A-Diamond Glass And Board-Up Co , [Alleged] Alter Ego And/Or Successor Of Apple Glass Co.

700 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bell Glass Co, [Alleged] Alter Ego of Apple Glass Company, A Diamond Glass Co and A Dia mond Board-Up Co, [Alleged] a Single Employ- er d/b/a A-Diamond Glass and Board-Up Co, [Alleged] Alter Ego and/or Successor of Apple Glass Company, Apple Glass Company and Gla- ziers, Architectural Metal & Glass Workers Local Union No 27, Chicago & Vicinity, Inter- national Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO Case 13-CA-25918 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondents, Bell Glass Co, and A-Diamond Glass Co and A Diamond Board Up Co, d/b/a A-Diamond Glass and Board-Up Co, Chicago, Illinois, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order April 18, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On June 30 1988, Administrative Law Judge Marvin Roth issued the attached decision The Re- spondent Diamond filed exceptions and the Gener- al Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting and answering brief 1 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 conclusions3 and to adopt the recommended Order ' The General Counsel also filed a motion to strike the Respondent Diamonds exceptions on the basis that they do not comply with Sec 102 46 (b)(1)(ui) of the Board s Rules In its exceptions Diamond asserted that its exceptions were prepared without the benefit of the record be cause the General Counsel refused to honor its request for access to the case transcripts We note however that the General Counsel has submit ted a copy of a certified letter from counsel for the General Counsel to Diamond dated August 18 1988 return receipt attached stating that Di amond had been offered access to the case transcripts on several occa sions in July 1988 t e prior to the filing of Diamond s exceptions The letter also renewed the offer to Diamond to view the transcripts and stated that a motion by Diamond to supplement its exceptions would not be opposed by the General Counsel According to the General Counsels motion Diamond did not respond to the August 18 letter In any event we deny the General Counsel s motion to strike on the basis that al though Diamonds exceptions do not fully comply with the Board s Rules they are not so deficient as to warrant striking 2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find rags 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 Diamond also excepts to the judge s findings that Shirley White was still employed by Apple Glass at the time it ceased operations on Decem ber 31 1985 and that it received a larger share of Apples inventory than did Respondent Bell at the time Apple ceased operations We find it un necessary to pass on either of these findings because they have no effect on the outcome of this case 3 The General Counsel excepts to the judge s finding that Respondent Diamond is not an alter ego of Respondent Apple We find it unneces sary to pass on this finding because it does not affect the remedy in this case Alan M Kaplan Esq and Steven L Sokolow Esq for the General Counsel Ed Kuzniar, of Mount Prospect Illinois, for Bell Glass Co Shirley White, of Chicago Illinois for Respondent A Di amond Glass Co and A Diamond Board Up Co Margo R Newman Esq of Chicago Illinois for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARVIN ROTH Administrative Law Judge This case was heard at Chicago, Illinois, on December 3, 1986 and November 30, and December 1 2 and 3 1987 The charge and amended charge were filed on May 2, 1986, respectively, by Glaziers Architectural Metal & Glass Workers Local Union No 27, Chicago & Vicinity, Inter national Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades AFL-CIO (the Union) 1 The complaint, which issued on June 30 1986 and was amended at the hearing, alleges that Bell Glass Co A Diamond Glass Co and A Dia mond Board Up Co and Apple Glass Company2 (Bell Diamond Apple and collectively Respondents) violated and are violating Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act 3 The gravamen of the complaint is that Bell is the alter ego of Apple that Diamond a single employer is the alter ego and/or successor of Apple that Respondents have unlawfully failed and re fused to recognize and bargain with the Union as repre sentative of their respective employees and that Re spondents are obligated to remedy unfair labor practices previously committed by Apple Apple did not enter an appearance in this proceeding Bell and Diamond, by their respective answers, deny the alleged relationships and deny commission of the alleged unfair labor prac tices All parties were afforded full opportunity to partici pate, to present relevant evidence, to examine and cross examine witnesses to argue orally, and to file briefs The General Counsel and Diamond each filed briefs 4 On the ' The caption was amended on motion of the General Counsel at the heanng 2 All dates are for the period from July 1 1985 through June 30 1986 unless otherwise indicated 3 When necessary A Diamond Glass Co and A Diamond Board Up Co will be referred to separately as Diamond Glass and Diamond Board Up 4 Bell submitted a one page letter in lieu of a brief As Bell did not serve copies on the other parties I did not consider the letter However I have considered the oral arguments of all parties 293 NLRB No 85 BELL GLASS CO entire record in this case, 5 and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the briefs submitted by the General Counsel and Dia mond, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS In Apple Glass C0, 13-CA-24872, etc (JD-89-86) (un reported), enfd docket No 86-2398 (7th Cir 1986), which will be discussed further, the Board found that Apple, an Illinois corporation was engaged in the buss ness of installing and replacing window glass and store fronts, and that Apple annually purchased and received at its Chicago, Illinois facility goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside of Illi nois Apple admitted and the Board found that Apple was an employer engaged in commerce under the Act Apple ceased operations at the end of 1985, and was dis solved in February 1986 Bell a corporation with its place of business in Chicago, has since January 1986 been engaged in the business of replacing glass The par ties stipulated that during 1986, a representative period, Bell purchased goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 from enterprises which meet the Board s juris dictional standards Shirley White and Leonard Settipani, d/b/a A Diamond Glass & Board Up, a partnership commenced operations on March 1, 1985 In January 1986 the business was incorporated Two Illinois corpo rations were formed respectively, A Diamond Glass Co and A Diamond Board Up Co In fact, the corporations operate as a single business entity The answer to the complaint was signed by Shirley White on behalf of A Diamond Glass and Board Up Company' White testi fled in sum that she is the sole stockholder, president, and chief operating officer of both corporations On Jan nary 2, 1986, George Pistas executed an employment agreement" with A Diamond Glass and Board Up Company, described as a business enterprise organized for the purpose of conducting and performing any and all types of Board up work and any and all types of Glass work The business enterprise is engaged in the business of putting boards over damaged windows and doors (board up work), and replacing glass and store front facades All business is conducted out of one loca tion (since` January 1986 the premises at 3855 West Grand, in Chicago) The two corporations share a single Federal employer identification number, and use a single payroll Shirley White testified in sum that all nonclerical employees are classified as glaziers There are no sepa rate job classifications Rather, employees are assigned work as needed with regard to their experience and abil ity, e g their ability to perform metal work The parties stipulated that during 1986 a representative period, Dia mond Glass purchased goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from enterprises which meet the Board's jurisdictional standards It is undisputed that Bell and Diamond each purchase substantial amounts of glass Union President Bernard Spatz testified without contradiction that there are no factories producing glass 5 General Counsel s motion to correct transcript is granted 701 in Illinois Therefore it is evident that directly or mdi rectly Bell and Diamond receive substantial amounts of glass from points outside of Illinois 6 Putting aside at this point the question of the relationships among Apple, Bell and Diamond I find that Diamond Glass and Dia mond Board Up are commonly owned, operated and controlled, with a common labor policy, and together constitute a single employer under the Act (Diamond), that Apple was, until January 1 1986, an employer en gaged in commerce, and that since January 1, 1986 Bell and Diamond have been and are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION AND BARGAINING UNITS INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act In Apple Glass Co, supra, the Board found that all employees of Apple employed at its facility then located at 4305-11 West Fullerton Avenue, Chicago, excluding office clerical employees, supervi sors, and guards as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act The Board further found that since February 28, 1985, the Union has been the exclusive collective bargaining repre sentative of the unit employees In the present case the General Counsel contends that since about January 1, 1986, all employees of Bell at its facility (presently at the same location), with the same exclusions and all employ ees of Diamond at its facility, also with the same exclu sions, constitute an appropriate unit for collective bar gaining The General Counsel further contends that by virtue of the (alleged) status of Bell and Apple as a single employer and alter egos, and the (alleged) status of Diamond as a successor and alter ego of Apple, the Union has since January 1, 1986 been the exclusive bar gaining representative of the employees in each unit As indicated, the General Counsel does not seek a unit cov enng all entities The units alleged in the complaint are presumptively appropriate Respondents have not come forward with evidence that would overcome that pre sumption As found Diamond Glass and Diamond Board Up together constitute a single employer with common management and supervision and an integrated work force I find that the units requested by the Gener al Counsel as modified by the fact that Bell presently op erates only out of 4311 West Fullerton are appropriate for collective bargaining The question of the Union's representative status depends on the relationships among Apple Bell and Diamond which is the principal issue in this proceeding 6 This fact alone demonstrates statutory jurisdiction In view of Re spondents failure and refusal to comply with General Counsels subpoe nas which resulted in a lengthy delay in the hearing the General Coun sel did not have to show that Respondents met the Board s jurisdictional standards Rather the General Counsel was required to show only statu tory jurisdiction which it did See Tropicana Products 122 NLRB 121 123 (1958) Strand Theatre 235 NLRB 1500 (1978) 702 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Developments Commencing Prior to December 1985 The Operations of Apple the Apple Unfair Labor Practice Proceeding and the Formation of Diamond Apple commenced operations n 1983 Ed Kuzniar and George Pistas each owned 50 percent of the corporate stock Kuznfar was president and Pistas was vice presi dent Apple performed board up work until January 1985, when Kuznfar and Pistas sold the board up oper ation to another firm Apple operated out of the premises at 4305-11 West Fullerton Kuzniar and Pistas owned the premises at 4311 West Fullerton Kuzniar testified that the premises at 4305 West Fullerton were owned by his father in law until 1983, when he purchased the premises without putting his name on a deed Pistas testa fled that the building out of which Apple operated was owned by himself Kuznfar, and their wives, but did not indicate to which (or both) buildings he was refer ring However Kuznfar, acting as counsel for Bell, asked Pistas When we bought 4305 West Fullerton what was in the building when we bought it? Pistas proceeded to answer the question, and did not dispute the premise that we bought it No party presented title documents in evidence The General Counsel stated on the record that it would obtain copies of such documents and offer them in evidence, but never did so I find in light of the admis sions of Kuzmar and Pistas, that they owned both the premises at 4305 and 4311 West Fullerton Apple s larg est item of equipment consisted of its trucks Apple leased its trucks from Cherry Leasing, which was also owned by Kuznfar and Pistas Atlas Automotive, a firm owned by Pistas owned other equipment including a large saw which was also used by Apple in its business In February 1985, the Union commenced an organiza tional campaign among Apple s employees This cam paign, and Apple s response, led to the prior unfair prac tice proceeding The Union and Frank Dorgan a dis charged employee filed charges and the General Coun sel issued a consolidated complaint against Apple In July 1985, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Bracken conducted a hearing in the matter and on April 8, 1986, Judge Bracken issued his decision and recommended Order Judge Bracken found in sum as follows As of February 26, 1985 Apple had 13 unit employees, includ ing 7 glaziers 2 metal shop employees, and 3 helpers Seven of the 12 employees signed authorization cards designating the Union as their bargaining representative At this point Apple commenced a campaign of unfair labor practices, including the discriminatory discharge of Frank Dorgan, and threats of plant closure by Vice President Pistas Judge Bracken found that a remedial bargaining order was warranted He issued a recom mended Order which in part directed the Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, to recognize and bargain with the Union as representative of the unit em ployees, and to reinstate Frank Dorgan with full back pay No exceptions were filed On June 18, 1986, the Board pro forma adopted Judge Brackens decision and recommended Order and or August 25, 1986 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit entered a judgment enforcing the Board s Order 7 During 1985, Apple s supervisory personnel in adds tion to Kuznfar and Pistas, consisted of Robert and Arlene Lowe and Louis Stephens Robert Lowe, Kuz near s brother in law principally supervised the glaziers, Louis Stephens principally supervised metal work, and Arlene Lowe, Kuznfar s mother in law, principally su pervised the office clerical personnel One of those cleri cals was Shirley White, who began working for Apple in 1983 upon her graduation from high school Notwith standing her youth, White was and is a bright, aggressive take charge person who proceeded to learn the bust ness (White represented Diamond at the present hearing, and did so in a competent manner) In March 1985, while still on Apples payroll, White and Lenard Setts pant, who also worked for Apple formed Diamond as a partnership They began operating on a small scale from a small facility on Damen Avenue, but soon moved to a larger location at 4435 West Fullerton, within 2 to 3 blocks of Apple s facility 8 Pistas testified that Kuznfar fired White in May 1985 because they learned that she was in another business Kuzmar testified that he fired White in the summer of 1985 White in her testimony ad matted that she worked for Apple until July Their tests mony was patently false In the prior proceeding Judge Bracken found that White was still on Apple s payroll in early July, and discredited Pistas testimony that White no longer worked for Apple In the present proceeding, insurance agent William Stuber who was called as Re spondents witness testified that in March 1985 Apple referred him to White for Diamonds business Pistas ad matted in his testimony that White was still working for Apple on December 31, when Apple went out of bust ness It is evident that Apple knowingly permitted White to work for Apple while she was engaged in another glass replacement business It is also evident from the false testimony of Pistas in both unfair labor practice proceedings that Apple sought to conceal this arrange ment from the Board The inference is warranted, and I so find, that Apple encouraged the partnership of White and Settipani as an arrangement in furtherance of its own interests The evidence also indicates that White was aware of the pending unfair labor practice proceeding against In the meantime over a month before the hearing before Judge Bracken the Board by the Acting Regional Director petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for tern porary injunctive relief including interim recognition and bargaining with the Union and reinstatement of Dorgan and another alleged discri minatee (whose case was subsequently dismissed) Unfortunately instead of seeking an expedited hearing on the petition the Acting Regional Di rector agreed to submit the matter on the record of the unfair labor prac tice case thereby assuring a lengthy delay in the injunction proceeding The District Court referred the matter to a United States magistrate As a result what began as an injunction proceeding became in effect a duple cate administrative proceeding On February 19 1986 the magistrate issued her report and recommendation and on April 17 1986 the district court entered a temporary injunction order By this time Apple was out of business Compare Madden v Alberto Culver Co 49 LRRM 2516 (D C ILL 1961) s White testified that Diamond moved into 4435 West Fullerton in Sep tember 1985 However George Pistas testified that Diamond moved into that facility in March 1985 1 credit Pistas BELL GLASS CO Apple White testified that she was not involved in the Union's demand for recognition from Apple However, White, in her capacity as Apple s secretary, typed a letter to the Board's Regional Office dated April 5, 1985 The letter, signed by Pistas, purported to present a list of employees terminated by Apple, and concluded with the assertion that ' I think the above list will prove that we did in fact dismiss people because of their conduct The list included Frank Dorgan, Robert Lowe, and Lenard Settipani, all of whom were ostensibly discharged for theft In fact, neither Lowe nor Settipani had ever been fired by Apple Kuzniar and Pistas testified that Settipani left when Apple sold the board up operation After being confronted with his April 5 letter, Pistas asserted that Kuzniar fired Settipani but rehired him the following day White, as Apple s secretary and Settipani's partner, knew perfectly well that Apple never discharged Lowe or Settipani It is evident from the April 5 letter that, at the very least, White knew that Apple was involved in a Board case in which it was charged with unlawful dis charge and that the Company was giving false informa tion to the Board in response to those charges There is no dispute that Kuzniar and Pistas, the two Apple principals, were fully aware of the unfair labor practice proceeding Apple was represented by counsel, who also initially represented Bell in the present case Pistas testified at the hearing before Judge Bracken In the present proceeding, Kuzniar testified that he dis cussed the case with Pistas, and that they disagreed in that Kuzniar wanted to settle and Pistas wanted to liti gate Kuzniar testified that this was not the reason why they dissolved Apple According to Kuzniar they broke up because of differences over their work habits Pistas was in sum a workaholic" whereas Kuzniar wanted some leisure time Pistas also devoted much time to his used car business (Atlas Automotive), leaving Kuzniar to run Apples However Pistas testified that they decided to terminate Apple because of their problems and that their biggest problem' was their disagreement as to how to deal with the Board case He testified in sum that their disagreement over work habits was also a factor In light of Pistas admission I find that in dissolving Apple Pistas and Kuzniar were principally motivated by a desire to avoid obligations which might be imposed as a result of the unfair labor practice proceeding which they correctly anticipated would result in a decision against them In making this finding I have also taken into con sideration the Board s finding that Pistas threatened to close the doors' if the employees brought in the Union B The Formation of Bell Changes in Diamond s Operations the Roles of Kuzniar and Pistas in Bell and Diamond and the Unions Demands for Recognition and Bargaining Bell commenced operations in January 1986 at the 4311 West Fullerton Avenue facility Also in January, Diamond moved to its present location at 3855 West Grand The complaint alleges, and Bell's answer admits, that about April 11, 1986, the Union requested that Bell 9 Atlas Automotive was a repair and body shop and Apple used its services Now Atlas sells used cars 703 recognize and bargain with the Union as representative of Bell's unit employees, and that since on or about April 24, Bell has failed and refused to comply with that re quest The complaint alleges, but Diamond's answer denies, that about May 30 the Union made a similar re quest of Diamond, but that Diamond failed and refused to comply with the request However, the answer states that Diamond does not recognize the Union as a bar gaining agent By letter dated May 30 to Diamond, the Union asserted that Diamond was the alter ego or suc cessor of Apple, and requested that Diamond recognize and bargain with the Union and remedy the outstanding unfair labor practices committed by Apple The Union sent one copy of the letter by certified mail and another by ordinary mail The certified letter was returned marked Refused, thereby indicating that the letter was in fact received but rejected The letter sent by ordinary mail was never returned to the Union Shirley White and George Pistas, in their respective testimony, did not deny receiving either letter The mailing of a letter raises a presumption that the letter was received lA Wigmore Evidence, § 95 I find as alleged in the complaint, that the Union requested that Diamond recognize and bargain with the Union as representative of Diamond's unit em ployees, and that Diamond failed and refused to comply with that request It is undisputed that Ed Kuzniar runs Bell Kuzniar testified that he is the owner and president, and that he hires, fires, disciplines, and sets rates of pay for Bell s employees As indicated, Bell operates out of 4311 West Fullerton Kuzniar testified in sum as follows As part of their arrangement in dissolving Apple Kuzniar bought out Pistas part ownership of the premises Kuzniar did not make immediate payment Instead he gave Pistas a mortgage on which Kuzniar makes payments of $482 per month from Bell s account Kuzniar as an individual leased the premises to Bell for use in the operation of a glass replacement business at a monthly rental of $1220 The lease was signed on behalf of Bell by Kuzniar s wife Kuzniar also operates a board up service (Anchor) out of the same premises However there is no lease agreement between Kuzniar and Anchor The premises at 4305 West Fullerton have been rented out As indicated the General Counsel promised to produce copies of title doc uments, but did not do so I have no reason to question this testimony of Kuzniar, and I credit his testimony in this regard As of the end of December when it ceased operations Apple s personnel complement consisted of Kuzniar, Pistas Supervisors Robert, and Arlene Lowe and Louis Stephens office clerical Sheila Lacour, and unit employ ees Donald (Red) Pangallo Peter Quasthoff Richard Sandberg, Gary Stephens and Alberto Vasquez Kuzniar brought with him to Bell only his relatives Robert and Arlene Lowe, and Lacour, who was his tenant (Lacour remained until October 1987) Kuzniar hired 3 new em ployees to perform unit work David Rousseau Michael Karpinski, and William Sunagel Kuzniar testified that Rousseau and Karpinski were hired temporarily to pre pare the facility, that only Robert Lowe and Sunagel worked regularly on glass replacement and that by the 704 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD time of the present hearing Robert and Arlene Lowe were his only employees The size of Bell s complement reflected the fact that Bell was a smaller operation than Apple had been or that Diamond would become Kuz near did not inform the Apple unit employees that Bell was going out of business Rather he left that task to Pistas, who admitted that he may have told the employ ees that he was going to Diamond and they could have jobs there Shirley White also spoke to the Apple em ployees, and told them that jobs would be available at Diamond In January 1986, when Diamond moved into its new and larger facility at 3855 West Grand, Dia mond s personnel complement consisted of four supervi sory personnel (White, Settipani, Pistas, and Lewis Ste phens, who functioned as shop foreman ), and six employ ees who performed unit work Four of the six were former Apple employees George Stephens, Pangallo, Sandberg, and Vasquez Diamond hired two additional employees Stanislaw Tadus and Earl Brozell White tes tified that Brozell did board up work , and the others were glaziers White and Settipani performed the clerical work, and therefore Diamond did not hire clerical help until April 1986 White testified that during 1985 Dia mond used employees only on a temporary basis , includ ing Settipani s brother and a former Apple employee White testified that by January 1987 Diamond had seven employees, excluding clerical and supervisory personnel, of whom five were glaziers and two did board up work, and that at the time of the present hearing (December 1987) Diamond had seven glaziers and two board up workers I find that as of January 1986 and continuing thereafter, Diamond had a substantial and representative complement of employees, of whom a majority had been employees of Apple See Fall River Corp v NLRB 482 US 27 (1987) In contrast to the situation at Bell, which is undispu tedly owned and operated by Kuzmar the position of Pistas regarding Diamond is in dispute Shirley White contends that she is the sole owner and principal of Dia mond (Lenard Settipani , who began Diamond early in 1985, eventually left the firm some time after January 1986) George Pistas owns the premises at 3855 West Grand, and is therefore Diamonds landlord Pistas testi fled that in August 1985 when he saw that Apple was breaking up he saw an opportunity to buy a building and get a tenant Therefore he purchased the premises at 3855 West Grand for occupancy by Diamond, and of fered to join Diamond in a `limited capacity Pistas, who described Lenard Settipani as a good friend, admit ted that he brought equipment into the building without charging Diamond or Settipani According to Pistas, he provided their equipment in exchange for board up serv ices performed by Settipani Pistas leased the premises to Diamond pursuant to a 1 year lease agreement dated January 1 , 1986, which provided for a monthly rental of $1350 plus 1 percent of gross volume of business over $500,000 The lease was renewed for an additional year, and therefore was still in effect as of the present hearing On January 2, 1986 Diamond and Pistas executed an Employment Agreement,' whereby Diamond employed Pistas as General Manager and Advisor to the Compa ny [b]y virtue of his vast experience and knowledge in this field ' The agreement provided that Pistas would devote a minimum of 20 hours per week to Diamond s business, to be used at his discretion, and acknowledged that Pistas had other business interests which required his attention The agreement provided that Pistas would be free to make business decisions regarding day to day op eration of Diamond without prior consent, but that ac tions outside day to day operations , such as hiring and firing," would require prior consent The agreement fur ther provided that Pistas would be paid compensation of $300 per week plus 3 percent of gross income Although the agreement was terminable at will by either party, Pistas would continue to receive the 3 percent for a period of 1 year after termination of the agreement The agreement also provided that Diamond would compen sate Pistas for his expenses, including those for a vehicle which he provided for Diamonds business , and that Pistas would also be provided with a separate telephone line for his personal business Pistas was also given first right of refusal for the purchase of Diamond if it became available for sale Regarding the lease, Pistas testified that the lease also included furniture and equipment in the facility, and that he also leased vehicles to Diamond As found, Apple leased its trucks from Cherry Leasing, which was owned by Kuzniar and Pistas Pistas testified that as of the end of 1985 , he assumed the obligations of Cherry and became its sole owner The General Counsel presented in evidence a leasing agreement dated Decem ber 30, 1985 from Cherry Leasing , signed by Pistas as sole owner' to Diamond for the lease of three vehicles for use in its glass and board up business Pistas testified that when they dissolved Apple he took two trucks and Kuzniar took one However , at another point Pistas testi feed, as did Kuzniar that in December Apple had three or four trucks which it leased from Cherry Bell present ed evidence which indicates that in January Bell pur chased its truck from Cherry instead of continuing to lease the vehicle and in August 1986 purchased a new truck from a dealer The evidence fails to indicate that Diamond acquired any new or additional trucks The foregoing evidence indicates that as part of their arrange ment for dissolving Apple Kuzniar transferred his share of Cherry Leasing to Pistas, and they agreed that through Cherry three of Apple s vehicles would go to Diamond and one would go to Bell As found these trucks constituted by far for the largest items of equip ment needed for a glass replacement business The vari ous documents executed between Pistas and Diamond were prepared by Pistas' wife, Attorney L Diane Sharp Sharp also provided assistance to Shirley White in pre paring corporate documents for Diamond Regarding other Apple equipment and furnishings, Kuzniar testified in that there was virtually nothing left that most of the equipment and furniture was junked as worthless or stolen, and that the balance consisted mainly of small handtools which belonged to individuals including em ployees Pistas contradicted Kuzniar s version Pistas tes tified that he and Kuzniar divided the equipment be tween them, with regard to which if any equipment be longed to either of them individually or through their re spective corporations Kuzmar's share remained at the BELL GLASS CO former Apple facility, for use in Bell's operations Pistas share went into Diamonds business In fact, Apple had valuable or new equipment, some of which is described in Judge Bracken s decision, e g , a television monitor and a saw z all Bell presented in evidence a document which contradicted Kuzniar s prior testimony, specifical ly a burglary report dated January 8, 1987, involving a typewriter which had been owned by Apple I credit Pistas Kuzniar also testified that by the end of 1985 Apple had no remaining inventory of glass or metal Given the size of Apple's operation, his testimony is in credible The General Counsel presented in evidence an invoice from a supplier (Glass Temp), marked for ship ment to Apple, which was paid by Diamond on January 8 I do not credit Shirley White's suggestion, in her testi mony, that this must have been a mistake I find that Bell and Diamond divided Apple's inventory, and that Dia mond, as the larger operation, received the larger share One of George Pistas principal functions for Diamond was to solicit and obtain business for Diamond's greatly enlarged operations Pistas' Employment Agreement with Diamond contemplated that he would perform this function Pistas testified that he solicited business for Di amond, and that in doing so he had an advantage over White, i e, he could draw on important sources of busi ness which were not available to White Shirley White, as Apple's secretary, had contact with Apple s customers or prospective customers However, her contacts were limited White did not go out to jobsites until she went with Diamond Customers and suppliers knew her as a secretary, or at most an office manager, and knew little of her business or service ability or her credit standing Lenard Settipani was also an unknown factor However, Pistas and Kuzniar were known as the owners of Apple, and both had other business investments and contacts Much of the work of replacing glass and storefront fa cades is not repeat business For example, a home owner or store owner who was the victim of fire damage or vandalism might use the services of Apple, Bell, or Dia mond, and seldom or ever again have need for their services However some actual or prospective customers do constitute a major source of business on a recurring basis for glass and storefront replacement firms and firms doing board up work These include fast food chains, real estate management companies, insurance companies insurance agents and construction compa vies Apple had such sources of business From March through December 1985 Diamond operated on a much smaller scale than Apple Diamond used small facilities evidently did not even have a suitable truck, and had no regular employees However, by December Diamond was sufficiently confident of its imminent expansion as to lease a larger facility (purchased by Pistas specifically for Diamonds use) and to immediately hire six employees and two additional supervisors (Pistas and Lewis Ste phens) It is evident that White and Pistas both knew that only Pistas could provide the business to sustain such an enlarged operation In fact, through Pistas, Dia mond picked up much of Apple s business Diamond does work for Affiliated Realty, a real estate manage ment firm and former Apple customer Diamond also serviced fast food chains including Wendy's which was 705 also an Apple customer Shirley White testified that Dia mond has gradually shifted into more construction work, working for building contractors However Apple also did construction work Such success on Diamonds part can hardly be viewed as coincidental, given the fact that there are some 275 glazing companies in Chicago Bell, like Diamond, also drew on former Apple cus tomers for its business Service Construction, a construe tion firm owned by Kuzniar's brother, Thomas Kuzniar, was also a former Apple customer Service Construction is now one of Bell s major customers Ed Kuzniar admit ted that on behalf of Bell he sent fliers to prospective customers, pointing out that Bell `will operate out of of fices located at 4305-11 West Fullerton Avenue where Apple Glass Company, which is going out of business was previously headquartered, and asserting that ` It has been my pleasure to serve you in the past and I look forward to continuing to serve your glass re placement needs and emergency board up services through the Bell Glass & Board Up Company " Kuzniar testified that Bell will do any glass replacement work, does mainly storefronts and some residential work, but does not do metal work Kuzniar testified that Bell oper ates out of 4311 West Fullerton, where Apple formerly had its metal shop In light of Bell's flier, I find that Bell also performs emergency board up work Shirley White testified that while Diamond has increased the amount of its construction work, Diamond continues to perform glass and storefront replacement work, including metal work Diamond does replacement work on both homes and businesses As with Apple, Diamonds customers in elude fast food chains, real estate management compa vies insurance companies, and insurance agencies, some of which are former Apple customers Although both Bell and Diamond drew upon former Apple customers, the evidence indicates that for the most part Bell and Di amond do not service the same customers This tends to indicate that Bell and Diamond not only divided Apple s assets and liabilities, but also its market with Diamond as the larger operation, getting the larger share This ar rangement accommodated Kuzniar s desire for more lei sure time to devote to his hobbies This evidence also tends to support Respondents' contention that there is no connection between Bell and Diamond and that they may properly be viewed as competitors The following colloquy which took place while General Counsel was questioning Pistas, is illuminating Q Are there any management companies that have called Diamond on a repeated basis to perform work at different addresses? A Sure Q Can you name any of those? MR KUZNIAR Don t miss any, now THE WITNESS That is right, we are like competi tors here I believe that the above exchange was spontaneous rather than staged and reflects the present relationship between Bell and Diamond Pistas and White have no ownership or financial interest in Bell (except insofar as Pistas holds a mortgage on Bell s facility) and they do 706 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not participate in managing Bell Kuzmar has no owner ship or financial interest in Diamond and he does not participate in its management Indeed, while the General Counsel devoted much time and effort to belaboring such minutia as the identity of suppliers, the General Counsel managed to avoid the question of the relation ship between Bell and Diamond both at the hearing and in its brief Returning to Diamond, I have previously found that both Pistas and White knew that Diamond would sub stantially increase its volume of business when Apple closed, and that Pistas would obtain most of that busi ness The evidence further indicates that Pistas and White also knew that Diamond would immediately re ceive a massive infusion of funds which would enable Diamond to greatly enlarge its business to a scale compa rable to that of Apple's former operation During 1985 Diamond was little more than a cash and carry oper ation Checking account activity was minimal Suppliers would not extend credit to Diamond, for instance, Shir ley White testified that United States Aluminum, a major supplier of metal, would not extend credit to Diamond, and would accept only registered or cashiers checks However, beginning in January 1986 large sums of money were deposited in Diamonds bank accounts, and checking account activity greatly increased Diamond paid out large sums of money to suppliers, including United States Aluminum, by ordinary check Shirley White, in her testimony, admitted that Diamonds pur chases of supplies and materials increased dramatically from December to January I do not credit White s sug gestion, in her testimony, that these deposits reflected payments from insurance companies for work performed by Diamond during 1985 Diamonds volume of business prior to January 1, 1986, was too small to explain such a large infusion of funds George Pistas in his testimony admitted that in his ca pacity as `General Manager and Advisor" to Diamond he solicited and obtained business for Diamond, pur chased supplies, priced jobs, and supervised work Pistas testified that he did not give or loan money to Diamond or obtain loans for Diamond or hire or fire employees (although he sometimes effectively recommended such action) and that he terminated his employment relation with Diamond in or about September 1987 without writ ten notice as required by his employment agreement Pistas did not terminate either the lease of Diamonds fa cility or the lease of motor vehicles Pistas admitted that he was lax in collecting payments under his various agreements with Diamond and that Diamond still owed him a large amount of money under both the employ ment agreement and the property lease I find that Pistas understated his role in Diamond Pistas had a substantial investment in Diamond As found he purchased the fa cility at 3855 West Grand for Diamond for which Dia mond is obliged to pay a substantial monthly rental Dia mond leases all of its vehicles from Pistas through his firm, Cherry Leasing Pistas provided most of Diamond s other equipment and furnishings, and obtained substantial business for Diamond In light of Diamond's substantial infusion of funds beginning in January 1986, it is evident that Pistas either invested a substantial amount of money in Diamond or obtained substantial loans on its behalf In light of this evidence, it is unlikely that Pistas viewed his arrangement with Diamond as nothing more than a temporary job It is also unlikely that Pistas would simply walk away from Diamond after less than 2 years, with Diamond still owing him substantial amounts of money, and after he obtained business for Diamond Shirley White is a competent manager, and has gradually learned the business However, in January 1986 she had only limited knowledge of and experience in the buss ness, and she has never had the business connections or financial resources enjoyed by Pistas, such as would enable Diamond to suddenly and greatly increase the size of its operations I find that since December 1985 Pistas has been and is a silent partner in Diamond, and together with Shirley White is a principal of Diamond 10 As indicated, the General Counsel devoted consider able time and effort to showing the identity of suppliers of goods and services for Apple , Bell, and Diamond I am not persuaded that such information has great eviden tiary value in this case There are some 275 glazing com panes in Chicago However, there are only five distribu tors of glass in Chicago, i e, distributors of the principal product used by the glaziers There are even fewer dis tnbutors of specialty products and services used by the glazing firms, e g, two distributors of tempered glass two distributors of the plastic product, Lexon and one supplier of mobile radio service Moreover Bell operates in the same facility as Apple, and Diamond is located in the same area Therefore, it is difficult to attach much significance to the fact that Bell and Diamond use many of the same suppliers as Apple In fact there are some differences Coolidge was not one of Apple s major sup pliers of glass, although it is now Diamonds major sup plier Apple purchased tempered glass principally from Glasstemp by Glass Tech, but Diamond purchases prin cipally from Temtech This is not to say that the sources of supply of Respondents are without any evidentiary significance As indicated, I have found significance in the testimo ny of Brockhaus Schwaller insurance agent William Stuber and in Pistas' ability to obtain credit from suppli ers for Diamond Apple obtained insurance through Brockhaus Schwaller and Bell and Diamond also place their insurance through the same firm In particular, Re spondents all obtained health insurance coverage through Brockhaus Schwaller, including coverage under the same insurer and plan This fact is significant because of evi dence that the working conditions of the employees of Diamond and Bell are comparable to those of Apple As testified by Kuzmar all glass replacement firms operate in much the same manner Respondents employees (other than clerical and supervisory) were or are paid an hourly wage and have a basic 40 hour week Fringe ben efits are comparable Apple had glaziers working in one shop and metal workers working in another whereas 10 Ed Kuzniar in his testimony opined that Apple is still engaged in business under Pistas On the present record it would be speculative to say whether Pistas is engaged in any glass replacement or similar business other than Diamond However the present evidence indicates that Pistas was and is very much involved in Diamond BELL GLASS CO 707 according to Shirley White all of Diamond s unit em ployees are classified as glaziers with one or two as signed to do board up work However, metal work is a matter of progression Metal work requires greater skill than glass installation and therefore employees (whether of Apple or Diamond) were assigned to metal work as they acquired the appropriate skills C Analysis and Concluding Findings The present case involves four relationships which are alleged by the General Counsel to be applicable to the present case They are, respectively, single employer alter ego, successor for collective bargaining purposes, and successor for the purpose of remedying an unlawful discharge The Board and courts have held that ostensibly sepa rate firms may be regarded as a single employer under the Act where there is interrelation of operations, togeth er with centralized control of labor relations, common management and common ownership, or financial con trol NLRB v M P Building Corp, 411 F 2d 567 (5th Cir 1969) The alter ego doctrine is an extension of the concept of single employer Thus, two nominally sepa rate business entities may be regarded as a single employ er if one is the alter ego or `disguised continuance of the other Southport Petroleum Co v NLRB, 315 US 100, 106 (1942) In determining whether two facially in dependent employers constitute alter egos' under the Act, the Board has long held that although each case must tur-i on its own facts, we generally have found alter ego status where the two enterprises have substantially identical [ownership], management, business purpose, op eration, equipment, customers and supervision Advance Electric, 268 NLRB 1001, 1002 (1984) 11 In Advance Electric, the Board held that in determining whether an alter ego status was present it would consider whether the purpose behind the creation of the alleged alter ego was legitimate or whether, instead, its purpose was to evade responsibilities under the Act but that such intent is not an essential element of an alter ego relation ship See also Fugazy Continental Corp 265 NLRB 1301 1302 (1982), enfd 725 F 2d 1416 (D C Cir 1984) Good man Piping Products v NLRB, 741 F 2d 10, 12 (2d Cir 1984) Contra Alkire v NLRB, 716 F 2d 1014, 1020 (4th Cir 1983) In NLRB v Burns Security Services 406 US 272 (1972), the Supreme Court affirmed the principle that a new employer succeeding to the business of another has an obligation to bargain with the union representing the predecessor s employees Fifteen years later in Fall River Dyeing Corp v NLRB, 482 U S 27, 43 (1987), the Su preme Court elaborated on Burns, and resolved several issues which had arisen in the intervening years concern mg its application The court held that in determining 11 The concepts of single employer and alter ego should not be con fused with that of joint employer Under the latter doctrine separate firms which share or co determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment of the employees involved are Joint employers of those employees regardless of whether the firms are commonly owned operated or controlled NLRB v Greyhound Corp 368 F 2d 778 (5th Cir 1966) Joint employer status is not an issue in the present case whether a new employer is the successor to the old, the question presented is [W]hether the new company has acquired substan tial assets of its predecessor and continued without interruption or substantial change the predecessor s business operations " Hence the focus is on whether there is substantial continuity" between the enterprises Under this approach, the Board ex amines a number of factors whether the business of both employers is essentially the same whether the employees of the new company are doing the same jobs in the same working conditions under the same supervisors, and whether the new entity has the same production process, produres the same prod ucts, and basically has the same body of customers The court has stated in Fall River Dyeing supra at 41, `And the new employer has an obligation to bargain with the union representing the predecessors employees so long as the new employer is in fact a successor of the old employer and the majority of its employees were em ployed by its predecessor That obligation takes effect when the successor has a substantial and representative complement' of employees (which need not be a full complement), a majority of whom were employed by the predecessor The fourth relationship invoked by the General Counsel was defined by the Supreme Court in Golden State Bottling v NLRB, 414 US 168 (1973) which issued shortly after Burns In Golden State, the Court held that the bona fide purchaser of a business, who acquires and continues the business with knowledge that his predecessor has committed an unfair labor prac tice in the discharge of an employee may be ordered by the Board to reinstate the employee with backpay Unlike successorship for bargaining purposes this obliga tion does not require that a majority of the successor s employees be former employees of the predecessor and also does not turn on whether those employees are rep resented by a union See Golden State at fn 6 Applying the foregoing principles to the facts of the present case, I find that Apple Bell and Diamond are separate employers and that neither Bell nor Diamond is the alter ego of Apple Apple, although corporate in form was in essence a partnership of Ed Kuzniar and George Pistas That partnership no longer exists When Kuzniar and Pistas agreed to break up their partnership they divided their assets and liabilities and each went his separate way Kuzniar is the principal and owner of Bell and as found Pistas and Shirley White are the principals of Diamond Since January 1985 there has been no con nection between Bell and Diamond Rather, although to some extent they seek different customers they are com petitors operating in the same industry and market Bell and Diamond have different ownership and management from each other and from the partnership arrangement of Pistas and Kuzniar which existed under Apple There fore I am recommending that the allegations of the com plaint be dismissed insofar as the complaint alleges that Bell and Apple are a single employer and that Bell and Diamond are each an alter ego of Apple 708 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD However as indicated the tests for successorship are different There is no requirement of common ownership management or control The successor may even be a competitor of the predecessor I find that Diamond is the successor of Apple both for bargaining purposes (under Burns and Fall River), and for the purpose of remedying the unlawful discharge of Frank Dorgan (under Golden State) It is substantially immaterial whether Pistas is an owner or has a financial interest in Diamond That firm would be the successor of Apple even if, as contended by Diamond, it began as partnership of White and Setti pane and is now owned and controlled by White As found Diamond commenced its enlarged operation in January 1986 with a substantial and representative corn plement of employees of whom a majority had been em ployees of Apple There was no hiatus in operations Apple ceased operations at the end of 1985, and Dia mond immediately commenced operations in its new fa cility (provided by Pistas) using most of Apple s person nel and trucks, much of its other equipment, and obtain ing credit and customers on the strength of Pistas in volvement in Apple and Diamond Pistas, while still an owner of Apple offered Apple s employees employment with Diamond Diamonds business was substantially the same as Apple s Like Apple, Diamond engaged in the business of replacing glass and storefront facades Dia mond also did board up work, as Apple previously had done Diamond's employees did substantially the same work under the same conditions as Apple except that Diamond used a different facility Two of Diamonds su pervisors (Pistas and Louis Stephens) had been supervi sors at Apple The other two (White and Settipani) were former Apple employees Diamond provided the same products and services as Apple and basically had the same body of customers Diamond inherited some of Apple s customers and obtained new ones However the successorship doctrine does not require that the prede cessor and the successor have the same customers Rather as indicated by the Supreme Court, the pertinent question is whether they basically have the same body of customers i e whether they do business in the same market Good N Fresh Foods 287 NLRB 1231 1234 (1988) Diamonds operations meet this test Therefore, I find that Diamond is the successor of Apple and that Di amond violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by fail mg and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the collective bargaining representative of Diamond s employees in the appropriate unit I further find that Di amond, as the successor of Apple is obligated to remedy the unlawful discharge of Frank Dorgan Diamond ac quired a substantial portion of Apple s business, and con tinned to operate that business with knowledge that Apple committed an unfair labor practice by discharging Dorgan Pistas and Kuzniar jointly made the decision to discharge Dorgan Pistas was at least general manager of Diamond and as found a silent partner and principal of Diamond Therefore his knowledge is imputed to Dia mond See Golden State, 414 US at 173 Moreover Shirley White was aware of the unfair labor practice case and had at least reasonable cause to believe that Dorgan was unlawfully discharged Therefore, even apart from Pistas knowledge White was under an obli gation to inquire further into the matter before acquiring a substantial portion of Apple s business Turning to Bell I find that Bell together with Dia mond is jointly and severally obligated to remedy Apples unlawful discharge of Dorgan Bell like Dia mond is a successor of Apple Bell acquired substantial assets of Apple, including the lease of the facility Bell continued without hiatus to engage in the same business although on a reduced scale Most of Bell s personnel complement (Kuzniar, Robert and Arlene Lowe, and LaCour) were former Apple personnel Kuzniar togeth er with Pistas, was responsible for Dorgan s discharge Bell and Diamond together acquired all of the former business of Apple including assets and liabilities It would make no sense to find that if one firm acquired all of the business of Apple with knowledge of Dorgan s unlawful discharge, that firm would be obligated to remedy the discharge, but that if two firms divided the business not only with knowledge but with principals who were re sponsible for the discharge, they could escape any liabil ity However, as Bell s employee complement did not in elude a majority of former Apple employees, I find that Bell did not violate the Act by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Diamond is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and has continued the employing entity and is a succes sor of Apple 2 The Union is a labor organization within the mean ing of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 All employees of Diamond employed at its facility presently located at 3855 West Grand, Chicago, Illinois excluding office clerical employees guards and supervi sors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the mean mg of Section 9(b) of the Act 4 Since January 1 1986, the Union has been and is the exclusive collective bargaining representative of Dia mond s employees in the unit described above 5 By failing and refusing since May 30 1986, to rec ognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the ex clusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit Diamond has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act 6 Bell is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 7 Diamond and Bell acquired and continued the busi ness of Apple with knowledge of Apple s potential liabil ity to remedy the unlawful discharge of Frank Dorgan as determined by the Board in Apple Glass Co Cases 13- CA-24872, etc, and are obligated to remedy that unfair labor practice 8 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act BELL GLASS CO 709 THE REMEDY Having found that Diamond has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act I shall recommend that it be required to cease and desist from such conduct and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli cies of the Act I shall recommend that Diamond be or dered to recognize and, on request, bargain with the Union as the bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate unit I shall further recommend that Diamond and Bell each be ordered to offer Frank Dorgan immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if it no longer exists to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and pnvileges previously enjoyed, and to jointly and severally make him whole for any loss of earnings and benefits he may have suffered from the time of his discharge to the date that Diamond and Bell, respective ly, offer him reinstatement Dorgan may choose as to which offer, if any, he will accept Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula approved in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950) with interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 12 It will also be recommended that Bell and Diamond be required to preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, on request, payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of back pay due, and to post appropriate notices The recom mended Order does not obviate any of Apple's obliga tions under the order in the prior unfair labor practice case See Golden State supra, 414 U S at 186-187 (Ed Kuzniar testified that Apple still has an open account, and that he has been collecting money owed to Apple and making payments on its debts ) On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend ed13 ORDER A Respondent A Diamond Glass Co and A Diamond Board Up Co, d/b/a A Diamond Glass and Board Up Co its officers agents, successors and assigns shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Glaziers, Ar chitectural Metal & Glass Workers Local Union No 27 Chicago & Vicinity International Brotherhood of Paint ers and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO as the exclusive bar gaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit 12 In accordance with our decision in New Horizons for the Retarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) interest on and after January 1 1987 shall be computed at the short term Federal rate for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 US C § 6621 Interest on amounts accrued prior to January 1 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621 ) shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977) 13 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 put poses All employees of Diamond employed at its facility presently located at 3855 West Grand, Chicago, Illi nois excluding office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act (b) In any like or related manner interfering with re straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) On request bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit discribed above concerning terms and conditions of em ployment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement (b) Offer Frank Dorgan immediate and full reinstate ment to his former job with Apple Glass Company or if such job no longer exists to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and jointly and severally with Bell Glass Co, make him whole for losses he suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by Apple Glass Company and their failure and refusal to offer him reinstatement as set forth in the remedy sec tion of this decision (c) Preserve and on request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying all payroll records, social security payment records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order (d) Post at its Chicago Illinois facility copies of the at tached notice marked Appendix A Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by the Respondents au thorized representative shall be posted by the Respond ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material (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 B Respondent Bell Glass Co, its officers, agents, suc cessors and assigns shall take the following action nec essary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer Frank Dorgan immediate and full reinstate ment to his former job with Apple Glass Company, or if such job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed and jointly and sever ally with A Diamond Glass and Board Up Co, make him whole for losses he suffered by reason of the dis crimination against him by Apple Glass Company and our failure and refusal to offer him reinstatement as set forth in the remedy section of this decision (b) 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 710 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order (c) Post at its Chicago, Illinois facility copies of the at tached notice marked Appendix B 14 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by the Respondent's au thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent has taken to comply 14 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 to engage in union or concerted activities, or to refrain therefrom WE WILL recognize and on request bargain collec Lively with the above named Union as the exclusive rep resentative of all employees in the appropriate unit de scribed above, with regard to rates of pay, hours of em ployment, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under standing in a signed agreement WE WILL offer Frank Dorgan immediate and full rein statement to his former job or, if such job with Apple Glass Company no longer exists, to a substantially equiv alent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and jointly and severally with Bell Glass Co, make him whole with in terest for losses he suffered by reason of the discnmina tion against him by Apple Glass Company and our fail ure and refusal to offer him reinstatement A DIAMOND GLASS Co A DIAMOND BOARD UP CO, D/B/A A DIAMOND GLASS AND BOARD UP CO APPENDIX A 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 WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Gla ziers, Architectural Metal & Glass Workers Local Union No 27, Chicago & Vicinity International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades AFL-CIO as the exclu sive bargaining representative of our employees in the following appropriate unit All our employees employed at our facility present ly located at 3855 West Grand, Chicago, Illinois excluding office clerical employees guards and su pervisors as defined in the Act WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your right APPENDIX B NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDS 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 WE WILL offer Frank Dorgan immediate and full rein statement to his former job with Apple Glass Company or, if such job no longer exits to a substantially equiva lent portion without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed and jointly and severally with A Diamond Glass and Board Up Co make him whole with interest for losses he suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by Aplle Glass Company and our failure and refusal to offer him rein statement BELL GLASS CO