City Dodge Center, Inc.

194 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD City Dodge Center, Inc. and Robert J. Cozatt. Case 18-CA-9798 June 17, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS BABSON AND CRACRAFT On January 27, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Claude R. Wolfe issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings,' findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, City Dodge Center, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. i The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings 2 We agree with the judge that the facts here do not support a finding that the employees herein participated in either a sitdown or an intermit- tent strike Thus, on August 29, 1986, when the employees were directed to leave the facility after stopping work in an attempt to secure a meeting with President Hatfield, they did not remain in the plant en masse All but a few of the employees left the premises The remaining employees stayed in the plant for about 2 more hours They left peacefully after President Hatfield read a prepared statement telling them they could go to work, leave the premises, or remain on the premises and be terminat- ed The action of these few employees simply does not rise to the level of the disregard of property rights and defiance of law associated with an unprotected sitdown strike as defined in NLRB v Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U S 240 (1939), cited by the Respondent Nor does the action of the employees over the period of August 29 to September 3, 1986, amount to an intermittent strike When the Respond- ent determined that the employees had chosen the option of leaving rather than returning to work , the Respondent instructed them to return on the next working day, September 2, 1986 The employees did as they were instructed and returned to work despite the uncertainty created by the help-wanted advertisement placed by the Respondent on August 29, 1986 According to the credited testimony, the employees decided to await an approach from management regarding their request for a meet- ing None was forthcoming and consequently the employees did not punch in as scheduled the following day, but instead met and agreed to again request a meeting with President Hatfield These actions cannot reasonably be construed as a plan to strike, return to work , and strike again To the contrary, they appear to be a series of reactions to steps taken by the Respondent Everett Rotenberry, Esq., for the General Counsel. David R. Hols, Esq., for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE CLAUDE R. WOLFE, Administrative Law Judge. This proceeding was litigated before me at Minneapolis, Min- nesota, on 8 and 9 September 1987 pursuant to charges filed and served on 5 September 19861 and complaint issued on 27 July 1987. The complaint alleges that City Dodge Center, Inc. (Respondent) discharged employees Robert Cozatt, Peter Rowland, Michael Ketchmark, Jerome Rosa, Michael Manning, and Mark Elliott be- cause they engaged in protected concerted activities. Re- spondent denies the commission of unfair labor practices, and affirmatively asserts the employees were not en- gaged in protected activities and were not discharged. After considering all the evidence, the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified before me, and the able posttrial briefs of the parties, I am persuaded that Re- spondent, for the reasons set forth in section III of this decision, has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as al- leged. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. JURISDICTION Respondent is a Minnesota corporation with an office and place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where it is engaged in the retail sale of automobiles. During the calendar year ending 31 December 1986, Respondent, in the course and conduct of these business operations, de- rived gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and pur- chased and received at its Minneapolis, Minnesota facili- ty products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Minne- sota. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. SUPERVISORS AND AGENTS At all times material, the following named persons have occupied the positions set forth opposite their re- spective names, and are now, and have been at all times material, supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: William Hatfield President Ruben Przybilla Controller Carl Torres Service Coordinator III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES In August 1986, Respondent's mechanics discussed their concerns regarding pay scales, shop supplies, and what they considered to be improper treatment by Ruben Przybilla. These discussions culminated in a i All dates are 1986 unless otherwise indicated 289 NLRB No. 25 CITY DODGE CENTER 195 group decision2 about 26 August that Robert Cozatt, as the group's spokesman, request Respondent's president, William Hatfield, to meet with all of them to discuss their grievances. They decided not to approach Hatfield until 29 August because Chrysler representatives were visiting the facility and the employees did not want to interrupt Hatfield while the Chrysler people were present. The mechanics were scheduled to begin work at 8 a.m. on 29 August, but they did not do so. Instead they gathered in the break area and agreed that they would not work until Hatfield agreed to meet with them and discuss their grievances. Accordingly, when their super- visor, Service Coordinator Torres, asked why they were not working, Cozatt, as their spokesman, told Torres they were not going to work until they had a meeting scheduled with Hatfield for the purpose of discussing shop problems. Torres suggested they put their griev- ances in writing for him to take to Hatfield. The me- chanics declined to so do on the ground this had previ- ously been tried and failed to bring results. Torres left and reported to Przybilla that the men were refusing to work until they met with Hatfield. Przybilla consulted with Hatfield via the telephone. Hatfield instructed that the employees be told to go to work or go home. Przy- billa and Torres then met with the mechanics in the breakroom about 9 a.m. There is some confusion regard- ing who said what, but I am persuaded that it was Przy- billa, not Torres, who told the employees to go to work or go home. Employee testimony that Torres or Przy- billa told them the shop or service area had been closed is denied by Torres and Przybilla. Noting that Michael Ketchmark, parts counterman, credibly testified that he was independently told by Torres, at 9:30 or 10 a.m., that the shop was being closed and Ketchmark should report to work on 2 September. I credit the mechanics that Torres and/or Przybilla told them their workplace was closed and they should return on 2 September. I find it most probable and conclude that this was said after the mechanics clearly indicated they could not take the return to work option, and that it was said for the purpose of persuading the mechanics to leave the prem- ises inasmuch as they were clearly not going to work. All but a few of the mechanics left the premises. About noon, Hatfield read a prepared statement to those me- chanics remaining. His message was short and simple. They had the options of going to work, leaving the premises, or remaining on the premises and being termi- nated. Hatfield refused to respond to Cozatt's inquiry about whether Hatfield would schedule a meeting with the employees. The remaining mechanics then left the premises. That afternoon Respondent placed a help- wanted ad in the local newspaper offering a $500 reward to mechanics. The following workday, 2 September, all the mechan- ics and Ketchmark returned to work at the scheduled hour and completed the workday without incident. The mechanics had decided, during a brief meeting before starting, to work and await an approach from manage- ment regarding their request for a meeting. None came. This was not, however, the end of the matter. The fol- lowing day, 3 September, the mechanics did not punch in as scheduled. Their immediate supervisor, McCartney, had been discharged the day before. Cozatt met with Roland, Manning, Rosa, Elliott, and Ellefson outside Re- spondent's facility shortly before 8 a.m. Cozatt told them of McCartney's discharge, which caused the employees some concern because they had regarded McCartney as a sympathetic intermediary between them and higher management. By this time they had also seen Respond- ent's newspaper advertisements, which they considered an indication that Respondent was going to replace them with new hires. Shortly after this gathering outside the building, these six employees repaired to a nearby restau- rant where they agreed they would again request a meet- ing for the purpose of discussing (1) the newspaper ad that they feared meant they were going to be replaced, (2) who might be terminated, (3) the pay scale, (4) shop supplies, and (5) Przybilla's attitude. They had no plan to take any action to protest McCartney's discharge. The six of them returned to Respondent's service department between 9:30 and 10 a.m. According to Cozatt, Elliott, and Manning,3 they were met by Torres who abruptly told them they were terminated, but gave them permis- sion to take their personal tools from the facility. Torres denies saying the employees were terminated, and asserts the conversation was confined to a statement by the em- ployees of intent to or a request for permission to remove their tools, in which he acquiesced. The employ- ees' version is credited. In addition to the inability of Torres to recall whether the employees made a request or statement of intent, I find his version extremely im- probable because it is clear the employees entered the shop to repeat their request for a meeting. There is no evidence from which to infer their purpose was to pick up their tools, which required considerable time and the use of pickup trucks, and which they would have to return to the shop in order to work if their request was met. Moreover, Torres' comments as related by the three mechanics in a believable manner were consistent with the contemporaneous conduct of Przybilla who, accord- ing to the credible testimony of Ketchmark and Dennis Brown, Ketchmark's supervisor and on 3 September is no longer employed by Respondent, came into the parts department a few minutes after 8:05 a.m. (before Torres told the mechanics they were terminated) and asked if Ketchmark was working. When Ketchmark responded that he was not yet working because he was waiting to talk to Brown, who was on the phone at the time, Przy- billa ordered him to leave. Przybilla's question and reac- tion to the answer show he was trying to find out if, and concluded that, Ketchmark was in concert with the me- chanics. That Ketchmark was considered to be a striker because he was not working was reluctantly acknowl- edged by Torres, and is apparent from Respondent's con- tention he was "replaced." Brown further testified that, about 9 or 10 a.m, on 3 September, Przybilla pulled a 2 Present were mechanics Cozatt, Rowland, Elliott, Manning, Hos- tetler, and Ellefson. 3 Rowland, Rosa, and Ellefson did not testify. Elliot's written state- ment of 5 September 1986 is consistent with his testimony before me. 196 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD number of timecards from the rack,4 and said either that those employees to whom the cards pertained were ter- minated, fired, or replaced. Brown does not recall for certain which word Przybilla used, but credibly testified, "Basically he told me that they were done." Whichever word Przybilla used, and I do not believe the word used was "replaced" because none of the alleged replacements had even been interviewed when Przybilla removed the timecards, I agree with Brown that the message was clear, "they were done." Przybilla says he picked up the mechanics' timecards late in the day on 3 September, and did so because they had picked up their tools and he fig- ured they left. He does not claim he picked them up be- cause they had been replaced. I credit Przybilla that he picked up the mechanics' timecards on 3 September, but I do not credit his testimony that he did this in late after- noon, or that he did not talk to Ketchmark on that date, or was not in the parts area during the morning of that day. Brown, who has not been shown to be prejudiced against Respondent and who gave every indication of being an honest witness careful to say no more than what he knew, is credited where his testimony conflicts with that of Ketchmark or Przybilla. Accordingly, I conclude that Przybilla did order Ketchmark to leave within a few minutes of 8:05 a.m., and did communicate to Brown that the employees whose timecards he picked up an hour or so later were no longer employees of Re- spondent. Torres' statement to Brown later that day to the effect that a replacement for Ketchmark would start work on Monday confirms that Ketchmark was indeed "done" so far as Respondent was concerned, and Re- spondent no longer considered him an employee. On the afternoon of 3 September, Torres, and appar- ently Hatfield in the case of Harold Pederson, inter- viewed applicants who had responded to the newspaper ad. Torres testified that he hired Allen Potter, William Potter, William Jaskulke, Robert Morris, and Michael Rehling by 6 p.m. on 3 September, and Harold Pederson had been hired as a partsman the same day. Torres testi- fied that Rehling started work on 5 September, and the others started on 4 or 5 September. Jaskulke's application shows him available to start work on 8 August 1986. I conclude this should read 8 September 1986 because the date of the application has been corrected to 2 Septem- ber 1986. Allen Potter's application shows him available to start work on 8 September. An agreement signed by Hatfield and Harold Pederson on 3 September sets his starting date as 11 September. It is therefore doubtful that Jaskulke, Allen Potter, or Pederson started work on 4 or 5 September. Jaskulke's own records make it im- probable that they did. I therefore conclude that Re- spondent has not proved these three were working on 4 September. Add Rehling to their ranks, and only Wil- liam Potter and Robert Morris have been shown by any unrebutted evidence, however slight, to have started work before 4 September. According to Torres, William Potter replaced Cozatt, Rehling replaced Elliott, Morris replaced Manning, Allen Potter replaced Rowland, and Rosa and Ketchmark had been replaced. Pederson was the replacement for Ketchmark . Assuming arguendo the correctness of this reckoning, no one was working in place of Elliott, Rowland, or Ketchmark on 4 Septem- ber. Certainly no one had replaced any of the alleged discriminatees when they were terminated by Torres and Przybilla on 3 September. On 4 September, Ellefson was permitted to return to work on the ground he had not been replaced. Schultz had returned to work as directed and therefore contin- ued as an employee . Ketchmark and Rosa were denied a return to work on 4 September on the ground they had been replaced. Respondent directed letters to Peter Rowland, Mark Elliott, Robert Cozatt, and Jerome Rosa in 1986, on 17, 20, 23, and 27 October, respectively, signed by Torres and reading as follows: City Dodge presently has a job opening in a posi- tion for which you are qualified. You are hereby of- fered reinstatement to the Service Department of City Dodge. Please report for work within five days of this letter. If you do not report and do not otherwise call in response to this letter, we will assume you are not interested and proceed with other hiring. Discussion The employees' 29 August refusal to work unless and until Hatfield agreed to meet with them and discuss their concerns on matters clearly related to wages and work- ing conditions was a protected concerted activity. Re- spondent, citing Fansteel5 and Peck, Inc.,6 argues that the activity was not protected because the employees occu- pied the property while refusing to work . I do not agree. Here the employees did not, as in Fansteel, seize and hold Respondent's facility for several days, nor did they battle with police officers seeking their eviction, nor did they violate a court order to surrender the premises, nor did they, as did the employees in Peck, occupy and refuse to leave a plant area until evicted by police. The 29 August situation before me is more reminiscent of the happenings in American Mfg. Co.,7 which the Second Circuit recited as follows: [T]he T.W.O.C. shop committee . . . met to consid- er the situation at the plant and decided that it had became essential to endeavor to induce the Compa- ny to resume negotiations with T.W.O.C. In order to accomplish this, the shop committee determined to have the weavers in the Nu-Art Department tem- porarily stop work the next morning while it called upon the Company officials concerning the resump- tion of Union negotiations . Pursuant to this plan, at ten 0 clock in the morning of June 29, without the use of any force and without any disorder, all the weavers stopped their looms; immediately thereafter s NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp, 306 U S 240 (1939) 4 Elliott confirms that he saw Przybilla "tearing" the timecards from 6 226 NLRB 1174 (1936) their slots that morning while the mechanics were removing their tools T NLRB v American Mfg Co, 106 F 2d 61 , 67 (2d Cir. 1939), modified from the shop on another issue 309 U S 629 (1939) CITY DODGE CENTER the shop committee told Anderson and Fardy, who were in the weaving rooms, that the stoppage had taken place in order to get a promise from the com- pany that it would meet and bargain collectively with the T.W.O.C. representatives. Anderson, who in the absence of Filley and Brown was in charge of the plant, refused to talk to the committee and told the employees to go back to work. A little later, Anderson approached the meeting of the em- ployees with the shop committee which was being held in a back room of the plant and ordered the men either to return to work or to leave the prem- ises. Some of the men returned to work and others stood around in groups talking. At noon most of the weavers went out to lunch and on returning with the intention of going back to work were stopped at one of the entrances and fourteen were discharged. Two others who had not left the building were dis- charged during the noon hour. The other weavers were admitted. The Second Circuit said (106 F.2d at 68), regarding the above-described employee conduct: We do not regard the action of . . . employees in standing around the premises for a period of not more than two hours, while an attempt was being made to persuade the Company to fix a date for collective bargaining with T.W.O.C., as in the nature of a sit-down strike which would permit the termination of the employee relationship. The Board, in Golay,8 expressly adopted the Court's lan- guage last quoted, and further noted it had long before held in Cudahy Packing Co. 9 that where employees en- gaged in a brief work stoppage, but remained in their parking area, conversing in scattered groups or stood peaceably at or near their work station , there was no sit- down strike or "outlaw enterprise" because the stop- pages "did not involve seizure or destruction of, or damage to the Respondent's property with resultant fi- nancial loss to the Respondent," and there was therefore no warrant for holding the stoppages were not protect- ed. These precedents and the facts in the instant case persuade me that the employees here involved did not engage in an unprotected sit-down strike or plant seizure, whichever term is used, on 29 October. To the contrary, on that date they engaged in a protected concerted work stoppage in pursuit of an adjustment of pay and work- related grievances. Respondent also contends the employees engaged in an unprotected intermittent strike . There is no showing the employees had any plan on 29 August to engage in a series of intermittent strikes, nor did the events of that day or the tranquil 2 September day provide Respondent any reason to believe such a plan existed . I am persuaded the employees on 29 August in fact had no idea what they might do if their request was refused . This conclu- 8 Golay & Co, 156 NLRB 1252 (1966), enfd 371 F.2d 259 (7th Cir 1966), cert denied 387 U S 944 (1967) 8 29 NLRB 837 (1941), petition for review denied 123 F 2d 63 (8th Cir 1941) 197 sion is supported by their rather aimless conduct when it was refused. They simply had not thought it through and, when Hatfield gave them the three options, they opted to save their jobs, go home, and return to work the next workday as Torres certainly and Przybilla prob- ably had invited them to do before Hatfield issued his ukase. The employees did not occupy the shop on 3 Septem- ber. and I do not believe their remaining in the shop on 29 August was a reason for their discharge. They had se- lected one of Hatfield's options on 29 August and were solicited to return to work on 2 September, which they did with no disciplinary repercussions or threat of disci- pline for their 29 August conduct. The mechanics did not go to work on 3 September because they had no pre- conceived plan of action and were uncertain what course of action to take in the light of Respondent's failure to contact them on 2 September and the help-wanted ad- vertisement. Their failure to punch in was a protected concerted activity because they were gathered together in order to determine what, if anything, they were going to do about their grievances, Respondent's failure to af- firmatively respond to their request for a meeting on these grievances, and their apprehension that the adver- tisement meant they were going to be replaced by new hires. They decided to again request a meeting to discuss their concerns. They also agreed that Cozatt, as their spokesman, would tell Respondent they would not work until they met with management. It was then that they entered the shop for the first time that day. So far as Re- spondent knew, they may have decided to return to work, but, with no preamble, Torres bluntly told the me- chanics they were terminated. There is no evidence Torres had any idea what the mechanics were going to say or do, and I conclude they were discharged because Respondent considered them to be strikers that morning, which in effect they were by withholding their labor. The decision to discharge "strikers" was made earlier that morning as reflected by Przybilla's discharge of Ketchmark shortly after 8 a.m. because Ketchmark was not working, and therefore was considered a striker in concert with the mechanics. That Ketchmark was so considered is further shown by the advice given him by Torres on 4 September that he had been replaced. The fact that Ketchmark was discharged for this reason sup- ports my conclusion that the concerted work stoppage of 3 September was the sole reason for the mechanics' dis- charge because Ketchmark was not one of the group that originally stopped working on 29 August, and only left work that day because Torres told him the shop was closed and he should return to work on 2 September. 110 Respondent's contention that the mechanics and Ketchmark were lawfully replaced is without merit. It is true that an employer is free to permanently replace eco- nomic strikers who do not return to work, but here the affected employees were unlawfully discharged on the morning of 3 September before any job applicants were 10 The refusal of the mechanics to work obviously seriously curtailed or effectively eliminated automobile repair work on 29 August, and therefore the services of Ketchmark , a parts counterman, were probably not needed that day 198 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD even interviewed, much less hired. Unlawfully dis- charged employees remain employees entitled to rein- statement to their former jobs, or substantially equivalent jobs, and may not be permanently replaced by new hires. Accordingly, the defense of replacement, if it in fact took place, is not applicable to this case and I see no need to decide its merit had the employees not been dis- charged the morning of 3 September. Whether the offers of employment issued after the dis- charges were valid offers of reinstatement is referred to the compliance stage of this proceeding. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. By discharging Robert Cozatt, Pete Rowland, Mi- chael Ketchmark, Jerome Rose, Michael Manning, and Mark Elliott because they engaged in protected concert- ed activity, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY In addition to the usual cease-and-desist order and the posting of appropriate notices, my recommended Order will require Respondent to offer the six employees dis- charged on 3 September 1986 unconditional reinstate- ment to their former jobs, or substantially equivalent po- sitions if their former jobs no longer exist, and make them whole for all wages lost as a result of their unlaw- ful discharge, the backpay to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Re- tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).11 I shall also order Re- spondent to remove from its files any reference to the 3 September 1986 discharges of these employees, and to notify them in writing that this has been done and that evidence of their unlawful discharge will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against them. The vi- sitatorial clause requested by the General Counsel is un- necessary in the circumstances of this case. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed12 ORDER The Respondent, City Dodge Center, Inc., Minneapo- lis, Minnesota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from 11 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) Interest will be computed at the "short- term Federal rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621 12 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses (a) Discharging its employees, or otherwise discrimi- nating in any manner with respect to their tenure of em- ployment or any term or condition of their employment because they engage in protected concerted activities. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub- stantially equivalent positions to Robert Cozatt, Peter Rowland, Michael Ketchmark, Jerome Rosa, Michael Manning, and Mark Elliott, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision. (b) Remove from its files any references to the dis- charges of Robert Cozatt, Peter Rowland, Michael Ketchmark, Jerome Mesa, Michael Manning, and Mark Elliott, and notify them in writing that this has been done and that evidence of their discharges will not be used as a basis for future personnel action against them. (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at the Respondent's place of business in Min- neapolis, Minnesota, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" a Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representa- tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi- al. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. is If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. CITY DODGE CENTER WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employees, or in any other manner discriminate against them in regard to their tenure of employment or other term or condition of their employment because they engage in concerted ac- tivity protected by the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer Robert Cozatt, Peter Rowland, Mi- chael Ketchmark, Jerome Rosa, Michael Manning, and Mark Elliott immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan- 199 tially equivalent employment, without prejudice to their rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of our unlawful discrimination against them, with interest computed thereon, and WE WILL remove from our files any references to their 3 September 1986 dis- charges, and notify them in writing that we have done so and that evidence of their discharges will not be used as a basis for future personnel action against them. CITY DODGE CENTER, INC.