S & K Electric, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 442 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
S & K Electric , Inc. and Local Union No. 716, Inter-
national ' Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; AFL-
CIO. Case 23-CA-5819
October 15, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On May 26, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Rob-
ert E. Mullin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions,
and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of
the Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings,' findings' 2 and
conclusions of the-Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders-that the Respondent, S & K Electric, Inc.,
Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order.
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C.A 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 Since we are adopting the Administrative Law Judge's finding and con-
clusions on the merits, we find it unnecessary to pass on his finding that
summary judgment should be granted.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E. MULLIN, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard on March 3 and 4, 1976, in Houston, Texas,
pursuant to charges duly filed and served,' and a com-
i The original charge was filed on October 24, 1975, an amended charge
plaint issued' on December 12, 1975. The complaint, as
amended at the opening of the hearing; presents questions
as to whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In its
answer Respondent conceded certain facts with respect to
its business operations, but it denied all allegations that it
had committed any unfair labor practices.
At the hearing, the General "Counsel was represented by
counsel. The Respondent was represented by its president
and its secretary-treasurer? All parties were given full op-
portunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
file briefs. The parties waived oral argument. On April 2,
1976, both the General Counsel and Respondent submitted
briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs
of counsel and the parties, and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The-Respondent, a Texas corporation, with its principal
office and place of business at Houston, Texas, is engaged
in 'the business of electrical construction, repair, and main-
tenance. During the 12 months preceding issuance of "the
complaint, a representative period, Respondent sold goods
and performed services for customers within that State in
an amount in excess of $50,000, each of which customers
annually had direct interstate sales and purchases of goods
and products which exceeded $50,000.annually. During the
same period, Respondent purchased, goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 which originated, outside the
State of Texas and which were received by Respondent
within that State. Upon the foregoing facts, Respondent
concedes and it is now found that S & K Electric, Inc., is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act:
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 716, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, herein Union or Local 716,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Sequence of Events
Respondent is a small electrical contractor in Houston,
with approximately 12 employees. All of the stock in Re-
spondent corporation is owned by Samuel Keller, presi-
dent, Nancy Keller, his wife, who is also secretary-treasur-
was filed on October 29, 1975, and a second amended charge was filed on
December 8, 1975
Z At the outset of the hearing, President Keller was advised that the Re-
spondent could be represented by counsel. He stated, however, that the
decision had been made that he and Mrs Keller would represent the Re-
spondent Cf. Local Union 742, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join-
ers of America (J L Simmons Co) v N L R B, 377 F 2d 929, 930
(C A D C . 1967), cert denied 389 U S. 843 (1967)
226 NLRB No. 76
S & K ELECTRIC, INC.
er, and one of their children. Early in October 1975,3 the
Union began its organizational activity. In a consent elec-
tion held by the Board on October 24, all 10 of the valid
votes counted were for the Union.4
In a letter to Respondent, `dated October 7, the Union
claimed to be the majority representative and requested
recognition as the employee bargaining agent. In the fol-
lowing week, six of the employees were given very few
work assignments. The General Counsel contends that dur-
ing that week they were discriminatorily suspended. Subse-
quent to the union victory in-the election, Respondent dis-
charged six of its employees: The General Counsel
contends that the terminations were discriminatory. These
allegations are denied by Respondent, who claims the em-
ployees in question were either laid off for lack of work or
discharged for cause.
The Motion for Summary Judgment
Cousel for the General Counsel presented 10 witnesses
in support of the allegations in the complaint. They were
examined and cross-examined at length. Almost all of this
testimony related to the actions and conduct of President
Samuel Keller during the period in question. Respondent
called five witnesses to the-stand. Only two, Nancy S. Kel-
ler and Bill Howard, testified as to any issue involved in
the case and then only briefly.' Nothwithstanding the fact
that President Samuel Keller was intimately involved in the
events out of which all of the allegations in the complaint
arose, he did not take the stand. When the General Coun-
sel sought to call him as a witness, he refused. He also
objected to the admission in evidence of his sworn affida-
vits given in November 1975.
In their brief, counsel for the General Counsel have
moved for summary judgment on the ground that they pre-
sented a prima facie case, that the burden of going forward
thereafter shifted to Respondent (National Automobile and
Casualty Insurance Co., 199 NLRB 91, 92 (1972) ), that
Samuel Keller's refusal to testify leaves the testimony of
the General Counsel's witnesses uncontradicted and unde-
nied, and that, for this reason summary judgment should
be granted. There is merit to this-position and the General
Counsel's motion is now granted. Ohn Industries, Inc., Win-
chester Repeating Arms Company Division, 86 NLRB 203,
218-219 (1949); Rules and Regulations of the Board, Series
8, as amended, Sec. 102.44(c).
On the other hand, since the Board may not agree with
the aforesaid ruling, the following findings are now made
to expedite the Board's consideration of this case should it
choose to decide this matter on the merits.
3 All dates hereinafter are for the year 1975 unless otherwise noted.
4 The Employer challenged the b4llots of Shirley Johnson and David May
on the ground that both had been discharged and were no longer eligible to
vote. The General Counsel contends in the present case that at that time
these two individuals had been discriminatorily suspended by Respondent
5 The other three witnesses were William G Mohr, an employee, and
union representatives James P. Douglas and Harry L Bokemeyer Respon-
dent sought to question these witnesses as to events which occurred subse-
quent to the period involved in the complaint in the case at bar When
objections to this line of inquiry, voiced by the General Counsel, were sus-
tained, Respondent asked no further questions of them
443
B. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act; Findings and Conclusions in Connection Therewith
1. The status of Bill Howard
The General Counsel contends that Howard was a su-
pervisor within the meaning of the Act at all times material
to this case. Samuel Keller stated at the hearing that How-
ard was a "lead journeyman" and a "foreman," but not a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
The record is replete with testimony which establishes
that, in June, President Keller told the employees that he
had promoted Howard to the status of a supervisor and
that thereafter the latter was so regarded by the employees.
There was credible undenied testimony that, subsequent
thereto, Howard gave assignments and orders daily, that he
told employees when there was no work, that he directed
the electricians on their jobs, that he criticized their work,
and that he did not normally use tools or work with his
hands. He had a desk in the shop lunchroom which the
employees commonly referred to as his "office." At the end
of each month he conducted meetings in this room which
all of the electricians had to attend. The employees report-
ed problems to him, and he himself testified that during the
month of October he spent most of his time "traveling be-
tween jobs and shooting trouble calls." Howard denied
being on a salary, but employee Jack E. Young, Jr., credi-
bly testified that during the summer of 1975 Howard told
him that he was on a salary. In any event, Howard testified
that he was paid $6.15 an hour. At the time, insofar as the
record indicates, this was approximately $1 an hour more
than the highest paid journeyman electrician was receiving.
There was also evidence that Howard had the power to
discharge and that he exercised it. Thus, employee Berry
testified that, on one occasion during the summer, Howard
became incensed at something which had occurred on a
job where both Berry and a colleague were working, where-
upon Howard told the two employees they were discharged
and took them back to the shop where they were given
their final paychecks. Only after Berry appealed to Presi-
dent Keller was the discharge order set aside and the em-
ployees reinstated. Berry's testimony in this connection
was credible and it was not contradicted by Howard when
the latter was on the stand. Finally, Business Agent James
Douglas testified that, during the month of October when
he was at Respondent's premises, President Keller referred
to Howard as his "shop foreman" and his "shop superin-
tendent." In view of the foregoing findings, all of which are
based on credible and uncontradicted testimony, it is now
found that at all times material herein ^ Bill Howard was a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
2. The outset of the Union's campaign and the
Employer's response
On October 6, James P. Douglas, assistant business
agent and organizer for Local 716, met with about nine of
Respondent's employees at the union hall. These were Tom
Calvin, Michael Green, James Holcomb, Randy Irwin,
Shirley Johnson, David May, Michael Mills, Michael
Sholt, and Jack E. Young, Jr. All of those present signed
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authorization cards. The following day, Douglas wrote' a
letter to Respondent. wherein he requested that Respon-
dent recognize and bargain with Local 716.
On the afternoon of October 9, when the employees
came back to the shop from their various jobs, President
Keller 6 approached several of them, including David May,
and demanded to know "who's been talking to the Union."
All of those present gave him a noncommital response and
left for their homes.
On October 8, the Union filed a representation petition
(Case 23-RC-4300) wherein it sought to represent a unit
made up of the electricians at Respondent's shop. On Oc-
tober 10, as the employees returned from work, Keller or-
dered them all to attend a meeting in the lunchroom during
which he expanded at length on his views as to what would
happen if the Union won such an election. Employee John-
son testified that at the outset of the meeting "[Keller]
wanted to know who it was who wanted the union in" and
employee Young testified that Keller questioned all of
them as to how they were going to vote. When most of the
employees hedged in answering, Keller wanted to know if
they were for the Union, or were they for "S & K all the
way?" as he put it. Keller accosted employee Irwin, one of
the first to arrive, showed him the Union's request for rec-
ognition, and asked -him what he knew about it. He then
advised "Irwin not to sign an authorization card, and told
him that if the Union won the election Irwin would lose his
seniority and would be delayed 2 years in securing his jour-
neyman's license.' Employee May testified that Keller told
them that seniority counted for everything in a union shop
and that, if the Union won, most of them would be out of
work. According to May, Keller stated that under a union
contract "anybody down . . . at the union hall who want-
ed our job could simply ask for it. And they would have it
and we would be put out on the street." May testified that
at this point Superintendent Howard joined in the conver-
sation and stated that under a union contract, May, who
did not have much experience, "would be considered a
temporary employee and, therefore, very unstable in [his]
job." Employee Johnson, an apprentice electrician who
was attending electrician's training at a school conducted
by the Associated Independent Electrical Contractors of
America (hereinafter AIECA), testified that Keller told her
that the Union would not permit her to both work and go
to school, and that, union members would come in and
"take our jobs away from us. And since we didn't have
much experience, we'd lose our jobs." According to em-
ployee May, before concluding the meeting, Keller told
them that if the Union came in "he would close his doors.
He would shut his doors before he would go union .. .
The testimony of the employee witnesses set forth above
was credible, uncontradicted, and undenied.
On Saturday, October 11, Keller telephoned Douglas
and asked that a union representative meet with the em-
ployees at S & K. Douglas agreed to be at the shop the
following morning.
Douglas and an assistant, Donald E. McKnight, arrived
6 Hereinafter, unless specifically noted otherwise, when the name Keller
appears it will denote President Samuel Keller
Irwin was then an apprentice
at the S & K headquarters at 7. a.m., October 13. Keller
took them into the lunchroom. There, Douglas spoke to
them briefly and-then solicited questions. Employee John-
son asked Douglas whether it was true, as Keller had told
them the previous week, that if the Union secured a con-
tract, the employees with the least' seniority would lose
their jobs. Douglas told her that this was not true and that
the advent of the Union would not jeopardize those with
the least experience. Keller thereupon became involved in
a heated argument with Douglas on the matter. According
to employee Calvin, Keller told the employees that,-where-
as they were then regularly working 40 hours a week, "if we
decided to go Union . . . we would probably find our-
selves . . . on the bench ...." and Mrs. Keller, who,was
also present, reiterated that under the existing arrange-
ments the employees had been "working 40 hours .. .
since at least the first of the year." Keller then began ques-
tioning Douglas as to the Union's position on layoff proce-
dures, whereupon Douglas asked whether S & K intended
to lay off any employees. Keller answered that he intended
to lay off the whole shop and added that none of his em-
ployees were "worth a damn." 8 Then Keller referred to
employees Tom Calvin and Carl Morgan as being the only
Journeymen he had and Mrs. Keller added the name of
employee Jack Young, whom she described as "one of the
best men in the shop." 9
At this point in the meeting Keller manifested his indig-
nation with the employees in general and declared that
from that day forward they would be losing all their bene-
fits. When Douglas inquired as to what he meant, Keller
told him and the assembled employees that he was refer-
ring to their vacation privileges, free uniforms, insurance,
and everything else. Keller indicated his vexation with
Johnson's questions about the problems in the shop and
declared to her "Little girl, from now on, you're losing all
benefits, and I'm not paying for your school." 10 Douglas
then asked whether Keller would consider signing a con-
tract with Local 716 and the latter replied in the negative.
With that, the business agent announced that there was no
use discussing the issues any further at that time and left.
3. The suspensions
All of the employees proceeded to their assigned jobs
that day and completed them. The following day, however,
when several of them reported at the usual time, Superin-
tendent Howard told them there was no work available.
Employee David May was not assigned any jobs that week,
although he had been working regularly on a project at the
Pizza Inn on Bellaire Boulevard which had not been com-
pleted. Employee Michael W. Mills worked on October 13,
but when he reported to the shop the next morning Super-
intendent Howard told him there was no work available.
8 The quotation is from Douglas' credible, undenied testimony.
9 This finding is based on the credible; undenied testimony of James
Douglas, Jack Young, and Michael Shott. Although Mrs. Keller was on the
stand and was questioned about this meeting, she never denied having made
the laudatory comments about Young which the above-named witnesses
attributed to her.
1° This last was a reference to an arrangement with Johnson whereby
Keller had promsed that S & K would pay two-thirds of the $ I50 tuition fee
at the AIECA school for apprentice electricians which she was attending
S & K ELECTRIC, INC.
Although he reported each, morning for the rest of the
week, he received no further assignments from Howard.
He credibly testified that he talked with the construction
superintendents at the jobs where he had been engaged up
to that time and found that work was still to be done at
those sites . Employee Michael L. Shott had been working
on the wiring of San Juan Pools for some while prior to the
week of October 13. Shott finished out the day after the
meeting on the latter date, but on reporting each day for
the rest of -the week Howard told him on each occasion
that there was no work available. Notwithstanding
Howard's comments , Shott credibly testified that each
morning he saw several work orders on his clipboard and
at the same time there were invoices to wire additional San
Juan Pools stacked on Howard's desk.
Employee Shirley Johnson worked for the balance of the
day after the meeting on October 13. She was a new em-
ployee who had been hired at a rate of only $2.25 an hour.
On October 3, Keller had promised that a raise would be
on her next check. When Johnson returned to the shop at
the end,of the shift on October 13, she was met by an irate
Keller who thrust her weekly paycheck at her with the
comment "We decided not to give you your raise." When
Johnson inquired as to the reason, he told her "Because of
your union." It For the rest of the week, notwithstanding
the fact that she reported to the shop each morning, she
was not sent out on any work assignments. Employee Jack
Young was a journeyman electrician and one of the most
senior employees on the crew. After the meeting on Octo-
ber 13, Young worked the rest of the day, but he was given
no further work for the balance of that week. Young credi-
bly testified that on October 15, after being told by How-
ard that there was no work for him, he and Johnson, who
was his helper, went to the school where they had been
performing installation work and found that the customer
was complaining because S & K had sent no one out to
complete the job.
During the week of October 13 and at the same time that
the Respondent was not sending the above-named employ-
ees to work on projects where previously they had been
assigned regularly, Keller and Shop Superintendent How-
ard found it necessary to go to work themselves at several
of the jobsites. Thus, employee Pat Berry, credibly testified
that, during that week, he served as Keller's helper on vari-
ous assignments . According to Berry, Keller told him that
S & K was so far behind on the work projects that he'had
to go out on the jobs himself. Berry testified that on one of
those days Keller asked him "Who started all this business
about the Union?" According to Berry, he informed Keller
that "[employee] David May had, approached me back in
June or July." Employee Calvin credibly testified that on
October 17 he discussed the prospect of a raise and the use
of a different truck with Superintendent Howard. The lat-
ter referred him to Keller. On returning-to the shop that
afternoon Calvin discussed the likelihood of a wage in-
crease with Respondent's president. The latter told him
that, notwithstanding his earlier promise, he could do noth-
ing for Calvin then because of the pending representation
11 The quotations in this and the preceding sentence are from the credible,
undenied testimony of Johnson
445
election. At the same time, Keller assured Calvin that he
could have his choice of trucks to use in his work. Keller
then questioned Calvin as to whether he had been contact-
ed by the Union. When the employee answered in the affir-
mative, Keller became very intemperate and declared that
he felt that "he'd been sold out by his employees." Then he
turned on Calvin and told him that he (Keller) had con-
tacted the AIECA and given that organization the name
and social security number of every employee at S & K so
that the latter organization could blacklist everyone of the
S & K employees. According to Calvin, Keller then told
him, that "You'll never work for another [open] shop here
[in Houston]." Calvin testified that, in concluding their
conversation, Keller told him that he had established his
business and kept it operating with what he described as
"rat" or nonunion employees; and that he would continue
to do so,
On October 17, a Friday, the next regular payday at the
shop, all of Respondent's employees received layoff notices
along with their paychecks. Then, on October 18, Respon-
dent notified all of the employees except David May to
return to work the following Monday morning.
Conclusions With Respect to the Alleged Discriminatory
Suspensions
The General Counsel alleged that on October 10, and
during the week thereafter, Respondent discriminatorily
suspended Johnson, May, Mills, Shott, and Young.12 Re-
spondent denied this allegation and at the hearing Mrs.
Keller asserted that lack of work was the cause of these
employees being off the, job. Nevertheless, at the meeting
on October 13, both Keller and his wife boasted of the
steady employment which the employees had had during
the preceding year. At that time, assignments had already
been made for the day and the employees completed the
shift. For the balance of-the week, however, the Kellers
professed that no work was available. This defense was
belied by the credible and undemed testimony that both
President Keller and Superintendent Howard had to go out
on several jobs after October 13 and work with their tools,
and the further testimony, set forth above, that the projects
on which May, Mills, Johnson, Shott, and Young had been
working were still unfinished at the end of that week. On
the morning of October 13, President Keller displayed ex-
treme bitterness with the prounion sentiment he discovered
among his employees and he threatened them with loss of
all their fringe benefits and other penalties if the Union
won recognition. That afternoon, when employee Johnson
returned to the shop and inquired as to the reason her
latest check did not reflect a promised raise,' Keller told her
that the increase was being denied "Because of your
union." Respondent offered no satisfactory explanation for
the sudden suspension in the work opportunities for the
above-named employees during the rest of that week. In
12 The General Counsel also alleged that employee Michael C Green was
discriminatorily suspended during this same week However, neither Green
nor any other witness gave any testimony that would sustain this allegation.
Employee Tom Calvin testified that Green was workmg^ during the week of
October 13. Consequently, insofar as par 8 of the- complaint refers to
Green, it will be dismissed.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
view of the facts set forth above, it is now found that Re-
spondent intentionally and discriminatorily withdrew em-
ployment from Johnson, May, Mills, Shott, and Young be-
cause it knew, or suspected, them to be union supporters,
and that it did so for the purpose of intimidating and
coercing them in the exercise of their rights under the Act.
In so doing, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and-(I).
4. The representation election
Business Agent Douglas and Norman White, an assis-
tant business agent, arrived at Respondent's shop at 7 a.m.
on October 24, where they found-all the employees present
and ready to cast their ballots. Keller immediately engaged
the union representatives in an argument with the declara-
tion that they were trespassing on his property. Keller
sought, unsuccessfully, to have the business agents exclud-
ed from the area. At this point Gail Hitchcock, the Board
agent who was to conduct the election, arrived and set up
the voting booth. Douglas announced that David May
would act for the Union as its observer. Keller objected on
the ground that May had been fired and was no longer an
employee. He also protested the presence of Shirley John-
son on the same ground, and asserted that neither May nor
Johnson should be permitted to vote. The Board agent an-
nounced that both could vote challenged ballots and the
election was then conducted. As found earlier, of the 12
votes cast, 10 valid votes were for the Union and the bal-
lots of May and Johnson were impounded as challenges.
After the election, Douglas asked Keller for a date on
which negotiations for a contract could begin. Keller de-
clined to answer and told him that any further communica-
tions would have to be handled through Respondent's at-
torney. Keller then announced that there would be no
work for anyone that day and that no trucks would be
going out. Subsequent to this announcement, Keller or-
dered everyone off his property, followed the employees
out to the parking lot, and stayed there until they had left
the premises.
5. Aftermath of the election
a. The restrictive work rules
In compliance with Keller's orders, the employees re-
mained away from the S & K shop on October 24 until late
in the afternoon when they returned at the regular quitting
time, to secure their paychecks. Superintendent Howard
and Mrs. Keller were waiting for them. After the employ-
ees received their checks, Mrs. Keller handed each of them
a copy of what was captioned "Rules of Conduct of Em-
ployees of S & K Electric, Inc." At the hearing, Mrs. Keller
and Howard testified that these were work rules which had
been in effect for several years. However, employee Berry
credibly testified that the first three rules on the list were
completely new to him and to the other employees present
when Mrs. Keller distributed the copies on October 24.
Thus, the last part of rule 1 forbade employees'from leav-
mg the job before 4:15 p.m. Berry credibly testified that
until that date there was no specified time that an employ-
ee had to leave his job, as long as he returned to the shop
by 4:30. Rule 2 provided that the lunchbreak would be
from II.30 to 12. According to Berry, until then there had
been no specified time for a lunchbreak and the time for it
was left to the discretion of the journeyman on the job.
Rule 3 required that the employees would have to report
for work in time to get the trucks out by 8 a.m. Berry
testified that, at least from the date when he had been hired
in June, he and the other employees had been reporting for
work at 7:30. Mrs. Keller also reiterated a recently promul-
gated rule banning the parking of motorcycles on the
premises and told the employees that motorcycles would
no longer be allowed inside the shop and that cars could
not be parked in front of the building.
Earlier that week the employees had been told that when
on the job they could not use the company trucks to go to
a restaurant for lunch. At this meeting, Mrs. Keller told the
employees that they could use their trucks'for that purpose.
The following Monday, however, Superintendent Howard
told several of the employees that 'they could not use their
trucks for that purpose and that they were not to leave the
job during the lunch period .'Employee Mills credibly testi-
fied that on that day Howard told him and his helper that
if they violated this rule they would be terminated.
Mrs. Keller concluded the meeting on the afternoon of
October 24 with thedeclaration that if the employees had
any questions they would have to take them up with their
union steward.
b. The discharges
(1) David May
After the layoff of October 17, all of the employees were
recalled to work on the next regular workday except David
May. Shortly before the layoff, Keller had heard from
employee Berry that May had been the first member of the
work force to approach Berry about the Union and that he
had done so the preceding summer. On October 20, May
returned to the shop and announced to Keller that he was
ready for work. Keller told him that he had been laid off
and that there was no work for him. May testified that, as
he turned and was about to leave the premises, Keller
shouted after him "Don't come back." May thereupon
contacted Business Agent Douglas. The latter immediately
sent Respondent a telegram protesting May's termination
and stating that May would be the union observer at the
forthcoming election, then scheduled for October 24, the
following Friday. On the afternoon of October 21, Superin-
tendent Howard sent a message to May informing him that
he could return to work the next day. On the morning of
October 22, May telephoned Respondent's office and told
the secretary that he had a temporary job at the moment so
that he could not return to S & K for a couple of days, but
that he would report on October 24. As found above, on
the latter date, when May appeared and endeavored to act
as the union observer, Keller protested that May was ineli-
gible because he had been discharged. Thereafter, May was
among the , other employees who were ordered off the
premises immediately after Keller learned that the Union
had won a unanimous victory. Subsequent to the election
he was never recalled to work. Other than a general denial
S & K ELECTRIC, INC. 447
of the allegation in the complaint that May had been dis-
criminatorily terminated, Respondent offered no explana-
tion for his dismissal. On the basis of the findings set forth
above, particularly the extreme union animus displayed by
Keller from the time he learned that the Union had won a
following among his employees, the knowledge which Kel-
ler had gleaned from employee Berry in mid-October that
May had been one of the early union advocates, and the
lack of any explanation for his termination, it is now found
that May was discriminatorily discharged and that by this
action Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1).13
(2) Shirley Ann Johnson
Johnson was hired by Respondent as an apprentice elec-
trician on August 26, at $2.25 an hour. At the time she had
just enrolled in a training course for apprentices which was
sponsored by AIECA, the tuition for which was $150. She
asked Keller if he would pay any part of that amount and
he assured her that S & K would pay two-thirds of the bill,
or $100. Employee Tom Calvin, who -came to work for
Respondent on September 29, credibly testified that at the
time he was' hired, Keller told him that he had a young
woman working for him and that he "was very pleased
with her.... That she had done so well that he was pay-
ing for her schooling." Johnson was the only woman work-
ing as an electrician for Respondent.
As has already been found, at the meeting on October
13, after a question from Johnson precipitated a conflict
between Keller and Business Agent Douglas, Keller turned
on Johnson and told her "Little girl, from now on, you're
losing all benefits, and I'm not paying for your school." At
the end of that workday, Keller told Johnson that she
would, not get a promised raise and that he was taking this
action-"Because of your union." As has been found earlier,
during the rest of that week Johnson, along with several
other employees, was discriminatorily denied any work as-
signments. On October 17, when she came in to get her
paycheck, Keller told her that she owed him for the tuition
which he had advanced on her schooling and that he want-
ed the money immediately. That same day Johnson was
given a layoff notice.
Johnson credibly testified that the following events took
place during the period from October 20 to October 27:
About 6:45 a.m. on October 20, she received a telephone
call from Keller who told her that, notwithstanding- the
layoff notice she had received the preceding Friday, she
was due at work immediately. It was about a 45-minute
drive from her home to Respondent's shop. In order to
reach the shop most expeditiously, she left her home with-
out having breakfast or preparing her lunch. On arriving at
the shop Howard ordered her to accompany him on the
truck to a jobsite. When they arrived there he assigned her
13 Superintendent Howard testified on direct examination that in Septem-
ber he had asked Keller to take May off a job and replace him with another
helper because of dissatisfaction with his work On cross-examination, how-
ever, Howard acknowledged that this incident had occurred during the first
week of May's employment This, of course, would have been early in June.
There was nothing in the record to indicate that he had been an unsatisfac-
tory employee at any time during the succeeding 5 months that he worked
for Respondent
to dig a cable trench. After she completed it, he told her the
ditch had been dug in the wrong place and that the work
had to be redone. in another location. After she had com-
plied with this order, Howard informed her that another
mistake had been made and that she would have to redig
the trench in the original position. 14 The weather was ex-
tremely warm, with the temperature in the 90's, and-How-
ard had no water supply at the site. That,evemng Johnson
became ill from what she felt was either heat exhaustion or
sunstroke and she did not report for work the next morn-
ing. The following day her husband telephoned the shop to
report that she would be unable to work because of illness.
She voted in the election on October 24, and, as found
above, Keller challenged her ballot on the ground that she
was no longer an employee.
When Johnson reported for work on the following Mon-
day, Keller told her that she would have to produce a
doctor's excuse for her absence. When she protested that
this had not been the rule previously -and that she knew
that, on an earlier occasion, employee Mills had not need-
ed a medical statement after being out sick, Keller told her
"Well, you're different. You need one." Then, with refer-
ence to her claim that earlier practice did not require a
doctor's statement to document an absence, Keller com-
mented that "That was before." (Emphasis supplied.) He
did not elaborate as to the full significance of this observa-
tion. About noon that day, Keller came to the jobsite and
ordered- Johnson to accompany him back to the shop.
When she arrived there, he told her that she was fired and
to get off his property. Before leaving, she asked him if he
thought that she was the one that started the union cam-
paign among his employees. Keller's response was "You
are darn right. I got your number, lady. You are the one."
Johnson commented that he was wrong, that, in fact, she
was one of the last to loin. With that she turned and left.
Other than to deny that Johnson had been discriminato-
rily dismissed, Respondent offered no evidence to contra-
dict the foregoing findings. On these facts it is now found
that Johnson was terminated because of her union activi-
ties and in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. It
is further found that Respondent also discriminated
against her in violation of the same provisions of the Act,
when Keller refused her the promised raise on October 13,
"because of [her] union," and when he rescinded his origi-
nal promise to pay $100 toward the cost of her tuition at
the AIECA school for apprentices.
(3) Tom Calvin
Keller hired Calvin on September 29 as a journeyman
electrician at the rate of $5 an hour with the promise of a
raise in the near future if he proved satisfactory. He had 22
years' experience as an electrician and had worked in- Flor-
ida immediately before coming to Houston and applying
for work at Respondent's shop. As a result, he did not have
a journeyman's license from the City of Houston at the
time he went to work for Respondent. Calvin credibly testi-
fied that, at the time he, was hired, Keller told him that he
14 Employee Mills testified that that afternoon when he and Howard were
looking over the site, Howard made the derisive comment that "Shirley
[Johnson] would know how to dig a ditch by the end of the day "
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would secure a Houston license for him and that, in the
meantime, Calvin could work on jobs located outside the
city where a Houston license was not needed.
On the first workday after the election, when Calvin re-
ported to the shop, Superintendent Howard told him that
since he did not have a journeyman's license he would only
be allowed to work' as an apprentice at $3.50 an hour. Cal-
vin then departed for the Inspection Division of the Hous-
ton Department of Public Works. He found the office
closed that day because of a city election. However, he
returned the following morning, paid the license fee, and
secured a receipt indicating that he had done so. -He then
went back to the S & K shop where Keller told him that he
could come to work the next day. The following morning,
October 29, Calvin reported to work and was getting ready
to load his truck when Howard announced that Keller
wanted to meet with all The emloyees. When the crews
gathered in the lunchroom, Mrs. Keller reviewed the new
rules of conduct again. In connection with a rule on the use
of equipment, Calvin complained that there was a ladder
on his truck that was unsafe and which he would not allow
his helpers to use. Keller broke into the conversation to
state that if Calvin "didn't like the way he operated his
business , that [Calvin] was fired, to get out ...." Employ-
ee Pat Berry who was present at this meeting testified cred-
ibly, and without contradiction, as to this incident that
Keller told Calvin "I trusted you, Tom. You said you were
going to help me out when this deal was over. If I needed
men, you were going to get them, bring them from'Florida,
if'I had to have outside help. You'told me you were going
to vote nonunion and that you were S & K all the way. I
can't even trust you :... According to Berry, Calvin
then said something to Keller and at that point "Sam [Kel-
ler] flared up . . . and told Tom he was fired." Other than
a general denial in the answer that any employee had been
discriminatorily terminated, Respondent offered nothing
to rebut the General Counsel's allegation that Calvin was
discharged in violation of the Act. On the foregoing find-
ings, it is now found that Keller -dismissed this employee
out of pique and anger when he concluded that Calvin was
identified with the Union. In so doing, Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
(4) Mills, Shott, and Young
Michael W. Mills was a journeyman electrician with al-
most 6 years' experience. He was employed by Respondent
in mid-June at the rate of $5.50 an hour. He signed an
authorization card along with the rest of the employees and
voted in the election on October 24. The day before the
election Superintendent Howard asked him whether he had
decided how he was going to vote. Mills testified that he
told Howard that he was not going to vote "because Sam
[Keller] didn't care about us, and why should we care
about him."
Mills returned to work on the Monday after the election.
The following day he was off because of illness. On Wed-
nesday, October 29, when he reported for work, Howard
sent him in to Keller's office- where the latter told him he
was being discharged because he "messed up this job at
Valco," the latter being a- project on which Mills had
worked briefly along with several other employees.
When on the stand, Superintendent, Howard referred to
the Valco project only casually. According to Howard, due
to faulty wiring on that job, an employee of the building
owner had received an electrical shock. Significantly, in his
testimony, he did not attribute the accident to Mills' work.
Employee Calvin testified that the day before the accident
in question he had been on the scene and had found that a
crew working under Howard's immediate supervision had
made a mistake when installing the main distribution pan-
el. Calvin credibly testified that he called this to the atten-
tion of Keller, and that the latter agreed that Howard had
made a mistake. According to Calvin, Keller told him that,
notwithstanding this discovery, in the interests of expedit-
ing the Company's progress on the contract, the matter
should be ignored. The next day a maintenance man re-
ceived an electrical shock when installing an air-condition-
ing unit. Employee Berry credibly testified that after this
accident he and Tom Stastny,-one of the journeymen, went
to the scene and corrected the mistake which had been
made in the initial installation. Calvin's testimony was
credible and was corroborated in substantial measure by
Berry. Obviously, Howard's testimony did not support the
charge that Mills had "messed up the Valco fob." And, of
course, Keller, who originally made this allegation, did not
testify at all. i
Michael L. Shott was first employed in mid-June 1975 as
an apprentice electrician at $4.50 an hour. In September he
received his journeyman's license and thereafter Keller
gave him a 25-cent-an-hour increase. He signed an authori-
zation card on October 6 and voted in the election. On the
Monday after the election- Shott reported to work and was
assigned a job. He took the truck that had been designated
for his use and proceeded to the site. Almost immediately
he started having transmission trouble and had difficulty
shifting gears. Shott thereupon returned, to the shop and
reported to Howard on the problem he^was having' With the
truck. The shop superintendent then' told Shott that he
could work with him for the balance of the day and the'two
of them left for 'the'jobsite. Less than' 2 hours later Keller
telephoned the job and ordered that Shott report to his
office. When the employee did so, Keller asked him if he
planned to pay for the repair ofthe truck. When Shott
answered in the negative, Keller told him he was fired."
The employee left the premises and was never recalled by
Respondent. At the hearing 'Respondent offered no evi-
dence as to the incident which preceded Shott's dismissal
and it made no effort to establish that the employee'was
responsible for any mechanical breakdown of the truck in
question.
Jack E. Young, Jr.,' was a journeyman electrician who
had been working for Respondent about, 18 months at the
time of his termination. He had started at $3.75 an hour. In
October 1975, as a result of successive wage increases, he
15 Shott credibly testified that once before, during ,the preceding August,
the truck he was driving broke down and Keller told him that he was fired
unless he paid to have it repaired. The next day, however, when Shott re-
ported for work, Keller told him not to worry, and that "he was sorry that
he blew up "
S & K ELECTRIC, INC.
was receiving $5.25 an hour. Along with the rest of the
employees in the shop he signed an authorization card. The
day after the meeting on October 13, during which Mrs.
Keller referred to him as "one of the best men in the shop,"
he was discriminatorily suspended, as found earlier and did
not work the rest of the week. The next week and immedi-
ately before the election, Young worked several days.
However, on October 22, Keller called him into his office
where he accused Young of leaving his jobsite early, of
speeding while driving his truck, and of doing unsatisfac-
tory work. Young denied all of these charges. It was the
first occasion in his employment with Respondent that
Keller had ever complained about Young's performance.
On the morning of October 27, Young was working by
himself at a jobsite where several other employees, includ-
ing Shirley Johnson, were also engaged. During the middle
of the morning Young telephoned Keller to report that his
ladder and drill were defective and unusable. About 1:30
p.m. Keller arrived at the site, ordered Johnson back to the
shop, and told Young that if he could not do any better
that he, too, should return . After Young arrived at the shop
and unloaded his tools, Keller told him that he disliked
Young's "attitude" and threatened to knock him against
the wall. At that point, Young left the premises and did not
return.l6
At the hearing, Superintendent Howard testified that
subsequent to Young's departure the truck assigned to him
had to be overhauled because syrup had been poured in
the motor oil. When called in rebuttal, Young credibly tes-
tified that he had never tampered with the truck in ques-
tion.
As found above, Respondent' s answer denied the Gener-
al Counsel's allegation that Mills, Shott, and Young had
been discriminatorily discharged. At the hearing, Mrs. Kel-
ler testified that customers had complained about some of
their work, and Howard testified about lack of work and
various other difficulties in the shop during the period in
question . However, neither of them offered specific testi-
mony as to any shortcomings on the part of the three
above-named employees. President Keller, who, during his
cross-examination of these employees, attributed their ter-
minations to unsatisfactory work, refused to take the stand
and would not testify under oath.
The burden of proving its affirmative defense was on
Respondent. Cashway Lumber, Inc., 196 NLRB 1135, 1137
(1972); International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) v.
N.L.R.B., 459 F.2d 1329 (C.A.D,C., 1972). This, it utterly
failed to do. Consequently, on the findings set forth above,
it is now found that, Mills, Shott, and Young had had very
satisfactory employment records and that Young, in partic-
ular, was considered by Respondent as one of its best elec-
tricians. It is evident on the record here that their sudden
decline in Respondent's esteem occurred when Keller con-
cluded that they were interested in the Union. After the
election on October 24, when Keller realized that all of
them had helped to give Local 712 a unanimous victory, he
16 It is now found that Keller's conduct with respect to Young constituted
a constructive discharge of the employee Mallory Capacitor Company, A
Division of P. R Mallory & Co, Inc, 169 NLRB 42, 43-44 (1968)
449
determined to rid the shop of the union adherents. It is
now found that Respondent's asserted reasons for their dis-
charges were pretextual and that the real motive for the
termination of these three employees was their identifica-
tion with the Union. In taking this action, Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
C. The Independent Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
On the foregoing facts, it is found that Respondent en-
gaged in violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the
following actions and conduct of President Keller: ( 1) His
questioning of employee May on October ,9 as to "who's
been talking to the Union." (2) On October 10: his ques-
tioning of employee Irwin as towhat the latter knew about
the correspondence Respondent had received from the
Union; his questioning of other employees as to "who it
was that wanted the union in?" and his further questioning
of the employees as to how they were going to vote in the
election; his statement to employee Irwin that Irwin should
not sign an authorization card, and that if the Union won
the election Irwin would lose his seniority and be delayed 2
years in securing a journeyman's license; his statement
that, under a union contract seniority counted for ev-
erything and that, if the Union won, most of them would
be out of work; his statement that under a union contract
"anybody down ... at the union hall who wanted our job
could simply ask for it . . . and we would be put out on the
street"; his statement to employee Johnson that the Union
would not permit her to both work and go to school and
his statement to employee May that if the Union came in
"he would shut his doors before he would go union." (3)
On October 13: His statement to the employees that where-
as they had been working 40 hours a week "if the shop
decided to go Union . . . we would probably find our-
selves sitting ... on the bench...... ; his statement to
employee Johnson that he was, cutting off all her benefits
and would not pay her tuition at the AIECA school; his
declaration to the rest of the employees that he was, cutting
off all their benefits; and his statement to employee John-
son later that day that she was not being given a raise
"because of your union." (4) During the week of October
13: His questioning of employee, Berry as to "who started
all this business about the Union?"; and his statement to
employee Calvin that "he'd been sold out by his employ-
ees" and that he had turned over to the IAIECA the name
and social security number of every employee at S & K so
that all of them could be "blacklisted" and "never work for
another [open] shop." (5) On or about October 29, his
statement to employee Calvin, after all the employees vot-
ed for the Union, "I can't even trust you. . . . You told me
you were going to vote nonunion and that you were S & K
all the way ...." Florida Steel Corporation, 223
_
NLRB
174 (1976); M.S.P. Industries, Inc., d/b/a The Larimer
Press, 222 NLRB 220 (1976).
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the' Act by the
following actions and conduct of Nancy Keller, its secre-
tary-treasurer: On October 24, and immediately after the
Union won a unanimous vote of the employees in a repre-
sentation election, she instituted new and more restrictive
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work rules for the employees, and withdrew an -existing
employee benefit by rescinding permission for them to
park their motorcycles in Respondent's building,` thereby
implying that the employees were being penalized for their
union and concerted activities. M.S.P. Industries, Inc., su-
pra. Finally Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by the fol-
lowing action of Superintendent Howard: (1) On October
13, his statement to employee May that, under a union
contract, May "would be con'sidered a temporary employ-
ee, and therefore, very unstable in [his] job" (2) On October
27, his withdrawal of benefits from the employees, immedi-
ately after the election, by threatening them with discharge
if they used Respondent's trucks to go to lunch, in -view of
the fact that prior to the employee vote for the Union,
Respondent had freely permitted the employees to engage
in this practice. (3) On that same day, his statement to
employee Calvin, whose lack of a journeyman's license had
been ignored by Respondent until the election, that unless
Calvin immediately secured such a license he could only
work as an apprentice at a very substantially reduced rate
of pay.
-CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
Tom Calvin, Shirley A. Johnson, David F. May, Michael
W. Mills, Michael L. Shott, and Jack E. Young, Jr., thereby
discouraging membership in the Union, the Respondent
has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging
in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The General Counsel has not proved by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by the Act, except by the specific acts
and conduct found herein to have been violated.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that Re-
spondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily sus-
pended Shirley A. Johnson, David F. May, Michael W.
Mills, Michael L. Shott, and Jack E. Young, Jr., during the
week of October 13, 1975, and thereafter discriminatorily
discharged them,17 and that it discnminatorily discharged
Tom Calvin on October 29, 1975, it will be recommended
that Respondent be ordered to offer all of the foregoing.
immediate and full reinstatement, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
them whole for any loss of earnings they'may have suffered
from the time of' their suspensions and discharges to the
date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement. The backpay
for the foregoing employees shall be computed in accor-
dance with the formula approved in F. W Woolworth Co.,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest computed in the man-
ner prescribed in Isis Plumbing`& Heating Co., 138' NLRB
716 (1962). It will be further recommended that Respon-
dent be ordered to reinstate the promotion of Johnson, as
of October 13, 1975, which President Keller told her on
that date be was withholding because of her affiliation with
the Union. It will also be recommended that Respondent
be ordered to pay the $100 tuition fee, on Johnson's behalf,
at the apprenticeship school of the Association of Indepen-
dent Electrical Contractors of America, which Respondent
discriminatonly withheld. In the event Johnson has already
paid this fee, in whole or in part, Respondent will retm-
burse that employee to a maximum of $100 for such pay-
ments as she has made. Finally, it will be recommended
that Respondent be required to preserve and make avail-
able to the Board or its agents, on request, payroll and
other records to facilitate the computation of backpay due.
As the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent
are of 'a character striking at the root of employees' rights
safeguarded by the Act, it will'be recommended that Re-
spondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in
any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536
(C.A. 4, 1941).
Upon the foregoing findings of facts, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 18
The Respondent , S & K Electric , Inc., Houston , Texas,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging, suspending , or otherwise discriminating
against any employee because of activity on behalf of Lo-
cal Union No . 716, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. -
(b) Interrogating any employee "concerning that
individuals union activity , or that of other employees, in a
manner constituting a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
17 As found above, May was discharged on October 20, Johnson on Octo-
ber 27, Shott on October 27, Young on October 27, and Mills on October
29
18 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
S & K ELECTRIC, INC
(c) Instituting new and more restrictive work rules be-
cause of its employees' membership in, or adherence to, the
Union.
(d) Threatening its employees with loss of jobs or clos-
ing of its business if a majority become members of, or
assist, a labor organization.
(e) Threatening its employees with loss of fringe benefits
and wage increases, with lack of opportunity for promotion
to journeyman status, and with blacklisting, if a majority
become members of, or assist, a labor organization.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, or engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion or to refrain from any or all such activities
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Tom Calvin, Shirley A. Johnson, David F.
May, Michael W Mills, Michael L Shott, and Jack E.
Young, Jr., immediate and full reinstatement to their for-
mer jobs, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges and make them whole in the
manner set forth in the section of this decision entitled
"The Remedy "
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary, or appropriate, to analyze the amount of backpay
due.
(c) Rescind the restrictive and discriminatory work rules
which were instituted immediately after the Union won the
representative election.
(d) Post at its shop in Houston, Texas, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 23, after being duly signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by it for a period of
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges any unfair labor practices, other
than as herein specifically found.
19 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
451
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local
Union No. 716, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other union, by dis-
charging, suspending, or otherwise discriminating
against our employees because of their union or con-
certed activities
WE WILL NOT interrogate any employee concerning
that individual's union activity, or that of any other
employee, in a manner constituting a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(l) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT institute new and discriminatory work
rules because of our employees' adherence to a Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of
jobs, or the closing of our business, if a majority be-
come members of, or assist, a labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of
fringe benefits and wage increases, with lack of oppor-
tunities for promotion to journeyman status, and with
blacklisting, if a majority become members of, or as-
sist, a labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
the above-named Union, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutu-
al aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
WE WILL rescind the discriminatory work rules
which were instituted immediately after the Union
won the representation election on October 24, 1975.
WE WILL offer Tom Calvin, Shirley A. Johnson, Da-
vid F May, Michael W Mills, Michael L. Shott, and
Jack E. Young, Jr., immediate and full reinstatement
to their former jobs, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of
the discrimination against them. In addition, we will
make whole Shirley A. Johnson for the loss of pay
suffered as a result of the denial of a promotion on
and after October 13, 1975, and by our refusal to pay
two-thirds of the cost of her tuition at the school pro-
gram conducted by the Associated Independent Elec-
trical Contractors of America.
WE WILL rescind the restrictive and discriminatory
work rules which were put into effect immediately af-
ter the Union won the representation election on Oc-
tober 24, 1975.
S & K ELECTRIC, INC.