been one. Q. Was Mike Herrin an inspector or a customer service attendant? A. Customer service. Q. But he did inspecting? A. Yes. As previously noted, the parties disagree on whether there is a department called quality control and a separate department called customer service, as Respondent main- tains, or whether quality control is merely a subdivision of the customer service department, as General Counsel maintains. The testimony of Rueter is again very illuminat- ing on this point. Thus, Rueter testified that since the date of his being hired until a "few months" prior to the hearing herein he was "customer service and Public Relations Manager." His duties were changed 3 or 4 months prior to the hearing to his current position of "quality control manager, customer relations manager, and sole coordina- tor for the paint operation .... " Thus, it seems clear that although Rueter supervised quality control he did so as customer service supervisor and, perhaps, public relations manager 23 and not as quality control manager, thus further indicating that, at least until well beyond the date of Dery's discharge, quality control was a subdivision of customer service rather than a separate department. 24 24 Dery consistently testified throughout the hearing that quality control was a part of customer service. However, at one point during the cross- examination of Dery, the following colloquy occurred: Q. (By Respondent's counsel) My question is: Isn't it true that the job classification inspector is part of the quality control department? A. (By Dery) That's part of the quality control department, yes. Q. Isn't it true that the job classification inspector-that job classification is not part of the customer service department? The 386 DOUGHBOY RECREATIONAL, INC. On the day of the layoff Dery worked as main line inspector until about 2:30 p.m., at which time main line production ceased and 13 of the 23 production employees were laid off. Thereupon, Baca instructed Dery to work the remainder of the day in customer service. Baca, after receiving a phone call, assembled the employees in packing/quality control; namely Emerson, Herrin, Torres, and Dery. Baca said "I am going to lose some of my people. That's Barbara [Dery], Mike [Herrin] . . . and Terry Huggans." 25 Baca further stated, "Please don't say anything when you go out . . . I was told not to tell you people . . . [but] . .. I am telling you." Thereupon Dery left, receiving two paychecks, but not including her vacation pay which she received at a considerably later date. The parties stipulated that there was no necessity to reduce the number of customer service attendants as a result of the general production layoff. Thus, Herrin was not laid off as a result of the general layoff, but rather the layoff was utilized as a vehicle for dismissing Herrin because of his alleged inability to perform certain work, and Respondent's desire to upgrade the caliber of employ- ees. 26 Respondent, allegedly, about 2 weeks prior to the May 28 layoff, had hired a new employee, J. Stevenson, to the classification of customer service attendant, and Stevenson began working in this position on June 1, the first workday following the layoff. It is admitted that Dery was a competent employee, and Respondent does not maintain that her layoff was occasioned by lack of qualifications, as was Herrin's layoff. While the bid sheet posted on May 13 for the job of customer service attendant contains the requirement "must be able to read blueprints," and while Dery had not yet been trained to read blueprints, it is clear that this inability would not have precluded Dery from obtaining the customer service attendant job, had she bid on it.27 This was clearly brought out in General Counsel's cross-exami- nation of Rueter, as follows: Q. (By General Counsel) What was the reason you did not select Barbara Dery for the customer service attendant job rather than Jan Emerson? A. She didn't bid on it. Q. Was there another reason? A. No. Couldn't have been any. Further, when Braden was asked why Emerson, a probationary employee, was retained while Dery was laid off, he referred to a particular section of the employee handbook, which states: "The right to hire, assign work, classification is not part of customer service? A. Right. While Respondent's counsel places crucial significance on this testimony, and characterizes it as a critical admission, I find that, at least during the period of Dery's employment, there was no separate quality control department but rather quality control was a subdivision of the customer service department. Dery readily admits a distinction between quality control work and customer service work, detailed above, and the record is clear that she performed both jobs on an equal basis. While her response to the above question appears to indirectly admit that quality control is a separate and distinct department. it is apparent that Dery was merely attempting to reiterate that quality control work and customer service work involve different duties. Dery credibly testified that she considered the job lay off, demote, transfer, discharge for cause, and maintain discipline, is the sole responsibility of the Company provided that employees shall not be discriminated against." Thus, Braden did not maintain that Dery lacked the qualifications for the job. The employees' handbook contains the following rele- vant provisions: Regulations Pertaining to the Right to Bid. A new employee on probation is not eligible to apply for a new position due to the lack of seniority. $ * * TRAINING A. Objective 1. It is the desire of the Company to upgrade and promote employees whenever possible and in situations where the Company is satisfied that the employees have the basic qualifications, background, experience, and motivation, the Company will commence to train employees who are not 100 percent qualified to perform the job for which they will be trained. B. Criteria 1. In the selection of those employees for training, the following factors will be analyzed and considered but not necessarily in the order listed below: a. Mechanical aptitude for the job to be performed after training. The factor is determined with recognized aptitude tests. b. Past experience and/or formalized vocational training. c. Success on present job or previous jobs within the Company. d. Motivation or general attitude on present job. It is the desire of the Company to train employees who are genuinely interested in the job for which they are being trained. e. Desire of the employee to pursue a certain line of job progression within the Company. Obviously, it would be undesirable to train an employee to be a machine operator if he has expressed interest in being a welder. Normally, an employee will do his best work on a job he enjoys performing. f. Seniority with the plant. of inspector to be part of customer service, and the record evidence supports this fact, which I find. 25 Huggans' status is not clear in the record. Although he was classified as a production assembler, he had been working in packing/quality control on a regular basis for several weeks. As he had been laid off earlier in the day on May 28, he was not present during Baca's meeting with the remaining employees. 26 The record does not show when the decision was made to dismiss or lay off Herrin. 27 Dery testified that she did not bid on the job because she was already working in customer service, performing that particular work. Her testimony in this regard is as follows: "Well, I had senionty in that department already and I was working in that department. So it didn't make any sense for me to sign a bid sheet for that department." 387 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dery, having more seniority than any employee affected by the May 28 general layoff, was sent a recall letter on August 27 offering her the position of general assembler in the production department, and requesting that she report for work on September 1. Dery replied by letter of August 31, stating that she could not accept the job, as "[I ]t would be a much lower level job than that of Inspector and would be inferior to my qualifications." Dery further stated that, "[I ]f you have an opening in Customer Service, then I will accept a position." Respondent replied by letter dated September 1, stating, inter alia, that only production jobs were then available and that should Dery return to work and should an opening arise in the customer service area for which she is qualified, she would be accorded normal bidding rights; further, Dery's original reporting time was extended to September 7. Dery did not reply to this letter, nor did she report to work. Respondent also, at a later date, recalled employee Rosemary Rodriguez, an apparently known union adherent and the daughter-in-law of an official of the Union, who had been laid off sometime after Dery. D. Analysis and Conclusions 1. The 8(a)(1) violations I do not find that Respondent threatened employees at a group meeting with loss of benefits and closure of the Cucamonga plant if the Union were to win the election, as alleged in the amended complaint. General Counsel's evidence falls far short of the necessary preponderance of evidence necessary to support this particular allegation. The testimony of both Dery and Fox is quite imprecise on this point, being couched in language which at its face indicates only a clouded, somewhat inconsistent, recollec- tion of Nelson's remarks to the assembled employees. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that Nelson did not conduct, or even attend, the group meeting during which he is alleged to have made the unlawful remarks. More- over, under the circumstances, the possible loss of unspeci- fied benefits, and the possibility of a strike perhaps necessitating the work to be performed elsewhere, which, according to the employees' testimony, is essentially the substance of what Nelson said, appears to be within the bounds of permissible expressions of opinion regarding the possible consequences of unionization. See F. Strauss & Son, Inc., 200 NLRB 812, 818 (1972); Chicopee Manufactur- ing Corporation, 107 NLRB 106 (1953); Bilton Insulation, Inc., 129 NLRB 1296, 1297 (1961), enfd. 297 F.2d 141 (C.A. 4, 1961). Cf. Russell Stover Candies, Inc., 221 NLRB 441, 442-443 (1975); Components, Inc., 197 NLRB 163 (1972). I find that the incidents involving Smith's interrogation of employees Clay and Fox occurred as credibly testified to by the said employees, and I do not credit Smith's denial of his conversation with Fox, or Smith's denial that he interrogated Clay regarding the identity of employees who attended union meetings. Likewise, I credit Dery's account of the conversation initiated by Braden, who, I find, approached Dery and unlawfully inquired why she felt a union was needed. Regardless of the casual or friendly nature of the conversation between Smith and Clay which occurred early in March, no justification exists for Smith's conduct in systematically querying Clay, in the confines of Smith's office, regarding the union activity of each employee. Such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act even though Clay may not have actually felt coerced thereby. Heckethorn Manufacturing Co., 208 NLRB 302, 304 (1974); Components, Inc., supra at 169; Quality Transport Inc., 211 NLRB 198, 204 (1974), enfd. 511 F.2d 1190 (C.A. 5, 1975). Likewise, Smith's later interrogation of Fox, again in Smith's office, cannot be considered an isolated or innocuous occurrence. Fox's reluctance to directly answer Smith's query, thus prompting Smith to exclaim that her answer didn't matter because Respondent possessed a list of every employee who attended the meeting, establishes the coercive, rather than merely casual, nature of the conversation. I thus find that the interrogation of Fox by Smith is also violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Cf. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 211 NLRB 870, 871-872 (1974). It is quite clear that Respondent also unlawfully created the impression of engaging in surveillance of employees' union activity, proof of such allegation being established by Smith's aforementioned statement to Fox that he had a list of employees who attended the union meeting. Coca- Cola Bottling Company of Blytheville, 210 NLRB 706, 710 (1974); Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 187 NLRB 989, 990 (1971). Under these circumstances, it is apparent that Nelson's remarks at a group meeting that he knew the identity of three employees who were working very diligently for the Union, and Nelson's remarks to Dery on two separate occasions, both occurring on April 30, regarding his belief that Dery did not report the phone conversation to other employees, likewise created the impression of continuing surveillance of employees' union activity. Cf. Cook United, Inc., d/b/a Cook's Discount Store, 208 NLRB 134 (1974); La-Z-Boy South, Inc., 212 NLRB 295 (1974). Even though Fox had quit the employment of Respon- dent, the record establishes a continuing nexus between Fox and Respondent's employees, as a result of Fox's involvement in the then recent union organizational activity, her expressed interest in the problems of Respon- dent's employees vis-a-vis Leadlady Pierce, and her appar- ent friendly and continuing relationship with employee Dery. Under the circumstances, I find that Nelson's interrogation of Fox, whom I credit, regarding whether a union meeting had been held at her home, and Nelson's statement to Fox that he mistrusted Dery because she did not report the substance of the phone conversation to employees, are part of a pattern of interference with employees' organizational rights, and therefore constitute further violations of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, similar to those found above. Chesterfield Chrome Co., 203 NLRB 36 (1973). 2. The 8(a)(3) violation In mid-May Rueter was made aware of the impending general production layoff. Rueter claims that he immedi- ately knew that Dery, an inspector, would be affected as a result of the decline in floor inspection work, and 388 DOUGHBOY RECREATIONAL, INC. instructed personnel to prepare the necessary paperwork to effectuate her layoff. At this very time there was posted a bid sheet for the position of customer service attendant, the work being identical, except for work requiring blueprint reading, to that which Dery had been performing, under the same supervisor (Rueter), in the same area of the plant (packing/quality control), and with the same employees, who likewise performed inspection work. There is no doubt that Dery, a senior nonprobationary employee with 2 years' experience, was qualified to perform this work and that her lack of ability to read blueprints did not preclude her from receiving the position. Even if Dery would have required training to read the necessary blueprints, it was Respondent's written policy and "desire" to provide that very training under the extensive training provisions of the employee handbook set forth above, which need not be reiterated here. Yet, despite the fact that Rueter supervised only five employees, including Dery, and was very favorably impressed with Dery's work performance, and despite the fact that he not only harbored no animosity toward Dery but was on amicable terms with her, Rueter did not suggest that she bid on the posted customer service attendant job in order to preclude her layoff, or even advise her of the impending layoff. Indeed, all other employees who were affected by the general layoff were given prior notification that their department would be affected by the layoff.28 Rather than advising Dery of her alleged impending layoff in order that she could bid on the customer service job, Respondent awarded the job to Emerson, a probation- ary employee with no prior experience in inspection or customer service work, contrary to the above-specified employee handbook proscription that probationary em- ployees may not bid on a new position. Moreover, a new employee, Stevenson, was hired for the position of customer service attendant, and Stevenson began work the first workday following Dery's layoff. There being not one but two customer service attendant positions open, the positions being filled by a probationary employee, contrary to Respondent's written policy, and by a new hire, and further, there being no reasonable basis for failing to allow Dery to continue to perform substantially the same work she had been performing, necessitating only, perhaps, a perfunctory change in job classification, it is apparent that 28 As found above, the announced layoff was only to affect the filter production and welding departments, and not the customer service department. The employee handbook states that a "senionty employee" who is laid off may elect to accept a transfer to a job held by the least senior employee in a classification that (she) is qualified to perform. Despite the somewhat ambiguous language, the record clearly shows that this procedure is initiated by Respondent pursuant to bid sheets being posted, and has never been invoked by an employee, in the exercise of bidding or bumping rights, absent a bid sheet being posted. There being no bid sheets posted at the time fo Dery's layoff, it is clear that she was given no opportunity to bid into anotherjob upon being informed of her layoff. 29 Dery was the only nonproduction employee laid off on May 28, allegedly as a result of the general production layoff, one paint department employee and one customer service attendant having been laid off for reasons other than lack of work. I find it highly unlikely, under the circumstances, Rueter alone made the decision to effectuate Dery's layoff without consultation with higher management officials. Indeed the record shows that Rueter had no such autonomy with regard to the hiring or placement of employees. Emerson having been awarded the position of Dery's layoff was motivated by considerations other than simply a reduction in force, as argued by Respondent.2 9 In the circumstances of this case, the motive advanced by Respondent being untenable, it is appropriate to apply the rationale of the court in Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v. N.LR.B.:30 Nor is the trier of fact ... required to be any more naif than is a judge. If he finds the stated motive for a discharge is false, he certainly can infer that there is another motive. More than that, he can infer that the motive is one that the employer desires to conceal-an unlawful motive-at least where . . . the surrounding facts tend to reinforce that inference .... Prior to the election herein, Respondent unlawfully attempted to ascertain the identity of those employees active on the Union's behalf, and engaged in an extensive preelection campaign. Not only did Dery's union activity consist of attending each of the union meetings, but she very candidly emphasized her favorable feelings toward the Union, when, upon being unlawfully interrogated by Braden, she stated the reasons why she believed a union was needed and further said that her husband worked in a union shop and she also wanted her young sons to work in a union shop. During the representation election on April 30, Dery acted as the only union observer, and even after the Union lost the election Nelson continued to inquire whether an employee, Fox, had a union meeting at her home, and stated to Fox that he did not trust Dery because he believed that she did not relay particular information to the employees concerning union matters.31 Further, it appears that Nelson felt he would be held personally accountable by Respondent's parent corporation for failing to maintain a "happy family," believing that he might be transferred to New York and, at one point, "holler[ing] pretty loud" that he didn't want to go to New York.32 Given the unpersuasive reason for Dery's layoff or discharge advanced by Respondent, when juxtaposed with the nature and extent of Dery's union activity, and Respondent's mistrust of Dery as a result thereof, related above, I find that Dery's layoff was motivated by her union activities and sympathies and therefore is violative of Section 8(a)3) and (1) of the Act.3 3 Cantor Bros., Inc., 209 NLRB 433 (1974); Armcor Industries, Inc., 217 NLRB 358 customer service attendant pursuant to Smith's recommendation or direction. 30 362 F.2d 466, 470 (C.A. 9, 1966). 31 Apparently Nelson was preoccupied and annoyed by Dery's involve- ment in the phone incident, as evidenced by Nelson's various remarks in this regard to both Dery and Fox. 32 Nelson's conduct does not appear to be consistent with his contention that he made the remark casually or merely in jest. 33 The fact that an employer does not lay off all union adherents or that an employer may even recall a number of union adherents, does not preclude a finding of discrimination against some union adherents. Shedd- Brown Mfg. Co., 102 NLRB 742, 764 (1953); 103 NLRB 905 (1953): Santa Fe Drilling Cornpany, 171 NLRB 161, 188. fn. 56 (1968), and cases cited therein; Luhr Jensen & Sons, Inc., 177 NLRB 475, fn. 17 (1967); Broyhill Company, 210 NLRB 288, 296 (1974); Franklin Homes, Inc., 187 NLRB 389. 394 fn. 9 (1970), enfd. 461 F.2d 847 (C.A. 5, 1972). Further, the fact that Dery was recalled by Respondent after the filing of a charge by Dery and the issuance of complaint, is not compelling proof of lack of discriminatory (Continued) 389 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (1975); Pacific Southwest Airlines, 201 NLRB 647, 655 (1973). Having discriminatorily laid off or discharged Dery, Respondent is under an obligation to offer her reinstate- ment to her former job as inspector, or, if such job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job, namely, the job of customer service attendant, which I have found to be substantially similar to the job of inspector. Respondent, by its recall letters to Dery, dated August 27 and September 1, did not offer Dery the position of either inspector or customer service attendant, but rather offered her the job of general assembler, which job Dery refused because of its less desirable nature and somewhat lower pay scale. I therefore find that Respondent's offer was legally insufficient and did not constitute a valid offer of reinstatement. Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., 182 NLRB 717 (1970); Armcor Industries, Inc., supra; Kut-Kwick Corpora- tion, 176 NLRB 635, 651 (1969) and cases cited therein at fn. 61; Information Control Corporation, 196 NLRB 504, 508-509 (1972). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Doughboy Recreational, Inc., is an employer en- gaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Southern California District Council of Laborers and its affiliated Hod Carriers and Building Laborers, Local Union No. 783, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interrogating employees concerning their union activities and sympathies and the union activities and sympathies of other employees, and by creating the impression of engaging in surveillance of employees' union activities, I find that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 4. By laying off or discharging employee Barbara J. Dery on May 28, 1976, 1 find that Respondent has discriminated in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to discourage membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, 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. Respondent will be required to offer Barbara J. Dery reinstatement to her former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, anyone who may have been hired to perform the work which she had been performing. Additionally, Respondent will be ordered to make Barbara motive given the circumstances surrounding Dery's discharge in the first instance. 34 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. J. Dery whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of her unlawful layoff or discharge, with backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis, making deduction for interim earnings, and with interest to be paid at the rate of 6 percent per annum. F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950); Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), enforcement denied on different grounds 322 F.2d 913 (C.A. 9, 1963). Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 3 4 The Respondent, Doughboy Recreational, Inc., Cuca- monga, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees concerning their union activities and sympathies, and the union membership and sympathies of other employees. (b) Creating the impression of engaging in surveillance of employees' union activities. (c) Laying off, discharging, or otherwise discriminating against employees with regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment for engaging in activities on behalf of a labor organization or for otherwise engaging in activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Barbara J. Dery immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former or substantially equivalent position of employment, dismissing, if necessary, anyone who may have been hired or retained to perform the work that she had been performing, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered as a result of the discrimina- tion against her in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents all payroll and other records necessary to determine the backpay entitlements and reinstatement rights set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Post at its Cucamonga, California, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."35 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respon- dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous 35 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." 390 DOUGHBOY RECREATIONAL, INC. places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 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 an opportunity to present evidence and state their positions, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice. The Act gives employees the following rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or assist unions To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing To engage in activities together for purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that the employees' bargain- ing representative and an employer have a collective-bargaining agreement which imposes a lawful requirement that employees become union members. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their own activities on behalf of, or sympathy toward, any labor organization, or concerning the union activities or sympathies of other employees. WE WILL NOT create among our employees the impression that we are engaging in surveillance of their union activities. WE WILL NOT lay off, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against employees for engaging in activi- ties on behalf of Southern California District Council of Laborers and its affiliated Hod Carriers and Building Laborers, Local Union No. 783, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer Barbara J. Dery immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, dismissing, if necessary, anyone who may have been hired or retained to perform the work which she had been performing, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered as a result of the unlawful discrimination against her. DOUGHBOY RECREATIONAL, INC. 391