Mashkin Freight Lines, Inc. And Bari Leasing, Inc.

MASHKIN FREIGHT LINES 427 Mashkm Freight Lines, Inc. and Ban Leasing, Inc. and Floyd A. Keeler and Frank W. Galek and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No 559. Cases 39-CA-76, 39- CA-95 and 39-CA-102 28 September 1984 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER, AND DENNIS On 7 August 1981 Administrative Law Judge Charles M Williamson issued the attached deci- sion The Respondent and the General Counsel , filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the latter also filed an answering 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 1 and conclusions as modified and to adopt the recom- mended Order as modified We agree, for the reasons stated by the judge, that the Respondent engaged in the following vio- lations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act at its East Hartford terminal Terminal Manager Patrick Garufi 2 interrogated employee Michael Kaluszka in October 1979 concerning his alleged activities on behalf of Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU), a dissident group, and created the impres- sion of surveillance by stating that he "heard" that Kaluszka had attended TDU meetings, 3 and on 8 January 1980 Walter J Banlan, the new owner of the Company as of October 1979, told employee Frank Galek that he was tired of the Union "pull- ing [Galek's] chestnuts out of the fire" and that Galek might have "visitors" at his home We further agree, for the reasons stated by the judge, that the Respondent committed the follow- ing violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) suspended employees Daniel A Banks, Robert Burke Jr, ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find 'rigs 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 A number of letters involving the termination and reinstatement of employees were signed by "Pat Garufi, Labor Manager" As the judge s designation of Garufi as terminal manager is not a significant vanation from that of labor manager, this inadvertence does not affect his 8(a)(1) finding 3 Without discussion, and apparently through inadvertence, the judge stated in Conclusion of Law 6 that this conduct also violated Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act We do not adopt this finding and shall therefore modify Con elusion of Law 6 accordingly Dale Willson, Harold Roger Allen Jr, and Galek on 27 November 1979 because of their union activi- ties, 4 discharged Galek on 8 January 1980 because of his union activities, deliberately sought to under- mine the Union by its increased use of nonbargain- ing unit owner-operators from the time Banlan took over the Company through January 1980,5 and unlawfully laid off all the drivers of the East Hartford terminal on 24 January 1980 as a result of the unlawful shutdown of that terminal and the transfer of its operations to a facility in North Bergen, New Jersey 6 Finally, we agree, for the reasons stated by the judge, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by the following conduct its in- creased use of owner-operators, which adversely affected bargaining unit employees who were thereby denied work opportunities that would oth- erwise have been available to them, its failure to allow the Union to examine its financial records, its direct dealings with the employees and bypassing the Union for the purpose, inter aim, of obtaining the employees' consent to forgo a 49-cent cost-of- living increase required by its contract with the Union, and its action in laying off the East Hart- ford employees, shutting down that terminal, and transferring its operations to New Jersey without bargaining or consulting with the Union concern- ing its decision to relocate and the impact on the employees 7 4 We agree with the judge's finding that the Respondent's suspension of employees Banks, Burke, Willson, Allen, and Galek on 27 November 1979 violated Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act Thus, we deem it unnecessary to pass on the judge's further finding that the suspended employees were denied their Sec 7 nghts under NLRB v .1 Weingarten, 420 U S 251 (1975) We shall therefore modify Conclusion of Law 6 accordingly 5 For the reasons set forth by the judge, we find no ment in the Gen eral Counsel's contention that the judge erred in refusing to strike R Exh 8 which is a summary of documents relating to the increased use of owner operators 8 The record shows that, at the Union s request, the Respondent agreed to postpone the relocation pending a meeting with the Union scheduled for 25 January However, on application of the Union, the Re spondent was served at that meeting with a state court injunction tempo ranly prohibiting the transfer The Respondent immediately retaliated against the Union by closing down the East Hartford terminal and laying off all of the union drivers In light of this evidence of union animus as well as the union animus present in the other violations of the Act com- mitted by the Respondent designed to nd itself of the Union, and in light of the absence of any substantial business justification for its action, we find that the 24 January 1980 layoff of employees violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act We note that the judge incorrectly stated that the injunction was lifted on 1 February Instead of 14 February 1980 7 In this connection, the judge properly found inapplicable to the situa ton here the Supreme Court s decision in First National Maintenance Corp v NLRB, 452 U S 666 (1981), in which the Court held that, in the absence of union animus on the part of the employer, it had no obligation to bargain concerning the termination of certain operations Cf the Board's recent decision in Otis Elevator Co, 269 NLRB 891 (1984) Member Hunter agrees with all of the 8(a)(3) findings in this case and he further concludes that the Respondent transferred its operations and closed the terminal for antiunion reasons He finds the remedy awarded Continued 272 NLRB No 72 428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As the appropriate remedy for the Respondent's unlawful conduct in closing its East Hartford ter- minal, laying off its employees, and transferring its operations to New Jersey, the judge properly or- dered the Respondent to restore the status quo ante by reopening the terminal and returning to that lo- cation any work which it transferred to its New Jersey location and by making whole the employ- ees laid off on 24 January 1980 and offering them jobs at the reopened East Hartford terminal How- ever, in agreeing with that remedy, we disavow the judge's reliance on Ozark Trailers, 161 NLRB 561 (1966), in which the Board did not order resto- ration of the status quo ante because, unlike the sit- uation here, the employer's decision to close that facility was based on valid economic considerations and there was an insufficient showing of union animus We rely instead on the well-established principle that, in cases involving discriminatory conduct, the restoration of the status quo ante is a necessary remedy as it is the Board's policy that the wrongdoer, rather than the innocent victim, should bear the hardships of the unlawful action 8 Thus, the Respondent's union animus is manifest from its frequent unfair labor practices, which were designed to undermine the Union and reduce and eliminate the jobs of its East Hartford employees In particular, we emphasize the Respondent's coer- cive 8(a)(1) conduct, its increased use of owner-op- erators, its retaliation against the Union for obtain- ing an injunction by accelerating the shutdown of the terminal, its dealing with individual employees and bypassing the Union, and its failure to notify, consult, or bargain with the Union before deciding on shutting down the East Hartford terminal and laying off those employees As the Respondent has not demonstrated that the reinstitution of the East Hartford terminal would endanger its continued vi- ability, we shall order a resumption of operations at that location and, because of the judge's inadvert- by the Judge and adopted as modified to be appropriate as a means of remedying the 8(a)(3) violations He therefore finds it unnecessary to pass on the 8(a)(5) allegations, except that he would adopt the 8(a)(5) violation with respect to the Respondent s direct dealing with the employees Member Dennis relies on her concurring opinion in Otis Elevator Co in agreeing with the Judge that the Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(5) by fail ing to bargain over its decision to relocate its operations She finds that the decision was not economically motivated and therefore did not fall within the definition of Category HI management decisions governed by the Supreme Court s First National Maintenance opinion Because the Re spondent's decision was motivated by union considerations and had a direct Impact on employment, Member Dennis concludes that It fell within the definition of Category II decisions, which are mandatory sub jects of bargaining 9 See Weather Tamer Inc , 253 NLRB 293 (1980), and N C Coastal Motor Lines, 219 NLRB 1009 (1975), enfd 542 F 2d 637 (4th Cir 1976) ent omission, we shall so provide in the Order and notice 9 As the judge departed from the customary rein- statement language by ordering reinstatement to "former or substantially equivalent jobs," we shall modify the Order by requiring reinstatement of the East Hartford terminal employees "to their former positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs" In addition, because the judge did not specifically provide that backpay shall run until reinstatement is offered, we shall so provide Finally, as the East Hartford employees were deprived of their vacation pay as a result of their unlawful layoff on 24 January 1980, we shall specifically provide for its inclusion as part of their backpay 1° AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Delete paragraph 6 and substitute the following "6 The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by its interrogation and coercion of employees "7 The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by its increased use of owner-operators, its suspension of employees Banks, Burke, Willson, Allen, and Galek, its subsequent discharge of Galek, and its layoff of employees at its East Hart- ford, Connecticut terminal" ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified and set out in full below and orders that the Respondent, Mashkin Freight Lines, Inc and Ban Leasing, Inc , East Hartford, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing, on request, to bargain in good faith with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, Local Union No 559, regarding rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or any other terms or conditions of employment, as the exclusive repre- sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit described below (b) Closing down its operations, laying off em- ployees, and transferring bargaining unit work else- where without first consulting and bargaining with 9 Member Dennis agrees that a return to the status quo ante is appro pnate because the Respondent has not shown that such a remedy would be unduly burdensome " The Judge inadvertently omitted from the backpay remedy a gener al reference to Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) We now so pro vide MASHKIN FREIGHT LINES 429 the Union as the exclusive representative of its em- ployees and/or because its employees joined and supported the Union or engaged in other concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection (c) Increasing the use of nonbargaming unit per- sonnel to perform work normally performed by bargaining unit employees (d) Threatening, coercing, or restraining employ- ees concerning their union or other concerted ac- tivities (e) Refusing to produce financial records re- quested by the Union to substantiate a claim of fi- nancial inability to meet union bargaining requests and/or bargaining directly with its employees (f) Suspending or discharging employees because they joined and/or supported the Union or en- gaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of mutual aid or protection (g) In any other 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 neces- sary to effectuate the purposes of the Act (a) On request, bargain in good faith with the Union regarding rates of pay, wages, hours of em- ployment, and other terms and conditions of em- ployment for the employees in the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is reached, reduce the agreement to writing and sign it The appropriate unit is All truck drivers, helpers, loaders, mechanics, washers and other employees in the employ of the Respondent within the present jurisdiction of Local 559, excluding guards and supervisors as defined in the Act (b) Reopen the East Hartford, Connecticut oper- ation and return to that terminal any work that the Respondent transferred to its New Jersey location (c) Offer to those employees laid off and ad- versely affected by the closure of the East Hart- ford, Connecticut terminal and the transfer of oper- ations to New Jersey immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make those employees whole by providing them with backpay, including vacation benefits, for the period from their layoff to the date of the offer of reinstatement to the reopened East Hartford, Con- necticut terminal, with interest (d) Make whole those employees suspended on 27 November 1979 in connection with the Danbury restaurant incident and those employees who lost work as a result of the increased use of owner-op- erators in the manner set forth in the section of the administrative law judge's decision entitled "The Remedy" (e) Offer employee Frank Galek immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equiva- lent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings he may have suffered from the date of his discharge to the date of an offer of reinstatement at the reopened East Hartford, Connecticut terminal (f) Expunge from its files any reference to the suspension of Daniel A Banks, Robert Burke Jr, Dale Willson, Harold Roger Allen Jr, and Galek on 27 November 1979, the discharge of Galek on 8 January 1980, and the layoffs of all the drivers of the East Hartford, Connecticut terminal on 24 Jan- uary 1980, and notify them that evidence of the un- lawful conduct against them will not be used as a basis for future personnel action against them (g) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copy- ing, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order (h) Make available to the Union, on request, all books, records, ledger sheets, and all other docu- ments necessary to document its claim of financial disability made to the Union (i) Post at its East Hartford, Connecticut location copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix " 11 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the officer in charge for Subregion 39, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representa- tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediate- ly 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 material (i) Notify the officer in charge in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply " 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 Na bona] Labor Relations Board" shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation al Labor Relations Board" 430 DECISIONS OF 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice WE WILL NOT refuse, on request, to bargain in good faith with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No 559, regarding rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or any other terms or conditions of employment, as the exclu- sive representative of the employees in the appro- priate unit described below WE WILL NOT close down our operations, lay off employees, or transfer bargaining unit work else- where without first consulting and bargaining with the Union as the exclusive representative of our employees and/or because our employees joined and supported the Union or engaged in other con- certed activities for their mutual aid or protection WE WILL NOT increase the use of nonbargaming unit personnel to perform work normally per- formed by bargaining unit employees WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain em- ployees concerning their union or other concerted activities WE WILL NOT refuse to produce financial records requested by the Union to substantiate a claim of financial inability to meet union bargaining requests, nor bargain directly with our employees WE WILL NOT suspend or discharge employees because they join and/or support the Union or engage in other concerted activities for the pur- poses of mutual aid or protection WE WILL NOT in other manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL, on request, bargain in good faith with the Union regarding rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of em- ployment for the employees in the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is reached, reduce the agreement to writing and sign it The appropriate unit is All truck drivers, helpers, loaders, mechanics, washers and other employees in our employ within the present jurisdiction of Local 559, excluding guards and supervisors as defined in the Act WE WILL reopen the East Hartford, Connecticut operation and return to that terminal any work that we transferred to our New Jersey location WE WILL offer to those employees laid off and adversely affected by the closure of the East Hart- ford, Connecticut terminal and the transfer of oper- ations to New Jersey immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole by providing them with back- pay, including vacation benefits, together with in- terest, for the period from their layoff to the date of the offer of reinstatement to the reopened East Hartford, Connecticut terminal WE WILL make whole, with interest, those em- ployees suspended on 27 November 1979 in con- nection with the Danbury restaurant incident and those employees who lost work as a result of the increased use of owner-operators WE WILL offer employee Frank Galek immedi- ate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his senior- ity or any other rights or privileges previously en- joyed, and make him whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings he may have suffered from the date of his discharge to the date of an offer of reinstate- ment at the reopened East Hartford, Connecticut terminal WE WILL expunge from our files any reference to the suspension of Daniel A Banks, Robert Burke Jr, Dale Willson, Harold Roger Allen Jr, and Frank Galek on 27 November 1979, the dis- charge of Galek on 8 January 1980, and the layoffs of all the drivers of the East Hartford, Connecticut terminal on 24 January 1980, and notify them that evidence of the unlawful conduct against them will not be used as a basis for future personnel action against them MASHKIN FREIGHT LINES, INC AND BARI LEASING, INC DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE CHARLES M WILLIAMSON, Administrative Law Judge This case was heard before me at Hartford, Connecticut, on May 5, 14, and 15 and June 9, 10, and 11, 1980 The consolidated complaint in this case was issued on March 24, 1980 The consolidated complaint was amended on April 18, 1980 The consolidated complaint was based on various charges filed between January 8 and March 10, 1980 The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act These allegations are based on contentions that Respondent interrogated its MASHKIN FREIGHT LINES 431 employees concerning their union activity, discharged employees because of their union activity and assertion of Section 7 rights, and failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Charging Party Union concerning the transfer of work from the Hartford, Connecticut lo- cation The General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs which have been carefully considered FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT At all times material herein, Mashkin Freight Lines, Inc , a Connecticut corporation with an office and place of business in East Hartford, Connecticut, has been en- gaged in the interstate and intrastate transportation of freight and commodities During the calendar year ending December 31, 1979, which period is representa- tive of all times material herein, Mashkin, in the course and conduct of its business operations, derived gross rev- enues in excess of $50,000 for the transportation of freight and commodities from the State of Connecticut directly to points outside the State of Connecticut Bari Leasing, Inc commenced operations in early December 1979 Ban is a Connecticut corporation with an office and place of business in East Hartford, Connecticut, where it is engaged in the business of leasing trucks to enterprises engaged in the interstate transportation of freight and commodities Based on a projection of Ban's operations since early December 1979, it will annually derive gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for the trans- portation of freight and commodities in interstae com- merce pursuant to arrangements with and as agent for various common carriers, including Mashkin, each of which operates between and among various States of the United States By virtue of its operations Ban functions as an essential link in the transportation of freight and commodities in interstate commerce The complaint al- leges, Respondent admits, and I find that both Mashkm and Ban are now and have been at all times material herein employers engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No 559, hereafter referred to as the Union, is now and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE SINGLE EMPLOYER STATUS OF MASHKIN AND BARI The record shows that Mashkin and Ban have common officers They have common mangement and supervision Ban has leased equipment and material to Mashkin The organizations share common premises and facilities Under these circumstances I find that Mashkin and Ban constitute a single integrated business enterprise and are a single employer within the meaning of the Act IV THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A The Move of Operations In the fall of 1979 Mashkin and Local 559, the Charg- ing Party, were parties to a collective-bargaining con- tract This contract, by its terms, expired on April 15, 1982 On October 4, 1979, Owner Jack Mashkin told Union Representative Bidwell that Mashkin Freight had been sold A meeting was scheduled with the drivers for October 19, 1979, so that the new owner, Walter J Ban- lan, might be introduced to Mashkin's personnel At the October 19 meeting Banlan was introduced to the driv- ers He made an address to them on the subject of the Company's profitability There was a cost-of-living in- crease in the amount of 49 cents per hour due the drivers on October 15 Banlan suggested that this increase should be delayed Following the meeting with the driv- ers Banlan, Sal Julien, John Mahon, and Jack Mashkin returned to the Mashkin offices There, in talking with the management, Bidwell said that the 49-cent cost-of- living increase was essential and that the Union would not give it up Bidwell further stated that the regular drivers were upset over the use of owner-operator driv- ers because the regular drivers' seniority list had dropped from 167 men to about 150 Bidwell stated that the Com- pany was using owner-operators and not making use of its regular dm f..rs Banlan became upset at this statement and said that owner-operators were and should be part of the organization "used right along with our regular people" An understanding was reached that owner-oper- ators would not deliver to the Company's regular cus- tomers There was no mention of any transfer of oper- ations at this meeting On November 2, 1979, Union Representative Fennelly sent a letter to Respondent's owner Banlan requesting that negotiations be reopened in respect to mileage runs under the contract This letter is in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit 3 A reply from Respondent in regard to the proposed mileage structure is in evidence as Gen- eral Counsel's Exhibit 5 There was testimony by Re- spondent's owner Barilan that the parties met on this subject and that the Charging Party told Respondent its proposals were unacceptable This meeting apparently took place on December 28, 1979 Banlan testified that he told the Union that he was in "extremely serious fi- nancial condition" The Union replied that they had checked the Company's financial condition by means of a Dun and Bradstreet report They stated that the report indicated that the Company was in good financial shape while Barilan was telling them that its condition was poor Banlan replied that the Dun and Bradstreet report was good only to October 1979 In January 1980 Banlan began transferring Respond- ent's Hartford operations to a terminal location in New Jersey Union Representative Bidwell testified that he first learned of this transfer of operations when a driver called him and said that a customer had told the driver that trucks and equipment were. being left in New Jersey Immediately following this call Bidwell called Respond- ent's official Sal Cassanno and was told, "This is the way it is" Bidwell replied that the drivers' home was in 432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hartford, not in New Jersey Bidwell credibly testified that no official of Respondent discussed this transfer of operations with the Union prior to its taking place At a meeting on January 25, 1980, Banlan was served with a state court injunction prohibiting the transfer of operations to New Jersey At subsequent meetings on January 27 and 29, 1980, the Union's secretary-treasurer Robert Dubian asked to see Respondent's financial records Banlan told the Union that Respondent's books would be done by a bank "in a month or so" and offered to let the Union observe the books while they were being done by the bank Banlan stated that the Union would not be allowed to come in with their own ac- countant to look over the books Other discussion at these meetings revolved around the Union's proposed mileage rates for drivers The Company rejected the Union's proposal, saying although it saved $800,000, the Company in fact needed to save $1,200,000 The state court injunction prevented any further action by Respondent until February 1, 1980 At that time Respondent ceased operating trucks out of its Hart- ford terminal and moved its operations to New Jersey When the terminal closed, Respondent had 142 drivers on its employee list Subsequent to the move some 25 or 30 of these drivers were given offers to go to New Jersey At the time of the hearing some 10 Hartford drivers were working at the New Jersey location Re- spondent signed a new collective-bargaining contract with Local 807 of the Teamsters Union at the New Jersey location This contract is in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit 11 I note that it was entered into on January 10, 1980, a date prior to the closing of the Hart- ford terminal Respondent's witness Banlan stated that he began meetings in September 1979 with the Union prior to his acquisition of Mashkin He estimated the time of the first such meeting as being "late September" Banlan stated that no changes in the operations of the Company were discussed at this early meeting because he did not realize the bad financial position the Company was in until sometime in October 1979 Considerable discussion in these early meetings was given over to the so-called wheel system The wheel system was a method of assign- ing work that amounted to a first-in first-out system Union Representatives Fennelly and Bidwell rejected the wheel system according to Barilan General Counsel's Exhibit 4 dated November 2, 1979, is a letter addressed by Respondent to the Union concerning the wheel system Banlan stated that these conversations continued all through October 1979 and that the letter resulted be- cause Union Representative Fennely told him to "put something in writing" Banlan insisted at the hearing that one of the chief problems he had with Local 559 all through his discussions with them resulted from internal conflict within the Local occasioned by a union election Banlan stated that prior to having the meeting with the drivers in October 1979 he went over the subject matter of the meeting with Union Representatives Bidwell and Fennelly He admitted that nothing was said to Bidwell and Fennelly concerning relocation of the Company's operations at that time Banlan admitted that he knew of the Mashkin contract with Local 559 prior to entering into the purchase agreement The decision to close the Hartford terminal was made on December 20, 1979 I find, based on the relative credibility of Respondent's and the Charging Party's witnesses, that Banlan did not notify the Union of this decision As close as he came to doing so was at the meeting of December 28, 1979, wherein discussion revolved around his intentions with respect to men he was hiring in New Jersey Banlan did not tell the Charging Party that the Hartford operation was going to move, he told them instead that New Jersey was the Company's "growth area" Banlan him- self admitted that a notice to drivers posted on January 23, 1980 (G C Exh 9), was the first official notice of the move B The Danbury Incident The essential facts of this incident are not in dispute On November 27, 1979, Respondent's drivers Galek, Burke, Willson, Banks, and Allen met at a restaurant and cocktail lounge in Danbury, Connecticut Four of these drivers—Galek, Burke, Willson, and Banks—were confronted at the restaurant by Barilan and Cassanno Allen left the restaurant prior to the confron- tation although he was seen by Banlan and Cassanno Respondent's witnesses Banlan and Cassanno asserted that they saw all the drivers except Willson apparently drinking in the restaurant Banlan asked the employees involved to submit to an alcohol blood test The group went to a local hospital where the medical personnel re- fused to process the already taken blood samples unless the employee donors signed consent forms The employ- ees initially began to comply with this request (Willson had even signed the form) when Galek suggested that they not sign the forms until they had consulted with a union representative All agreed with Galek's suggestion and he made an unsuccessful attempt to telephone a union official The employees continued their refusal to sign the consent forms after the unsuccessful attempt to locate a union representative On this continued refusal, Banlan suspended all five employees for drinking on duty Several days later, on the urging of the Union's secretary-treasurer, Respondent reinstated all five At the hearing, Respondent asserted that the reasons for the ter- mination were (1) drinking on duty, (2) leaving vehicles unattended, and (3) stealing company time C The Discharge of Frank Galek On January 8, 1980, Galek and Union Steward Al Steupa went to Banlan's office to discuss a grievance Banlan asked to see Galek alone When they were alone, Banlan told Galek he was tired of having the Union pull his "chestnuts out of the fire" This was undemed by Banlan After the grievance was discussed, Respondent conceded the justice of Galek's claim Banlan then fired Galek The alleged reason for the discharge was Galek's failure to report an accident which had taken place nearly 2 months prior to the discharge A month prior to the discharge employee Robert Tellier mentioned the ac- cident in the presence of Respondent's official Sal Cas- sanno Cassanno said that Respondent might pay for the damage because the Company wanted to get rid of MASHKIN FREIGHT LINES 433 Galek whom he described as "the lawyer" These state- ments were not denied by Cassanno although he testified concerning other matters in the case In any event, the accident cost Respondent nothing I find that the refer- ence to Galek as a "lawyer" concerned his role in con- vincing employees at the Danbury hospital not to sign consent forms for the blood test until after consultation with a union representative Banlan also told Galek he could have "vistors" at his home D Alleged violations of Section 8(a)(I) In October 1979, Terminal Manager Garufi called em- ployee Kaluska into his office Garufi asked if Kaluska had anything to do with the TDU (Teamsters for a Democratic Union—a dissident group) and said he heard Kaluska had been attending TDU meetings He conclud- ed by warning Kaluska about TDU troublemakers Garufi was not called as a witness and this testimony is undemed I credit it Counsel for the General Counsel also alleged Barilan's statements to Galek on January 8, 1980, as independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) E Change in Location of Timecards At the time Barilan bought the Mashkin operation, the employees' timecards were on an outside rack near the dispatch office In October 1979, the location of the timecards was changed during the course of a complete rearrangement of Respondent's dispatch office They were moved to a location inside the dispatch office Re- spondent admitted, through its witness Banlan, that it did not bargain with the Union over the rearrangement of its dispatch office or the attendant relocation of the timecards Counsel for the General Counsel argued at the hearing that this change affected employees in that (1) they had to request their timecards from an employee in the dispatch office, (2) they could no longer look at another employee's timecard to check, e g, whether a less senior driver had received a run in preference to a more senior driver, and (3) employees could no longer leave a note for the union steward on their timecard (or, rather, they could leave a note but its delivery to the steward was highly unlikely) Counsel for the General Counsel argued that the change therefore interfered with employees' communication with the union steward F Driver Terminations In the process of transferring its operations to the New Jersey location, Respondent, on January 24, 1980, laid off all its Local 559 drivers (approximately 142 in number) at the Hartford terminal See General Counsel's Exhibit 15 The exhibit also reflects (pp 7-8) the hiring of some 21 new drivers at the New Jersey location be- tween February 11 and 28, 1980 No Hartford driver was offered an opportunity to transfer to New Jersey until February 27, 1980 (Robert Fennessy) V ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS (I) It is apparent from this record that Respondent did not live up to its bargaining obligations to Local 559 in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act I base this finding on the following factual considerations Almost at his first contacts in the third week of October 1979, Banlan began dealing directly with the drivers rather than the Union Thus, on October 19, 1979, in a meeting with the drivers, Banlan suggested that they give up a 49-cent-per-hour cost-of-living increase already provided for in the current contract While the increase was in fact given later on a retroactive basis, I find that Ban- lan's request to the men operated to bypass the Union "The National Labor Relations Act does not counte- nance negotiating with individual employees when they have bargaining representatives" Lion Oil Co v NLRB, 245 F 2d 376, 378 (8th Cir 1957) Such action "tend[s] inevitably to weaken the authority of the [bargaining representative] and its ability to represent the employees in dealing with the Company" Utica Observer-Dispatch v NLRB, 229 F 2d 575, 577 (2d Cir 1956) Respondent argues in its brief, p 5, that such bypassing of the Union did not occur because Union Representatives Bidwell and Fennelly "refused to attend many of the [meetings] Even granting that they did so refuse, the meetings in question were in the latter part of December 1979 whereas Banlan's dealings with the employees were in October of that year (2) The shutdown of the terminal, the transfer of oper- ations to New Jersey, and the layoff of the Hartford drivers all occurred without bargaining or consultation with the Union concerning either the decision or the impact on the employees Respondent contends that this decision and its implementation were necessary because of economic reasons Indeed, there is evidence that at a meeting on January 28 Respondent told the Union it needed to save $1,200,000 in costs However, Respondent presented no evidence at the hearing to show that its financial condition was such as to require the actions it took Respondent, in fact, does not so argue in its brief Respondent presented no evi- dence either to show a business necessity for secrecy or a need for an immediate move Accordingly, I find that Respondent's failure to bargain with the Union concern- ing the decision to relocate to New Jersey, close the Hartford terminal, and lay off the Hartford drivers vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act Midland-Ross Corp, 239 NLRB 323 (1978), enfd 617 F 2d 977 (3d Cir 1980) I have considered the recent Supreme Court deci- sion in First National Maintenance Corp v NLRB, 452 US 666 (1981), as it bears on Respondent's duty to bar- gain over the decision to relocate its operations and close the Hartford terminal In First National, respondent ter- minated a maintenance contract with a nursing home be- cause of a fee dispute and terminated its employees who had been performing the work at the nursing home Both the Board (at 242 NLRB 462 (1979)) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (at 627 F 2d 596 (2d Cir 1980)) held that the respondent was ob- ligated to bargain over the decision to terminate the nursing home operations and terminate the employees The Board and the circuit court differed in their reason- ing The Board, relying on the analysis of its administra- tive law judge, bottomed its decision on Ozark Trailers, 161 NLRB 561 (1966) The court asserted that a rebutta- ble presumption in favor of mandatory bargaining exist- 434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ed Such a presumption was rebuttable "by showing that the purposes of the statute would not be furthered by im- position of a duty to bargain" The circuit court found that Respondent had not rebutted the presumption The Supreme Court rejected both of the above approaches and held that Respondent had no duty to bargain over its decision to terminate the nursing home contract The Su- preme Court closely limited its decision in First National to the facts of the case In part III,B of its opinion, the Court stated (452 U S at 687-688) In order to illustrate the limits of our holding, we turn again to the specific facts of this case First, we note that when petitioner decided to terminate its Greenpark contract, it had no intention to replace the discharged employees or to move that operation elsewhere Petitioner's sole purpose was to reduce its economic loss, and the union made no claim of 'union animus In addition, petitioner's dispute with Greenpark was solely over the size of the manage- ment fee Greenpark was willing to pay The Union had no control or authority over that fee The most that the union could have offered would have been advice and concessions that Greenpark, the third party upon whom rested the success or failure of the contract, had no duty even to consider These facts in particular distinguish this case from the sub- contracting issue presented in Fibreboard [Fibre- board Corp v NLRB, 379 U S 203 (1964) ] Further, the union was not selected as the bargaining repre- sentative or certified until well after petitioner's economic difficulties at Greenpark had begun We thus are not faced with an employer's abrogation of ongoing negotiations or an existing bargaining agreement [Emphasis added ] Almost all the distinctions drawn by the Supreme Court are present in this case Respondent's actions came at a time when it was party to an unexpired contract and had, formally at least, recognized its duty to bargain Unlike the situation in First National, the Union had con- trol over the matter presumably presenting a problem to Respondent—wages as a part of costs Respondent here did, in fact, hire new employees at a new location to continue essentially the same business Respondent's acts did abrogate ongoing negotiations Union animus is present As I have previously commented, Respondent made no showing that business secrecy was essential to the accomplishment of its purposes or that speed in relo- cation was so of the essence that there was no time to bargain Over a month passed between Respondent's conception and the execution of its purpose During that month, had the Union been bargaining with a clear con- ception of possible alternatives, viz, costs would have to be cut or a move was inevitable, "collective discussions backed by the parties' economic weapons" might have resulted in a decision "better for both management and labor and for society as a whole" First National Mainte- nance Corp v NLRB, supra, part II of the Court's opin- ion (452 U S at 678) (3) I find that the suspension of Galek, Burke, Willson, Allen, and Banks in connection with the Danbury restau- rant incident violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act within the ambit of the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v J Weingarten, 420 US 251 (1975) In that case, the Court held that, where an employee is called by the employer into an interview which the employee reasonably be- lieves might result in discipline or discharge, he or she is entitled to have a union representative present If a valid request for representation is made, the employer has three options He may grant the request, halt the inter- view, or give the employee a choice between continuing the interview without representation or terminating the interview General Electric Co, 240 NLRB 479, 481 (1979) The employee's request for representation must be based on a reasonable belief, in the light of all the cir- cumstances, that discipline may ensue Exxon Co, 223 NLRB 203 (1976) Applying these principles to this case, it is clear that the four men at the hospital—Galek, Wilson, Burke, and Banks—had a reasonable belief that discipline might ensue as a result of the blood test They were, after all, there because of a question about alcohol blood content, a matter peculiarly liable to be involved with discipline where an on-duty truckdnver was con- cerned While it might be argued that handing over the results of a blood test is not an "interview" within the meaning of Weingarten, I do not find this persuasive The thrust of Weingarten, in this context, relates to employee participation in an investigation conducted by the em- ployer Whether the employer gathers oral, written, or physical evidence at the investigatory interview would not appear to affect the employees' right to the presence of a union representative The Respondent reacted to the employees' failure to sign the consent form by suspending all the drivers—in- cluding one not at the hospital and another who it ac- knowledged had not been drinking Banlan suspended the men on the ground that their refusal to sign the forms was proof they had been drinking Relying on the employees' refusal to continue as a part of the interview or investigation without union representation consititutes a violation Spartan Stores, 235 NLRB 522 (1978) There was no danger that the evidence sought by Respondent would become unavailable because the blood samples had already been taken and could have been preserved The fact that the men were reinstated a few days later as a result of the Union's efforts does not, as Respondent argues in its brief, p 4, require dismissal of this aspect of the charge under Spielberg Mfg Co, 112 NLRB 1080 (1955) There is no arbitrator's decision involved and the affected employees have not received backpay for the period of their suspension Accordingly, I find that Re- spondent's suspension of four of its employees on No- vember 27, 1979, occurred because of their refusal to continue an investigative interview without representa- tion and thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Addi- tionally, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by its suspension of all five employees, includ- ing Allen, who was not present at the hospital incident Respondent initially asserted drinking as the 'cause of the suspension even though it acknowledged that Willson was not drinking This was the same reason given the Union the following day At a later grievance meeting MASHKIN FREIGHT LINES 435 Respondent added an additional reason—stealing time It did not produce any evidence at the hearing to show that the employees stole time and, in fact, the employees' testified that they did not log the time in the restaurant for pay purposes but were eating a late lunch Respond- ent further asserted both at the grievance hearing and the hearing before me that the vehicles and loads were left unattended The employees, whom I credit, testified at the hearing that their trucks were locked Respondent has thus adduced both shifting and differing reasons after the fact for the suspensions In light of Respondent's demonstrated union animus and its failure to present evi- dence of its asserted reasons for the suspension, I find that the actual reason for the suspension was Banlan's wish to seize on the Danbury incident as a means of rid- ding himself of the five union adherents Keller Mfg Go, 237 NLRB 712, 719 (1978) (4) I find that the discharge of Frank Galek on Janu- ary 8, 1980, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act The record shows that the unreported accident for which Respondent allegedly discharged Galek was known to it 5 or 6 weeks prior to the discharge At that time, Robert Tether (the other party in the accident) went to Mashkin Freight and spoke with Respondent's supervisor Sal Cassanno Tether quoted Cassanno as saying He wanted to know what the damage was for the vehicle, that he wanted to give me a check for the amount, because they wanted to get rid of Frank, because he was attorney for the other three people, that problem that they had in Danbury Cassanno, who testified for Respondent on other as- pects of the case, did not deny Tellier's testimony In view of Cassartno's asserted intention to "get rid of Frank" and Respondent's failure to present any evidence to explain the fact that it was aware of the accident for 5 or 6 weeks prior to Galek's discharge and took no action, I find that Galek's January 8, 1980 discharge vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act Keller Mfg Go, supra (5) As contended by counsel for the General Counsel, I find that Terminal Manager Garufi's interrogation of employee Kaluska concerning his alleged activities with the TDU violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Additional- ly, Garufi's statement that he had "heard" that Kaluska had attended TDU meetings created an impression of surveillance of employees' union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) Barilan's January 8, 1980 statement to Frank Galek that Banlan was tired of the Union pulling "his chestnuts out of the fire" combined with the state- ment that Galek might have "visitors" at his house re- strained and coerced Galek in violation of Section 8(a)(1) I note that Banlan did not deny this statement (6) I do not find that counsel for the General Counsel has sustained the burden of proof with regard to the alle- gation that moving the location of the employees' time- cards constituted a unilateral act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) I credit Respondent's witnesses in their testimony that the location of the timecards was changed as a result of a business-related necessity to reorganize the dispatch room While this reorganization may mad- veriently have changed a method of communication be- tween employees and their union stewards, there was no evidence to show that such communication became im- possible or, indeed, that the same method of communica- tion could not have been used There was no evidence to show that an employee, after the reorganization, had re- quested a dispatcher to leave a note on a union steward's timecard and been refused I therefore find that the reor- ganization of the dispatch room did not significantly change the working conditions of Respondent's employ- ees and that Respondent was not obligated to bargain over this business-related decision (7) A few hours after Robert Dubian was sworn in as secretary-treasurer of the Union January 27, 1980, he at- tended a bargaining session at Mashkm's ofices in Hart- ford Present were Jack Fennely, Dubian, Frank Bidwell, George Campagnon, Al Sleurpa, Rocky Racine (all with the Union), Banlan, Sal Julian, and Sal Cassanno Using a set of charts, Banlan told the Union that business was deteriorating This assertion was based on a factor re- ferred to as an "operating ratio" (otherwise unexplained) Any operating ratio over 100 meant Respondent was losing money Banlan stated that the ratio was then over 100 Banlan then rejected an appeal by Union Repre- sentative Bidwell to add "another dollar an hour extra, or add in some more time off" Dubian then requested that Respondent permit the Union to examine its finan- cial records This request was denied by Banlan, who stated that the Company's books would not be made available to any union auditor but that the Union was welcome to attend a future bank audit of the books to take place at "some time in the future" At a subsequent meeting the next day, Barilan indicated that the bank audit might be "maybe a month, or 2 months down the road" Respondent argues in its brief, p 9, that Respondent made no claim "that it was unable to pay wage increases to its employees" (Emphasis added ) Narrowly interpret- ing NLRB v Truitt Mfg Go, 351 US 149 (1956), to concern only a denial of a wage increase, Respondent argues that "this negates any duty on the part of the Company to allow the Union to audit its books" The record shows that certainly in January 1980 Banlan was claiming that Respondent needed reductions in costs—in- cluding wages and fringe benefits—if Respondent was to survive It refused to give the Union this information while at the same time it had shifted its terminal oper- ations to New Jersey assertedly because of the same busi- ness necessity I find this refusal to be violative of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (5) Truitt is more properly read as refer- ring to a plea of "inability to pay," whether fringe bene- fits, wage increases, or the maintenance of current levels of wages and benefits is at issue (8) Counsel for the General Counsel asserts that Re- spondent made an increased use of nonbargaming unit owner-operators shortly after Banlan took over the op- eration of Mashkin Some evidence was adduced that owner-operators (independent contractors) were seen in the fall of 1979 earring cargo to places other than their normal destination at the Kraft Food plant in Foglesville, 436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pennsylvania Respondent's Exhibits 8 and 9 reveal that the number of active owner-operators in August 1979 was 36, in September 40, in October 41, in November 41, in December 43, in January 1980 was 28, in February 27, in March 25, and in April 25 Owner-operator cost to Respondent appears to have increased between August 1979 when it was $126,036 (figures adjusted for an Octo- ber increase in rates) and October 1979 when it was $147,706 Thereafter, the cost declined to $107,196 in No- vember 1979 and $102,161 in December 1979 During January 1980, the month of the Hartford shutdown, the cost increased to $144,075 Stated as a percentage of Re- spondent's total revenues between August 1979 and Jan- uary 1980 (inclusive), the monthly percentages are 9 7, 11 2, 11 3, 9 6, 9 6, and 14 5 Respondent attributes the growth in size of the last monthly figure to reduced overall revenues occasioned by the January shutdown Respondent would thus not count the January figures in the overall comparison Subsequent to the hearing, coun- sel for the General Counsel moved to strike Respond- ent's Exhibit 8 on the ground that he had not been al- lowed postheanng access to underlying Respondent records pursuant to an in-hearing agreement with coun- sel for Respondent Counsel for the General Counsel presented General Counsel's Exhibit 33, a summary sheet of Respondent's owner-operator experience from Sep- tember 1979 to February 16, 1980 The General Coun- sel's figures differ markedly from Respondent's both as to dollar amounts and the number of owner-operators I accept the General Counsel's position as to the number of owner-operators Respondent's Exhibit 9, presented by its witness Julian, includes all owner-operators with active leases whether or not they actually made a run for Respondent during the month in question Counsel for the General Counsel's listing (G C Exh 33, p 11) in- cludes only owner-operators who actually performed services for Respondent Counsel for the General Coun- sel's listing at General Counsel's Exhibit 33, p 11, shows that 20 owner-operators were used in September 1979 (corrected from 19 shown on the exhibit-see G C Br, pp 12 and 13), 19 in October, 24 in November, 27 in De- cember, and 34 in January 1980 Unfortunately, the number of owner-operators making trips does not tell the whole story It is, of course, conceivable that the same number of trips from one month to the next could be di- vided among a greater or lesser number of owner-opera- tors Such a state of affairs, in and of itself, would not indicate an increased "use" of owner-operators in a manner adversely affecting bargaining unit employees Obviously, the moneys paid owner-operators must be combined with the number used to demonstrate any in- creased use adversely affecting Respondent's employees Here, Respondent's figures in its Exhibit 8 and counsel for the General Counsel's figures in his Exhibit 33, p 11, differ materially The latter shows payments of approxi- mately $60,000 in September 1979, increasing to $89,702 in October, followed by a marked decrease (some 19 per- cent) to $72,637 in November, followed by a jump to $113,617 in December There was a slight fall-off to $113,254 in January 1980 A fair reading of the figures shows a general increase over the period covered Re- spondent's figures set out above, although differing in ab- solute magnitude from those of General Counsel's Exhib- it 33, also show a marked increase in Octoer 1979 from the previous 2 months followed by a marked decrease (about 27 percent) in November 1979 Respondent's fig- ures for January 1980 show about a 40-percent increase over those for December 1980 as opposed to practical identity for those 2 months in General Counsel's Exhibit 33 Some of the factors that cause the variance between the two sets of figures appear to be the General Coun- sel's failure to include Respondent's payments to two in- dependent hirers Of owner-operators-Browning and F M R -and variances due to different treatment of weeks divided between 2 months In General Counsel's Exhibits 16 and 17, counsel for the General Counsel has independently presented the F M R figures Based on the record as a whole, including Respondent's Exhibits 8 and 9 and General Counsel's Exhibits 16, 17, and 13, I find that Respondent's use of owner-operators increased following Banlan's arrival on the scene up through Janu- ary 1980 I note particularly the sharp October 1979 in- crease in payments to owner-operators at the Hartford operation reflected in the column headed "HFD" of Re- spondent's Exhibit 8, showing an increase of approxi- mately 33 percent over September 1979 and 18 percent over August 1979 I will deny counsel for the General Counsel's motion to strike Respondent's Exhibit 8 as it appears that he was only denied access to certain records for January 1980 because Respondent took the position that the figures for January did not constitute a proper comparison because of the terminal shutdown As indi- cated above, I have used the January figures and reject Respondent's position I further find that this increased use of owner-operators adversely impacted on bargaining unit employees who were thereby denied work opportu- nities which would otherwise have been available to them I find that Respondent did not bargain with the Charging Party Union concerning this usage in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act and that its actions in this regard were inherently destructive of the rights of employees in the bargaining unit represented by the Charging Party Union NLRB v Great Dane Trailers, 388 U S 26 (1967) Additionally, I find, in the light of the union animus and other violations of the Act set forth elsewhere in this decision, that Respondent was de- liberately seeking to undermine the Charging Party Union by its acts in this regard Accordingly, I find that Respondent's increased use of owner-operators violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Mashkm Freight Lines, Inc and Ban Leasing, Inc constitute a single employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 2 The Charging Party Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act MASHKIN FREIGHT LINES 437 All truckdrivers, helpers, loaders, mechanics, wash- ers and other employees in the employ of Respond- ent within the present jurisdiction of Local 559, ex- cluding guards and supervisors as defined in the Act 4 At all times since April 15, 1979, the Charging Party Union, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been, and is, the exclusive representative of the employ- ees in the unit described above for the purposes of col- lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment 5 Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act on and after October 1, 1979, by its increased use of owner-op- erators, its failure to allow the Charging Party Union to examine its financial records, its closure of the Hartford, Connecticut terminal, its layoff of employees at the Hart- ford terminal, the moving of its operations to New Jersey, and its direct dealing with employees 6 Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by its interrogation and coercion of employees, its suspension of employees for requesting union representation during the course of an interview which they had reason to believe might eventuate in disciplinary action, its discharge of employ- ee Frank Galek, and its layoff of employees at its Hart- ford, Connecticut terminal on January 23, 1980 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Having found that Respondent has refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the Charging Party Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an ap- propriate unit, I will recommend that, on request, Re- spondent bargain collectively with the Charging Party Union concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an under- standing is reached embody such understanding in a signed agreement It is clear that Respondent's closing of its Hartford, Connecticut operation has had an adverse impact on em- ployees I shall order Respondent to reopen its Hartford operation and transfer back to that location any work which it transferred to its New Jersey location from Hartford Ozark Trailers, 161 NLRB 561 (1966) I shall, direct that Respondent make bargaining unit employees whole for any losses they may have incurred, in the manner set forth below, as a result of Respondent's in- creased use of nonunit personnel to perform bargaining unit work on and after October 1, 1979 I shall order Respondent to make available to the Charging Party Union the financial records which it re- fused to permit the Charging Party Union to inspect I shall direct the reinstatement of Frank Galek and the employees laid off when Respondent closed its Hartford terminal I shall direct backpay for those employees sus- pended on November 27, 1979, for the period of their suspension Backpay shall be paid the employees dating from the time of their discharge, layoff, or suspension computed in the manner set forth in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon to be computed by the method set out in Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) As Respondent's violations in this case stamp it as an egregious offender and raise the possibility of future vio- lations, I find a broad cease-and-desist order appropriate Pyromancs, Inc , 251 NLRB 1017 (1980) [Recommended Order omitted from publication ]