Corrugated Structures, Inc.

CORRCUGATED) STRUCTURES. INC. Corrugated Structures, Inc. and David E. Howard and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 96 a/w Sheet Metal Workers International Union, AFL-CIO International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 103 and Jon Goldman. Cases 25-CA-9550, 25-CA-9780, and 25-CB-3461 September 29, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MENIIERS JENKINS ANI) PNI.I O On July 31, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Richard L. Denison issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent Em- ployer and the Respondent Union filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that the Respondent Employer (herein also called the Employer) violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employee David Howard for complaining to Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 96, hereinafter Local 96, concerning a reduction in pay, 2 and by discharging employees Jack Ankrom and Michael Gourley because of their membership in Local 96. We further find that such conduct violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act as it was designed to and tended to encourage mem- bership in the Respondent Union (herein also called Iron Workers), and to discourage membership in Local 96. For the reasons set forth below, howev- er, we do not adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally reducing the wages of certain employees and by withdraw- I he Admlllstral le [. Li . , Judge recormn inded Ihal he Board IsSUe a hroad clC-;ltld dcisl ,order requiring the R otllldclll Frnplryer 10i Ceasc and derist frrm vililaling the Act "in an olther manlier" tlorcv er, c dt, not find lhe Rpondrtent Fnpl er", clonducl in this tase egregiorus enough io 'uarrain the iilfrlCC er' such il i ordcr Conrecquctil . arc hall substitute the Board\ na rrr languiage, rquiring the R cspilndeil Em- ploer to ceaJC ailnd desij fronl ,lillaing Ihe Act "in any like ir related mlanr," for I he pro~lriswill reconrlnlclnded D) the Aldnlliii r;i I c Law Judge See Il,u A,,ot, I'rdi, /l, 242 NI R I 1357 119791 ' No exceptins %were filedl I( this flnliig of hle Adllrinirlrratic I.;ls Judge 252 NLRB No. 79 ing recognition from Local 96. We also do not adopt hos finding that the Iron Workers violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by entering into and maintaining a collective-bargaining agreement with the Em- ployer when it knew that the Employer had a valid contract with Local 96. The Employer is engaged in the construction in- dustry. On January 27, 1976, it and Local 96 en- tered into a prehire agreement pursuant to Section 8(f) of the Act.3 The contract was not limited to any particular job or jobsite, and contained, inter alia, a union-security clause requiring that employ- ees, as a condition of employment, had to become members of Local 96 within 8 days of being hired. On December 16, 1977, when employees David Howard and Robert Webb were working at the Frontier-Kemper jobsite, which was covered by the bargaining agreement, the Employer's presi- dent, Kempf, brought Howard and Webb their paychecks and told them their pay had been cut below the contract rates because they were neither experienced nor fast enough to be paid union scale. Thereafter, on February 15, 1978, the Employer entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with the Iron Workers. That Union was aware at that time of the agreement the Employer had with Local 96. At a prejob conference held on February 24, 1978, concerning a Rockport Power Plant pro- ject, Kempf announced that the Empoyer was as- signing its work there to employees represented by the Iron Workers. Since mid-February 1978, the Employer's employees have worked under the Iron Workers contract. In finding that the foregoing conduct of the Em- ployer and the Iron Workers violated the Act as set forth above, the Administrative Law Judge nec- essarily found that Local 96 was the actual major- ity representative, not just the 8(f) representative, of the Employer's employees. 4 In reaching that result, he concluded that the Employer employed a stable work force; that Local 96 represented a ma- jority of that stable work force; that Local 96's ma- jority, therefore, was established during the rele- vant period with respect to all the Employer's worksites; and that, consequently, majority status need not be shown for each jobsite. The evidence, S S() of the Act permits employers and lahbor orgarllzations in he building anrd coinstructlon industry to enter intor collectl -hargairiing agreementts co erlg Cmplloecs nt )et hired Curpt. l.rnumlrn and .Sofi le lo.,al Un.ln No, 1247 of he Brotrhrxd f Painiers. Dccoiraor & IPa. pe'rhutigr Ij -Iorlritcu If--CIO lndar Punt arnd Rug C(renrrl. 15 NIRB 1 951 I thh) S .\ L R B. Locaul Union \. It)3, lnrrlcrnartional 41 cirrlior or Bridge, .Struciuraul & Ornamental lrun WIorAer. .41L-(10 llgdon ot- rrutrrtin . 434 S 335 (19781. holding i eCffect unrionr reCCogIiiton and ai hargallrlig agreement under SeC 8(f) do ot hc the shanlC i.ltUl% ¥ith rC'spcct to ther priolsilns of Sec 8 i as rclgnition ard .a riOll qtlenlt 'Oii- trac h, rl onirpi I rcprehcntirliorn 523 DECISIONS OF NATIONA LA3O()R RELATIONS BOARD however, with respect to the Employer's work force does not support a finding that at any rele- vant time Local 96 represented a majority of a sub- stantial, stable work force of the Employer's em- ployees. Thus, 38 different employees worked for the Employer from January 1976 to mid-February 1978. Four were employed for over a year, six for only a day, and a majority of the remainder for less than 2 months. Three of the four long-term em- ployees were apparently Local 96 members. But at the times involved herein, there were three other employees who worked throughout the period and who, insofar as the record indicates, were never discharged or laid off. None of them was a Local 96 member and, thus, with respect to this more or less stable core group of employees, only three members out of the seven employees involved be- longed to Local 96. Consequently, to the extent it can be said there was a stable or core work force, Local 96 did not represent a majority of that group at times material-and it can be added it did not, at such times, represent a majority in the total work force. Indeed, the facts present a picture of a con- stant ebb and flow of the Employer's work force, with only an insubstantial number of employees being continuously or regularly employed, and with Local 96's support among the employees being nothing more than a fortuitous consequence of who happened to be on the payroll on a given day. In short, we find that the Employer did not engage a stable work force and that Local 96 in consequence has not established itself as the major- ity representative of the Employer's employees. Therefore, in order to establish that the Employer and the Iron Workers violated the Act as alleged, it must be demonstrated that Local 96 enjoyed ma- jority status at the Frontier-Kemper jobsite and the Rockport Power Plant, the specific locations where the unlawful conduct with which we are here concerned is alleged to have occurred. With respect to Frontier-Kemper the record in- dicates that at the time that Howard's and Webb's wages were unilaterally reduced below those speci- fied in the applicable 8(f) contract they were the only employees of the Employer working at that jobsite. There is no evidence that either Howard or Webb was a supporter of Local 96.5 The Employer switched its prehiring agreement from Local 96 to the Iron Workers on February 15, 1978. However, ' We have found that Howard was engaged in a protected union actis- ity when he complained to Local 96 about a cut in his pay below speci- fied contract rates However, the fact that Howard sought to vindicate his perceived rights under the contract does not estahlish that. having a choice, he would support representation by Local 96. Further, the record fails to show that Howard paid union dues or, in any other manner, sup- ported l.ocal 96. But, even if Howard were held to be in favor of that Union, still it would not have had, insofar as the record shows, majority support n the Frontier-Kemper job the only jobsite mentioned in the record involving the change is the Rockport Power Plant. The Gen- eral Counsel's evidence setting forth which em- ployees were working at the Employer's various jobsites failed to include Rockport. Thus, there is no evidence to indicate whether Local 96 enjoyed majority status at that site or at any other jobsite at the time the Employer executed its collective-bar- gaining agreement with the Iron Workers and rec- ognized that Union as the representative of its Rockport employees, or at any relevant time there- after. Therefore, we find that Local 96 did not enjoy majority status at the Frontier-Kemper job- site when wages were unilaterally reduced and that the General Counsel has failed to prove that Local 96 enjoyed majority support at any of the Employ- er's jobsites when the 8(f) agreement was executed with the Iron Workers. Accordingly, we find that the Employer did not violate the Act as alleged by unilaterally reducing the wages at the Frontier- Kemper jobsite and by withdrawing recognition from Local 96 and recognizing and executing an 8(f) contract with the Iron Workers, and that the Union did not violate the Act by entering into such agreement. We shall, therefore, dismiss the 8(a)(5) and (1) and 8(b)(1)(A) allegations of the complaint and the 8(a)(2) allegation insofar as it relates to the foregoing alleged violations. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent Employer, Corrugated Structures, Inc., Evansville, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 96, a/w Sheet Metal Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or encouraging membership in the In- ternational Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 103, or any other union, by discharging employees because of their union membership or relationship to any union. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effec- tuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer David Howard, Jack Ankrom, and Mi- chael Gourley immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights 524 CO()RRUGATED SRUCTURES. INC and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf- fered by reason of the discrimination practiced against them, in the manner set forth in that section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision enti- tled "Remedy." (b) Post at its premises at Evansville, Indiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Re- spondent Employer, shall be posted by the Re- spondent Employer immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re- spondent Employer to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- rial. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent Employer has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and Section 8(a)(2), of the Act except as specifically found, and that the Iron Workers violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 6 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United Stales Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Hoard" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court o Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National I.abor Relations Board" APPENDIX POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge employees because of their membership in or support of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 96, a/w Sheet Metal Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT encourage membership in In- ternational Association of Bridge and Structur- al Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 103, or any other union, by discharging employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer David Howard, Jack Ankrom, and Michael Gourley immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantial- ly equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and wv: wit i make them whole for any loss of earnings, plus interest, they may have suffered as a result of our dis- crimination against them. CORRUGATED STRUCTURES, INC. DECISION SA1TEM1N-I OF 1.HI CASE. RlcHRI)X L. DENIsON, Administrative Law Judge: This consolidated proceeding was heard at Evansville, Indiana, on August 8 and November 20 and 21, 1978. The charges in Cases 25-CA-9550, 25-CA-9780, and 25-CB-3461 ere filed on January 5. April 10, and August 9, 1978, respectively. The consolidated com- plaints, issued May 31 and September 15, 1978, allege that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by laying off David Howard, Michael Gourley, and Jack Ankrom because they assisted the Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 96, a/w Sheet Metal Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,' and were not and did not become members of the Interna- tional Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Work- ers, AFL-CIO, Local 103;2 and by unilaterally lowering its employees' wage rates to discourage membership in Local 96. It is also alleged that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by unilaterally reduc- ing wage rates, and by refusing to bargain with and withdrawing recognition from Local 96 on or about De- cember 1, 1977, and thereafter on February 28, 1978, rec- ognizing and entering into a collective-bargaining agree- ment with Respondent Union, which was thereafter maintained and enforced, during a time when Local 96 was and is the exclusive collective-bargaining agent of Respondent Employer's employees. It is further alleged that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by giving assistance to Local 103 by re- ducing wages; laying off Howard, Gourley, and Ankrom, to discourage membership in Local 96; refusing to bargain with and withdrawing recognition from Local 96; and recognizing and signing a contract with Local 103. Finally, it is alleged that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by entering into and main- taining a collective-bargaining agreement with Respond- ent Employer at a time when Local 96 had a valid col- lective-bargaining agreement with that Employer. Re- spondents' answers deny the unfair labor practices al- leged in the complaints. Upon the entire record, including consideration of the briefs and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: I Hereafter referred to as Local 96. 2 Hereafter referred to as Local 103, or Respondent Union 525 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BO()ARD FINI)INGS OF FACT I. JURISI)ICTION Respondent Employer, sometimes referred to hereafter as the Company, or Corrugated, is an Indiana corpora- tion with a principal office and place of business at Ev- ansville, Indiana, from which it engages in the business of steel building erection in the construction industry at various jobsites. During the past 12 months, a representa- tive period, in the course and conduct of its business op- erations, Corrugated performed services valued in excess of $50,(000 at points outside the State of Indiana. During the same period of time Corrugated also provided serv- ices valued in excess of $50,000 to CDI, Inc., of Terre Haute, which in turn purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Indiana. Respondent Employer is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Local 96 and Local 103 are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. TH-IE UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICES A. The Supervisory Status of Robert Morgan Robert Morgan worked as a job foreman for Respond- ent on several different jobsites utilizing a crew of three or four employees whose work he laid out and directed. As the sole jobsite supervisor, Morgan kept the employ- ees' time sheets, and checked to see that the work was done properly and that his men were working and doing their jobs. In the performance of his duties Morgan used a company truck, which was not available to rank-and- file employees. The record shows that he provided Com- pany President Tony Kempf with evaluations of employ- ees' performance which Kempf acted upon. In addition the record shows that Morgan told employees when to report to work, issued checks to employees, and termi- nated employees pursuant to instructions from Kempf. Based on this undisputed evidence, it is clear that Robert Morgan possessed and exercised certain of the attributes of supervisory authority described in Section 2(11) of the Act. I therefore find that, at all times material herein, he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. B. The Reduction in the Wages of David Howard and Robert Webb, and the Discharges of David Howard, Jack Ankrom, and Michael Gourley Since about mid-1975, Corrugated has been an employ- er in the building and construction industry engaged in the business of erecting corrugated steel buildings at job- sites in the vicinity of Evansville, Indiana. In accordance with Section 8(f) of the Act, Respondent Employer and Local 96 signed what is commonly known as a "prehire" collective-bargaining agreement on January 27, 1976. Under this contract, not limited to any particular job or jobsite, Local 96 agreed to refer journeymen and appren- tice sheet metal workers to the Company, and Corrugat- ed agreed to require employees to become members of Local 96 within 8 days of hiring, as a condition of em- ployment. On November 7, 1977, David Howard was hired by the Company, and told to report for work by Foreman Robert Morgan. Howard was disturbed by the fact that he had not been referred through Local 96, and, on his first day at work, expressed a desire to Corrugated's President Tony Kempf to be cleared by Local 96. Kempf said not to worry about the matter. He said he felt sure he could get a permit for Howard in a few days. When Howard asked about clearance again, shortly before Thanksgiving, Kempf replied that it might take a little longer because of Local 96 workers were out of work and the hall was nearly full.3 Howard and Robert Webb were working on Job Fore- man Robert Morgan's crew at the Frontier-Kemper job- site on December 16, 1977, when, at about quitting time, Kempf arrived with the employees' paychecks. Kempf told Webb and Howard that he was cutting their pay a couple of dollars an hour because of complaints that Howard and Webb were not experienced or fast enough to make union scale.4 Howard reported the pay cut to Local 96 Business Agent Art Parady by telephone on Sunday, December 18, 1977. The next day Parady visited the jobsite, and through an examination of the check stubs determined that the wages of Howard and Webb had in fact been reduced. Later Morgan reported Par- ady's visit to Kempf, including the information that Howard had notified Parady about the wage reduction. Kempf instructed Morgan to terminate Howard.5 When Parady arrived back at his office following his visit to the jobsite, he notified Kempf by telephone that the re- duction in the wages of Howard and Webb below scale violated the contract. He insisted that Kempf produce his books in order that Parady could determine the total number of employees being paid below scale, and how much Kempf owed them. The books were never pro- duced. Later that same evening, Morgan discharged Howard by telephone, stating that in his opinion Howard was fired for contacting Parady. Since it is undisputed that Respondent Employer unilaterally changed the wages of employees without prior notice to and bargaining with the Union, I find that Respondent Employer's conduct in this respect violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. I also find that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by discharging David Howard for his union and protected concerted activities in com- plaining to Parady about the wage reduction. In addition to the circumstances surrounding Howard's discharge, as described above, Kempf admitted that Howard was ter- minated immediately after he learned that Howa,d had complained. Moreover, in his testimony, Kempf failed to give any reasons for Howard's termination. Robert Webb, who chose not to complain about the reduction in ' Ho,).ard's undisputed version of these conversations is credited. Neilther the pay cut nor the asserted reason is disputed Floward is credited s These findings, concerning what "sas reported to Kempf by Morgan are based on the admissions of Morgan and Kempf 526 CORRUGATED STRUCFURES, INC. his wages, was not terminated. A clearer case of unlaw- ful discrimination under the Act would be hard to find.6 Following his referral by Local 96 in August 1977, Jack Ankrom, a 30-year member of Local 96, was em- ployed by the Company. Ankrom was discharged over the telephone by Kempf on January 14, 1978. Kempf said Ankrom should pick up his check the following day. Kempf stated that he was "tired of messing around with the Sheet Metal Workers," and was going to put iron workers on his jobs. Michael Gourley, another long-time Local 96 member hired by Corrugated in August 1977, received an almost identical phone call from Kempf in mid-February 1978. Kempfs testimony did not dispute that of either Ankrom or Gourley. Kempf offered no ex- planation whatsoever for the discharge of these two em- ployees. Therefore, as is also the case with respect to David Howard, I find that Respondent Employer violat- ed Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Jack Ankrom and Michael Gourley because of their union membership. Almost immediately after Ankrom's discharge, iron workers began to appear on Corrugated's jobs. In fact, Kempf offered Ankrom the opportunity of obtaining an Iron Workers' permit in order to continue to work for the Company, but Ankrom remained loyal to his union and refused. Corrugated then signed a collective-bargain- ing agreement with the Respondent-Union, Local 103.' Business Agent Charles Hill admitted that he knew of the relationship between Local 96 and Corrugated prior to February 15, 1978. Kempf admitted that the charge filed by Howard and the grievance filed by Parady influ- enced his decision to bring in Local 103 in spite of his existing contract with Local 96. Thus, at the prejob con- ference at the commencement of the Rockport Power Plant project on February 24, 1978, in the presence of Parady, Hill, and others, Kempf announced that he was assigning his phase of the work to Local 103. Despite Parady's objections, Kempf thereafter confirmed the as- signment by letter, and since mid-February 1978, iron workers have worked on the Company's jobs under Local 103's contract, including payments to Local 103's health and welfare and pension funds. The Board has held that under an 8(f) prehire agree- ment an employer may withdraw recognition from the union and/or make unilateral changes in working condi- tions without violating Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, since no presumption of majority status arises under Section 8(f), provided the union does not actually achieve major- ity status. R. J. Smith Construction Co., Inc., 191 NLRB 693, 695 (1971). The Board likewise holds that if the union achieves majority status at any time after an exist- After Howard filed his charge in the instant case and after Parady filed a grievance on his behalf, Howard was paid by he Company for the difference in his wages at he reduced rate and the amount he should have received at union scale under he contract Howard also received a favorable decision with respect to his grievance in late February 1978. 7 Although Kempf denied that Local 103's Businress Agent Charles Hill ever promised hin a fair share of apprentices and qualified journeymen in return for switching unlons. Kemp's affidavit so states, and I do nt credit his denial The circumstances surrounding Respondent's action in exchanging one union for another does not support the delimals of either Kempf or Hill, and I do not find hem t be credible wi tnesses im this regard ing 8(f) agreement is signed, any reneging on contractual provisions or unilateral changes by the employer is sub- ject to the prohibition of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Against this background of well-established Board prece- dent, Respondent Employer cites the case of Dee Cee Floor Covering, Inc., etc., 232 NLRB 421 (1977), wherein the Board held that in order to establish a violation of Section 8(a)(5) a union must demonstrate its majority status at the jobsite in issue, notwithstanding evidence that it represented a majority at previous jobsites. The General Counsel argues that the Dee Cee case is distin- guishable from the instant case on the basis that Re- spondent herein did not conduct its operations on a one- jobsite basis, but hired a stable work force. I find the General Counsel's argument persuasive, and the distinc- tion he draws to be a significant one. Documentary evi- dence submitted by the General Counsel shows that during the relevant period Respondent Employer's work force achieved a significant degree of stability, and that employees moved from one job to another with little or no distinction based on a particular jobsite. The accuracy of this conclusion is reinforced by Local 96 remittance reports prepared by the Company. I therefore find that the Dee Cee case is not controlling, and that the remain- ing question to be considered is the Union's majority status with respect to all the Company's employees. An examination of the Local 96 remittance reports for the relevant period, which lists on a monthly basis the em- ployees who worked for the Company, and Corrugated's contributions to the respective Local 96 funds on each employee's behalf, reveals that at all times material herein the Union maintained a majority status. Thus, for example, at its theoretically lowest ebb in the month of November 1977, even if one were to questionably ex- clude from consideration applicants for membership, travelers, and any employees who otherwise did not pay dues that month, the Union still maintained a majority of 7 out of 13 employees. It is therefore clear that Local 96 had and maintained its majority status during the period in issue, and therefore Respondent Employer's unilateral reduction of the wages of Howard and Webb, withdraw- al of recognition from Local 96, and subsequent recogni- tion of Local 103, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. This same conduct by the Company and, in addi- tion, the discharges of Howard, Ankrom, and Gourley, was clearly designed to assist Local 103 by encouraging membership in the Iron Workers and by discouraging membership in Local 96. Thus, Respondent Employer also violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. Finally, since the undisputed evidence clearly demonstrates that Local 103 entered into and maintained a collective-bargaining agreement with the Company at a time when Local 103's Business Agent Charles Hill knew that Local 96 had a valid contract with Corrugated, Respondent-Union vio- lated Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act. CONCI.USIONS OF LAW 1. Corrugated Structures, Inc., is, and at all times ma- terial herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 527 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 96, a/w Sheet Metal Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, and International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 103 are each labor or- ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By unilaterally lowering its employees' wages and by discharging David Howard, Michael Gourley, and Jack Ankrom for the purpose of discouraging member- ship in Local 96, Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 4. By unilaterally reducing employees' wages, as re- ferred to in paragraph 3, above, by withdrawing recogni- tion from Local 96 and thereafter recognizing and enter- ing into a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 103 at a time when Local 96 was and continued to be the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Company's bargaining unit employees, Respondent Em- ployer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.' 5. By assisting Local 103 by means of the acts de- scribed in paragraphs 3 and 4, above, Respondent Em- ployer violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. 6. By entering into and maintaining a collective-bar- gaining agreement with Respondent Employer at a time when it knew that Local 96 and Respondent Employer had a valid collective-bargaining agreement, Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondent Employer and Respondent Union each has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order that Respondents cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent Em- ployer discriminatorily discharged David Howard, Jack Ankrom, and Michael Gourley, I find it necessary to order that Respondent offer them immediate and full re- instatement with backpay computed on a quarterly basis ' The appropriate unit is: "All employees at its various jobsites as de- scribed in the agreement between Corrugated Structures. Inc., and Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 96, a/w Sheet Metal Workers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO." with interest as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977), 9 from date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement. Respondent Employer will also be ordered to make whole any employees who suf- fered a loss of earnings by reason of Respondent Em- ployer's unilateral reduction of wages by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that which the employ- ee normally would have earned in accordance with the above formula. Respondent Employer will also be or- dered to withdraw recognition from Respondent Union and cease giving effect to the contract with Respondent Union, or any supplement, extension, or renewal thereof, covering Respondent Employer's employees. Nothing contained herein, however, should be taken to require Respondent Employer to vary wages, hours, or other substantive conditions of work established under that agreement to the benefit of employees. Respondent Em- ployer will also be ordered to recognize and bargain in good faith with Local 96. It having been found that Respondents each unlawful- ly executed, maintained, and enforced an agreement cov- ering Respondent Employer's employees under which those employees were required to join and maintain membership in Respondent Union, it will be ordered that Respondent Employer and Respondent Union jointly and severally reimburse the employees for the dues, fees, and other moneys they were required to pay by reason of the union-security provision in the contract, with interest in accordance with the F. W. Woolworth Company and Flor- ida Steel Corporation formula, supra. Employees who were already members of Respondent Union when em- ployed by Respondent Company shall not be entitled to reimbursement. Identification of such employees will be made in compliance proceedings, if necessary. "' Because of the serious nature of the violations found to have occurred and their substantial impact upon the em- ployees affected, I find a broad cease-and-desist order is necessary. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] 9 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). '0 Davis Industries, Inc.. e al., 232 NLRB 946 (1977). 528