Banks Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 1977

231 N.L.R.B. 1281 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

BANKS ENGINEERING CO.
Banks Engineering Company, Inc. and United Electri-
cal, Radio and Machine Workers of America.
Cases 6-CA-9230 and 6-RC-7462
September 12, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On March 2, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Melvin J. Welles issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,1 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, to
modify his remedy, 2 and to adopt his recommended
Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Banks Engineer-
ing Company, Inc., Export, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 6-RC-7462 be,
and it hereby is, severed from Case 6-CA-9230, and
transferred to the Regional Director for Region 6 for
further processing.
MEMBER MURPHY, concurring in part:
I agree with my colleagues and the Administrative
Law Judge, for the reasons set forth in the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's Decision, that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by promising
benefits to employees to dissuade them from sup-
porting the Union and violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act by discriminatorily laying off five
employees on May 7, 1976. I do not agree, however,
with the further finding that the layoff of employee
Regis Murphy on June I, 1976, also violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1).
With respect to Murphy's layoff, the Administra-
tive Law Judge stated that "it lacks the 'timing' of the
May 7 layoffs, in terms of the General Counsel
demonstrating a prima facie case." Nonetheless he
found that Murphy's layoff "was the culmination
231 NLRB No. 139
and continuation of the May 7 layoffs, and cannot be
viewed any differently," because the effect was the
same in that it reduced the number of employees in
the unit prior to the election. However, the General
Counsel's prima facie case was established on the
basis of the timing of the May 7 layoffs, I day after
Respondent's receipt of the Union's demand for
recognition, and in the context of a promise of
benefits to discourage activity. Inasmuch as this
crucial timing element is lacking in the layoff of
Murphy, and in the absence of any evidence relating
Murphy's layoff to the earlier terminations and
unfair labor practices, I conclude that the General
Counsel has not made out a primafacie case that his
layoff was discriminatorily motivated. 3 I would,
therefore, dismiss this allegation of the complaint.
Our dissenting colleague would find lawful the June I. 1976. layoff of
Regis Murphy. In our view the Administrative Law Judge was plainly
correct in stating that "having concluded that the five employees laid off on
May 7 were discriminatorily laid off, it makes no sense to conclude that the
later layoff was economically motivated." If Respondent's econor.ic
justification for the layoff of the five was contrived, the same justification
can hardly be different for the slightly later layoff of the one. Murphy.
2 In accordance with our decision in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977)., we shall apply the current 7-percent rate for periods prior
to August 25. 1977, in which the "adjusted prime interest rate" as used by
the Internal Revenue Service in calculating interest on tax payments was at
least 7 percent.
1 I do not agree with my majority colleagues' apparent conclusion that
Respondent has the burden of coming forward with evidence in support of
its assertion that Murphy's layoff was caused by Respondent's decline in
business. For, unless and until the General Counsel makes a prima facie
showing that the layoff was discrinminatorily motivated. Respondent is under
no obligation whatsoever to adduce evidence contrary to the General
Counsel's allegations.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELVIN J. WELLES, Administrative Law Judge: Case 6-
CA-9230 is before me pursuant to charges filed on May 10,
1976, and amended on July 15, 1976, and a complaint
issued on July 28, 1976, alleging violations of Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. In Case 6-RC-7462, an election was conducted
on July 8, 1976, pursuant to an Agreement for Consent
Election, which resulted in one vote for the Petitioner, one
against it, and five challenged ballots. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely objections to the election. On July
30, 1976, the Regional Director issued an order directing a
hearing on the objections and challenged ballots, and also
ordered that Case 6-RC-7462 be consolidated with Case
6-CA-9230. A hearing was held before me in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, on November 23 and December 7, 1976.
Thereafter, Banks Engineering Company, Inc.,' filed a
brief.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
The name of Respondent appears as amended at the hearing.
1281
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE
LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation (at the time of
the events in this case it was a sole proprietorship), is
engaged in the distribution and nonretail sale of fluid
power at its place of business in Export, Pennsylvania.
During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the
complaint herein, Respondent sold and shipped goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I find, as Respondent
admits, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, the
Charging Party in Case 6-CA-9230 and the Petitioner in
Case 6-RC-7462, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
On January 15, 1976, Respondent's production employ-
ees presented a list of "benefits" they were seeking to
Respondent's president, Ed Banks, requesting a meeting on
January 31 to discuss them. On receiving the list from the
employees, Banks said to them, "This looks like a union."2
Employee Kunzler told Banks there was "no feeling
towards joining a union." On January 21, 1976, Banks met
with the employees. According to Alekna, Banks told the
employees he saw "no need for a pension program," that
he did not believe in any "regular pay schedule, that if you
wanted a raise, to come and see him personally," that he
did not believe in sick pay, for it "would be taken
advantage of, it would be like another five days vacation,"
and that hospitalization would be discussed at another
date. Banks said that January 31 was not long enough to
permit him to reply to the employees' demands, for he had
to "talk it over" with his father, John Banks.3
Banks did not get back to the employees on any of these
matters until after the employees agreed not to punch in,
early in April, without an agreement from Banks to talk
with them about the demands. Banks then promised the
employees he would meet with them "the middle of April."
According to Banks, he also told the employees that he and
his wife were working to find the employees a better benefit
plan and that it took time to accomplish all that. Banks
testified that he had numerous meetings with both his
father and his wife between January and April concerning
the group's demands, with particular reference to hospitali-
zation and pensions, and that he called various insurance
companies and hospitalization organizations (e.g., Blue
2 Employee Alekna testified that Banks said, "I smell a union." The two
versions are not so dissimilar, in terms of their bearing on this decision, to
necessitate resolution.
:1 Banks' version of this meeting, on direct examination, was rather
cursory. He went into more detail on cross-examination, confirming in large
part Alekna's testimony regarding this January 21 meeting and adding that
he t"old the employees he would "look into" paid holidays and the "vacation
schedule."
This does not include the meeting with only the production employees
early in April. referred to above.
Cross). Banks also designated an employee to get informa-
tion about "safety shoes."
Three meetings were held by Banks in April with all
employees. 4 At the first, on April 7, a Blue Cross
representative was present; he explained to the employees
their present coverage and left literature about other plans
or changes that were possible. On April 22 and 29,
meetings of the same general nature were held with a
Prudential representative, James Fidele, present to discuss
and explain his company's health care plan. It was
indicated by Ed Banks at the April 22 meeting that the
plan would be put into effect unless there were serious
objections and that the April 29 meeting would be the
occasion for the latter, if any, to be voiced. Banks then
announced the plan's effectiveness, as of June I, at the
April 29 meeting. He also told the employees at that time,
according to him, that the Company was very serious about
incorporating, and that a pension plan would follpw. 5
On April 29, employee Alekna called Union Representa-
tive Edmund Bruno and arranged for a meeting to be held
on May 3. Eight of Respondent's employees, Alekna,
Kline, Dewalt, 6 Sansonetti, Sevier, Hayford, Clark, and
Murphy, were at this meeting and all signed union cards.
At another union meeting held on May 5, one more
employee, Ed Moore, signed a union authorization card,
and a determination was made to request Respondent to
recognize the Union. That same day, Bruno wrote to the
Company requesting recognition, the letter being received
by the Company "sometime in the afternoon" the next day,
May 6. Later that afternoon, shortly before 5 p.m., Ed
Banks convened all the employees at a meeting. Banks told
the employees (according to Alekna) that the Company
would be incorporated, that there would be a pension plan
and "other benefits." He made no mention of possible
layoffs or of lack of orders at this meeting. Employee Regis
Murphy corroborated Alekna's testimony, adding to it
respecting specific benefits, "I think an increase in wages
and possibly vacation, better insurance plan."7 Ed Banks
himself confirmed that he told the employees that the
Company had decided to incorporate, that they were
proceeding with the pension plan, and that "there would be
other benefits."
The next day Respondent laid off employees Alekna,
Dana Clark, Dave Hayford, Dave Sansonetti, and Wil
Sevier, calling these employees in toward the end of the
workday and telling them that they were being laid off for
lack of work. A sixth employee, Regis Murphy, was laid off
by Banks on June 1, being told that the Company was
running low on business and that Banks had planned to lay
him off the week before but let it go because of the
Memorial Day holiday.
The Union subsequently filed a petition for an election
and one was held on July 8. Its results were as follows: one
5 Although there is some conflict in the testimony of the various
witnesses as to precisely what was said at this meeting, I accept Ed Banks'
version, which was essentially confirmed by Prudential agent Fidele.
6 Dewalt's ballot at the July 8 election was challenged.
I On cross-examination, Murphy indicated uncertainty whether vaca-
tions or a wage increase were specifically mentioned by Banks. and that he
was sure only of the fact that Banks spoke of increased benefits.
1282
BANKS ENGINEERING CO.
vote for Petitioner, one vote against, and five challenged
ballots. Four of the challenges, those of Sansonetti, Sevier,
Alekna, and Murphy, were of employees alleged to have
been discriminatorily discharged. A fifth, Dewalt, was
challenged because his name did not appear on the list of
eligible voters.
The day before the election, employee William Kline,
still employed at the time of the hearing herein, spoke with
Ed Banks, who explained to Kline that the Company was
not making as much as it should, but that he "hoped in the
future to build it back up and hire back a couple of men."
Banks, on cross-examination, indicated that he could well
have said that he was going to hire "new shop employees."
The foregoing facts constitute the General Counsel's
"affirmative case" with respect to the complaint's allega-
tions that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by promis-
ing benefits to its employees on May 6, and Section 8(a)(3)
and (I) by laying off five employees on May 7 and a sixth
on June 1.
Respondent defends as to the 8(a)(1) allegation by
pointing to the various meetings held, both with employees
and among management personnel, as part of the "entire
program of increases in economic benefits which took
place between January and May," all demonstrating, so
Respondent argues, that Respondent's motive for its May 6
"discussions" was not to interfere with its employees' union
organizational campaign, and was not based on the
Union's demand for recognition received a few hours
earlier,
With respect to the 8(a)(3) allegations, Respondent
asserts that the layoffs were wholly economic in nature,
necessitated by declining business in the Company's fluid
power production operations and brought to a head by the
final decision of its biggest customer, Bailey, not to place a
large order with Banks, a decision communicated to Banks
on the morning of May 7. The testimony with respect to
Respondent's defenses will be evaluated in the ensuing
discussion.
B. Discussion
I. The violation of Section 8(a)(1)
As the facts set forth above show, and on this there is no
dispute, within a few hours after Respondent received the
Union's request for recognition, President Ed Banks called
all the employees to a meeting and announced that the
Company would be incorporated and there would be a
pension plan and "other benefits." Even though Respon-
dent had been working on increasing benefits for its
employees, the evidence shows that it took a short work
stoppage in April to get Respondent to "meet" with respect
to the January demands, that Banks did not "get back to"
the employees in the few weeks he had promised at the
early April meeting, and that the employees then went to
the Union, with virtually all of them signing union cards.
The almost immediate holding of a meeting following the
Union's demand for recognition cannot be viewed other
than as directly responsive to that demand. There had been
no meeting scheduled for that day nor were any insurance
agents coming to speak with the employees. Even assuming
that Respondent's promise of "other benefits" meant no
more than what had previously been discussed, there had
not prior to May 6 been any promise of other benefits,
specific or nonspecific. On the record as a whole, I am
convinced that the purpose of the May 6 meeting, with its
announcements of the specific benefits and other benefits
to employees, was for the purpose of dissuading the
employees from further union activity, and that Respon-
dent thereby violated Section 8(aX)() of the Act.
2. The violation of Section 8(a)(3)
The following sequence of events - (1) 9 of the
approximately 10 production employees joined the Union
on May 3 and 5; (2) the union demand for recognition was
received by Respondent on the afternoon of May 6; (3)
President Banks met with employees later that afternoon to
announce benefits; and (4) 5 employees were laid off on
May 7 - without more, establish a prima facie case of
discrimination with respect to the May 7 layoff. As
Respondent notes in its brief, the burden of proof of
refuting that primafacie case then shifted to it.
The key to the General Counsel's case being the timing
of the discharges in relation both to the Union's demand
for recognition and the May 6 meeting with employees,
Respondent can satisfactorily carry its burden only by
demonstrating at least a reasonable explanation for the five
layoffs occurring on May 7.
There is ample evidence, presented by Respondent, to
show that its fluid power production work had fallen off.
Koppers Company, which had been responsible for
approximately 20 percent of Respondent's production
work during 1975, had not given any new orders to
Respondent since 1975, there was no prospect of any future
orders, and all work on old business from Koppers had
been completed by March 1976. Several small customers,
such as the Lee Norris Company, which had given
Respondent about 5 percent of its production work the
preceding year, had not come through with any new orders
since 1975. Respondent's biggest customer had been the
William Bailey Company, a subsidiary of Millcraft Indus-
tries. In April 1976, Millcraft formed a subsidiary corpora-
tion, National Fluid Systems, Inc., which was to produce
the same type of equipment as Respondent. According to
Ed Banks, he found out about the formation of National
Fluid Systems in the early part of April, and had his office
manager verify that National Fluid Systems was owned by
Millcraft. At that time, Respondent had pending with
Bailey a bid (the Fairfield job). According to Ed Banks, his
first talk with anyone from the Bailey Company was with
Don Howell, who dealt with Banks with respect to Banks'
bids for Bailey work, on May 5. Banks testified that Howell
told him on that date that Millcraft had purchased
National Fluid Systems, that Banks replied he was aware
of it, and Howell said that Banks "would or could not get
the Fairfield order." That same day, according to Banks,
he wrote a memorandum to his father, John Banks,
recommending "that we consider a major reduction in our
employment until such time that business picks up ....
This is in view of Millcraft's purchase of National Fluid
Systems (automation) - We are losing the Bailey account
since they are owned by Millcraft also .... " The
memorandum goes on to state that Koppers had not given
1283
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any new orders to the Company since 1974 (the testimony
shows 1975), and concludes by recommending that "we
immediately reduce our shop employees . . . by 50%0, and
. . . front office by one office person."
As noted above, Respondent received the Union's
demand for recognition on the afternoon of May 6, and
held the employee meeting about benefits later that same
afternoon. The next day, May 7, according to Ed Banks, he
received a call from Howell informing him that the
decision had been made to give the Fairfield job to
National Fluid Systems. Because of this call from Howell,
Banks testified, the Company proceeded with the plan
outlined in the May 5 memorandum and laid off five
employees.
Howell testified that, on May 10, he actually wrote the
requisition to National Fluid Systems for the work
Respondent had bid on with Bailey. He said that "Some
time prior to that I had talked with Ed Banks and told him
that we had formed a company and this could affect our
business relationship and it was quite possible that the new
company would get the order for the hydraulic systems. I
am sure it was only a short time prior to my writing the
order because I really didn't know until maybe-it had to
be less than a week before I had written as to where the
order definitely would go." He then stated that it was the
"Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday before the week of May
10 that he told Banks that he "would not get that order [the
Fairfield order]." Howell went on to testify that, at some
previous time, he had told Banks that Bailey had formed a
company of its own, but that he was not sure that this new
company would get the order which Banks had bid on. On
cross-examination, it was brought out that Howell had
stated, in an affidavit to a Board agent, "On or about April
15th I told Ed Banks, president of Banks Engineering
Company, of this transaction that National Fluid Systems
Corporation would obtain Bailey's business which had
formerly gone to Banks Engineering Company. Ed Banks
said he had heard something about this transaction."
Howell verified, on the stand, that he did have a
conversation with Banks in April (the "middle of April, it
could have been a week later, it could have been a week
earlier") but stated that, "I overlooked a word in here, I
guess, because when I told Ed Banks about this originally
my statement was to him that this company could obtain
our business, although I was hoping that our business
would continue as it had in the past .... So I would say
that what has happened here is that I have overlooked a
word in here and it should have said 'could obtain Bailey's
business.' "
Both on cross-examination and on redirect examination,
Howell was quite unsure of the precise dates or the
contents of his conversations with Ed Banks, a conclusion I
reach from his testimony that "I cannot say for sure"
whether National Fluid Systems was discussed with Banks
on May 5; "I don't really know" whether he telephoned Ed
Banks on May 5; "I may have called him to tell him I was
coming or something, I'm not really sure," again with
reference to a possible May 5 telephone call; "I cannot say
specifically whether it was after that [May 5] or not, I
* Why else. indeed, would Banks have had his office manager check out
National Fluid Systems to determine whether that company actually was set
up to perform the same type of work as Banks Engineering Company?
suspect it was but I'm not sure," with reference to when he
notified Banks he was not getting the Fairfield job.
As indicated earlier, there is ample evidence that, even
apart from the Bailey order upon which Respondent had
submitted a bid, Respondent's production business had
declined so that by the beginning of April it had lost its
second largest customer, Koppers, and several smaller
customers, and from March to May its production
employees had been averaging about 30 percent of their
time weekly in maintenance-type work, as against a normal
average of less than 5 percent on maintenance-type work.
These facts, particularly when coupled with Respondent's
knowledge, by the middle of April, that Millcraft had set
up National Fluid Systems, which knowledge surely must
have indicated a strong possibility that Banks would not
get the Bailey work,8 would have made a layoff or
discharge of many of the production workers in the middle
of April appear to be an eminently sound and prudent
economic move. But Respondent did not lay them off or
discharge them at that time; rather, it kept all the
employees on the payroll until the day after the Union's
demand for recognition was received, and then laid off
approximately half of them.
The General Counsel having supplied one explanation-
the Union's recognition demand-for the selection of May
7 as the day to lay off half the employees, it was incumbent
upon Respondent to supply some other reasonable expla-
nation for the selection of that date-something more than
what had been the situation for some time with respect to
Koppers' business, as well as some other relatively small
customers, and something more than what the handwriting
on the wall already indicated was the case with respect to
Bailey's business. Respondent's attempt to show a different
explanation, a telephone call from Howell the morning
after the Union's demand was received to the effect that
the "Fairfield job" was definitely going to National Fluid
Systems, would, if demonstrated to have been the fact,
have completely demolished the General Counsel's expla-
nation and furnished a convincing basis for the May 7
layoff occurring on that day. I am convinced, however, that
no such phone call was made by Howell to Banks on May
7. Even accepting Howell's explanation of his statement to
the Board agent having been not precisely what he said (a
matter of "could" rather than "wou!d"), his confirmation
of the talk having been about the middle of April, which
also comports with his testimony that "sometime previous
to this" (the "this" being early in May) he told Banks that
"we had formed a company of our own," contradicts
Banks' testimony that the first he heard from Howell about
National Fluid Systems was on May 5. Indeed, Banks'
timetable, with Howell on May 5 telling him that Banks
might not get the work, only 2 days later telling him it was
definite that Banks would not get the work, and the actual
requisition by Bailey to National Fluid Systems only 3 days
after that, sounds extremely unlikely.
I conclude that Howell did not inform Banks, on May 7,
that the Bailey business was definitely lost to Respondent,
but that he had already informed Banks, as his affidavit
states, that Respondent would not get that business, about
1284
BANKS ENGINEERING CO.
the middle of April. Whatever the precise words used by
Howell at that time, I am convinced that they conveyed
much more than a mere possibility of the work in question
going to National Fluid Systems instead of to Banks
Engineering Company.
In the light of that conclusion, which I believe is impelled
by all the evidence, Respondent's attempt to show an
explanation for the May 7 layoff other than the receipt of
the Union's demand for recognition on May 6 has failed. I
find, accordingly, that the General Counsel's prima facie
case has not been rebutted, that the layoff of May 7 was
caused by the Union's demand for recognition of May 6,
and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(I) of the Act.
As to the June I layoff of Regis Murphy, although it
lacks the "timing" of the May 7 layoffs, in terms of the
General Counsel demonstrating a prima facie case, having
concluded that the five employees laid off on May 7 were
discriminatorily laid off, it makes no sense to conclude that
the later layoff was economically motivated. The June I
layoff, that is, was the culmination and continuation of the
May 7 layoffs and cannot be viewed any differently. I find,
accordingly, that Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (I) of the Act by laying off Regis Murphy on June 1.
C. The Challenges and the OJjections
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily laid off
employees Sansonetti, Sevier, Alekna, and Murphy, I find
that the challenges to their ballots should be overruled.
With respect to Jack Dewalt, whose ballot was challenged
because his name did not appear on the list of eligible
voters, I find, on the rather meager testimony in the record,
that he was in fact a supervisor and I shall accordingly
sustain the challenge to his ballot. If, when the Regional
Director shall have opened and counted the ballots as to
which I have overruled the challenges, the Union receives a
majority of the valid votes cast, there would be, of course,
no need to rule on the Union's objections to the election,
based on Murphy's discharge within the critical period. In
the event that the Union does not receive such a majority,
then, with Murphy's discharge also having been found
violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1), I would recommend
that the election be set aside.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Respondent, by promising benefits to employees to
dissuade them from supporting the Union and by discrimi-
natorily discharging or laying off employees David Hay-
ford, Wilbert Sevier, David Sansonetti, Dana Clark, James
Alekna, and Regis Murphy, has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
' 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
THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist
from its unfair labor practices, and post appropriate
notices. Having found that Respondent discriminatorily
laid off the employees set forth above, I shall recommend
that Respondent offer reinstatement to them, with back-
pay, computed as provided in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumning & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962).
The General Counsel's request for a bargaining order
was made in the alternative. He stated at the hearing that
"If, in fact, it is found that the alleged discriminatees were,
in fact, discriminated [sic] for unlawful reasons and their
ballots be counted in the election, it should be obvious that
if, in fact, that is the decision, no remedial bargaining order
would be necessary." In the light of that statement, I shall
not issue any bargaining order herein. If the Union does
not in fact receive a majority when the ballots, as to which
I have overruled the challenges, are opened and counted,
the General Counsel may move to reopen Case 6-CA-9230
to request a bargaining order.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusion of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 9
The Respondent, Banks Engineering Company, Inc.,
Export, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging, laying off, or in any other manner
discriminating against employees because they have en-
gaged in union activities.
(b) Promising benefits to employees to dissuade them
from union activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing their employees in the exercise of their rights
protected by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer James Alekna, Dana Clark, Dave Hayford,
Dave Sansonetti, Wil Sevier, and Regis Murphy 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 earnings
they may have suffered, in the manner set forth in the
section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
1285
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Post at its place of business in Export, Pennsylvania,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 0
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of the Company, shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places at all locations where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Company to insure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respon-
dent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 6-RC-7462 be severed
from Case 6-CA-9230 and transferred to the Regional
Director for Region 6 for further processing.
"I In the event that 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
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any employees because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees benefits to
dissuade them from union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer reemployment to James Alekna,
Dana Clark, Dave Hayford, Dave Sansonetti, Wil
Sevier, and Regis Murphy, and WE WILL pay them for
losses they suffered as a result of our having discharged
them.
BANKS ENGINEERING
COMPANY, INC.
1286