G.M. Mechanical Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1998

326 N.L.R.B. 35 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

G. M. MECHANICAL, INC. 35
G. M. Mechanical, Incorporated and Sheet Metal
Workers’ International Association, Local 33,
AFL–CIO. Cases 8–CA–28494 and 8–CA–28689
(formerly 9–CA–34163)
August 11, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, HURTGEN, AND BRAME
On February 5, 1998, Administrative Law Judge
Robert T. Wallace issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and
the General Counsel filed an answering brief and a mo-
tion to strike portions of the Respondent’s exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings,1 findings,2 and conclusions
and to adopt the recommended Order.

1 The General Counsel moves to strike from the Respondent’s ex-
ceptions and brief any statements of fact and arguments based on
statements allegedly made in an affidavit by Supervisor Doug Neuman.
Neuman was a key participant in the Respondent’s termination of em-
ployees David Mains and Terry Matthews, which we find unlawful. In
attempting to introduce the affidavit, the Respondent’s counsel in-
formed the judge that he had spoken with Neuman by telephone before
the hearing and that Neuman had said that he could not testify because
he was starting a new job on the date of the hearing. The Respondent
did not establish that it was unable to procure Neuman’s attendance by
process or other reasonable means. Accordingly, the judge sustained
the General Counsel’s objection to the introduction of Neuman’s affi-
davit. We affirm the judge’s ruling. Accordingly, we grant the General
Counsel’s motion to strike from the Respondent’s exceptions any
statements allegedly made by Neuman in the rejected affidavit and any
argument based on such statements.
2 In adopting the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent unlawfully
discharged Mains and Matthews, we find it unnecessary to rely on the
inference drawn by the judge from the Respondent’s failure to call
Neuman as a witness, i.e., the inference that Neuman’s testimony
would not have supported testimony by the Respondent’s witnesses.
Member Fox and Member Brame agree with the judge’s finding that
Matthews was discharged in violation of Sec. 8(a)(3). They note that
the judge found that Matthews and Mains picketed the Respondent’s
main entrance carrying signs bearing the legend “Sheet Metal Workers
Local 33 Protests Against Substandard Wages.” He further found that
Supervisor Neuman asked why they were picketing and Mains told him
they were protesting the independent contractor requirement and low
wages. Accordingly, Matthews and Mains linked the resistance to the
independent contractor requirement with their concerted union activity
of picketing the Respondent’s main entrance and the Respondent was
aware of that linkage. In these circumstances, the judge properly found
that the Respondent’s discharge of Matthews violated Sec. 8(a)(3), as
well as Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Member Hurtgen does not pass on the issue whether the discharge of
Matthews was violative of Sec. 8(a)(3). In finding this violation, the
judge relied on Matthews’ testimony that he was told that he was dis-
charged for refusing to sign an independent contractor agreement.
However, there is no evidence that such refusal was sponsored or en-
couraged by the Union. Although there were picket signs containing
the name of the Union, the evidence shows that Matthews was fired for
refusing to sign the agreement, not for engaging in the picketing. Ac-
cordingly, Member Hurtgen is troubled by the judge’s finding, adopted
by the Board majority, that the discharge violated Sec. 8(a)(3). How-
ever, he agrees that the refusal to sign the independent contractor
agreement was linked to concerted activity of other employees, and that
such refusal was protected by Sec. 7. Accordingly, Member Hurtgen
would find that the discharge violated Sec. 8(a)(1), and he would not
pass on the 8(a)(3) allegation.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, G. M. Mechanical, Incorpo-
rated, Covington, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.

Thomas M. Randazzo, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Darryl M. Kates and G. Randall Ayers, Esqs. (Dinsmore
& Shohl LLP), of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Respondent.

DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT T. WALLACE, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Stubenville, Ohio, on May 13, 1997. The charges
were filed on September 4 and 5, 1996,1 and a consolidated
complaint was issued on December 20, 1996.
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated (1) Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by coercively in-
forming an employee that he had been discharged for engaging
in protected union activity and (2) Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by
discharging three employees for engaging in such activity.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the follow-
ing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, an Ohio corporation with an office in Cov-
ington, Ohio, is a commercial contractor in the construction
industry at jobsites throughout various States, including Ohio.
During the past 12 months it performed services valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 in States other than Ohio. It admits and I find
that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Discharge of Mains and Matthews
In early July David Mains, a member of the Union with 5
years’ experience as a sheet metal worker, asked Respondent’s
president (Gerald Miller) for a job, without identifying himself
as a union member. The latter told him to report to Foreman

The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility find-
ings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stan-
dard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d
Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis
for reversing the findings.
1 All dates are in 1996 unless otherwise indicated.

326 NLRB No. 13
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 36
Doug Blimker with his “resume” at a construction (Plaza) site
in Clairesville, Ohio. He did so on the next day and Blinker,
after looking at the resume, inquired whether Mains would
cross an IBEW picket line in place at the site. When Mains
said, “Yes,” Blimker said he would send the resume to Miller.
Miller called Mains on July 18, and told him he was hired at
$9 an hour to do sheet metal work at a “Walmart” site in the
Plaza project. He reported on the following day and worked
there until the sheet metal work was completed about a month
later. Admittedly the work was performed well.
From about July 22 he and other employees had experienced
considerable pressure from management to sign an agreement
purporting to make them “independent contractors.”2 The pres-
sure included threats to withhold paychecks, and in at least one
case a fellow worker (Rodney Ackles) went 3 weeks without
receiving a check. Mains avoided signing and explained to
other employees (including laborer Terry Matthews3) that under
the agreement they would not be compensated for job-related
injuries or be eligible for unemployment benefits.
Anticipating that he might be laid off when the sheet metal
work was done, Mains called President Miller and inquired
about the matter. Miller asked if he had any plumbing experi-
ence. When Mains said “None,” Miller (who was being pressed
to complete extensive plumbing work at the site) offered him a
job as a plumbers’ aide (laborer).
Mains accepted and, on August 21, he reported to Plumbing
Foreman Doug Neuman, and was assigned to assist plumbers
working on the “Lowes” building.
Mains worked as a laborer for 2 days, always under the di-
rection of Neuman and other experienced plumbers.
On Friday, August 23, Mains and Matthews arrived at the
site at 6 a.m., an hour before their scheduled start time. They
carried signs bearing the legend, “Sheet Metal Workers Local
33 Protests Against Substandard Wages” and proceeded to
picket at the main entrance. While they did so many other em-
ployees, including foremen, saw them as they drove into the
site.
Mains and Matthews ended their demonstration at 6:50 a.m.
and reported to Neuman at their scheduled start time of 7 a.m.
He asked why they had picketed. Mains told him they were
protesting the independent contractor requirement and low
wages. The conversation ended at that point and he assigned
them to work together moving pipe in an area apart from other
employees. They completed that task at about 9 a.m., where-
upon Neuman again assigned them to work together, this time
laying a gas pipeline on the roof of a building (Staples) under
construction. After showing them where the gasline was to run,
he departed. They spent the morning gleaning parts and other
materials needed for the job from sources located throughout
the whole construction site. They worked without supervision
and with no other employees present on or in the building; and

2 As seen from Exhs. R2 through 5, Respondent’s practice was to
hire workers ab initio as “independent contractors,” have them submit
invoices for time put in at stipulated hourly rates, and pay them the
exact total (i.e., rate times hours) with no deductions for social security
or other matters. Indeed, there is no indication that Respondent ever
asked prospective workers for their social security numbers or tax
deductions. Instead, it simply asked for “resumes” listing experience
and addresses. Pressure to sign independent contractor agreements
occurred after work began. It does not here contest the status of the
alleged discriminatees as employees within the meaning of the Act.
3 Matthews began to work for Respondent on July 22 at $6 an hour.
no one came to tell them when to go to lunch or when to leave.
At 4 p.m. they came down to report completion of the job.
Finding no other employees around and the trailer-office
locked, they left the site.
When Mains reported to work on the following Monday
morning, Foreman Steve Bernard told him he and Matthews
were laid off. Mains asked why and Bernard replied, “I cannot
tell you why . . . I don’t know.” Mains went to an office trailer
where he called President Miller and sought an explanation.
Miller told him that he and Matthews had not done enough
work on Friday and that he could not justify keeping them. In
response to Mains’ protest, Miller asked if he had been on the
picket line on Friday. When Mains said, “yes,” Miller replied:
“Well that’s dealing with the union and––and we like to have
no parts of the union, and this is just one less problem I have to
deal with.” With that comment, Miller hung up.
Matthew’s experience on Monday morning was somewhat
different. On arriving, he found Supervisor Neuman sitting in a
truck. The latter greeted him with the comment: “You guys
didn’t get enough work done on Friday,” and then told him he
could not go to work unless he signed the independent contrac-
tor agreement. Urging him to do so, Neuman added that he
would call and urge Miller to put him on “the full steady pay-
roll.” Matthews refused and left.
Mains and Matthews were never recalled from “layoff.”
By virtue of the foregoing facts, most of which are undis-
puted, I find that the General Counsel has established a prima
facie case in support of the allegations in the complaint. The
picketing by Mains and Matthews was clearly an action pro-
tected under the Act. It was contemporaneously observed by
Supervisor Neuman and was immediately followed by his iso-
lating the picketers from other employees––a classic initial
reaction of employers harboring antiunion animus. And shortly
thereafter both were terminated assertedly with President Miller
telling Mains it was for union activism and Supervisor Neuman
telling Matthews it was for his resisting imposition of inde-
pendent contractor status.
Accordingly, it is incumbent on Respondent to present per-
suasive evidence that the discharges had nothing to do with
protected activity or would have occurred in any event.4 I am
not persuaded.
Two individuals testified on behalf of the Respondent, Presi-
dent Miller and Project Manager William Eicher. Eicher claims
Foreman Neuman called him at about 2:30 p.m. on August 23
complaining that Mains and Matthews were paying no attention
to his (Neuman’s) directions in laying the roof gasline. Assert-
edly Eicher instructed Neuman to get rid of them if need be and
Neuman replied that “I’m just gonna have to think about it.”
For his part, Miller recounts that he decided on the layoff af-
ter receiving a call on Saturday, August 24, wherein Neuman
reported that Mains and Matthews had taken too long on and
had so messed up the roof pipeline job that it had to be redone.
When Mains called on Monday morning, Miller claims to have
told Mains he was being laid off due to poor work performance
on Friday.5 Miller recalls that he was very busy at the time and
cut short any further conversation by hanging up.
4 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.
1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
5 At another point in his testimony Miller states that the decision to
terminate Mains and Matthews was Neuman’s “call.”
G. M. MECHANICAL, INC. 37
Both Miller and Eicher assert that Neuman did not mention
the picketing in his phone calls. They also claim to have
learned about the picketing only long after Mains and Matthews
were discharged.
I decline to credit Miller and Eicher. Instead, I find probable
that either or both were contemporaneously advised of the
picketing and had instructed Foreman Neuman to create a pre-
text for discharge of Mains and Matthews. In this regard, I note
that their sudden reassignment was to a substantial job (erecting
a gas pipeline) and that they were left alone to do it without
supervision. This despite the fact that both were known to have
no plumbing experience and had previously been working as
laborers under the direction of experienced plumbers, Mains for
only 2 days. Further, the unexplained failure to call Neuman as
a witness, the one most knowledgeable of why they were so
reassigned, warrants an inference that his testimony would not
have been supportive of the Miller/Eicher accounts.6
In these circumstances, and in view of their apparent candor,
I credit (1) Mains’ statement that Miller told him he was termi-
nated for supporting the Union and (2) Matthews’ undisputed
testimony that Foreman Neuman told him he was discharged
for refusing to sign the independent contractor agreement.
Accordingly, I find Respondent coercively informed em-
ployee Mains that he had been discharged for engaging in pro-
tected union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2)
unlawfully discriminated against employees Mains and Mat-
thews by discharging them for such activity.
B. Discharge of Gombos
Randy Gombos, an organizer for the Union, appeared at the
Clairesville jobsite on Wednesday, August 28, 2 days after
Mains and Matthews were terminated. President Miller was on
site and Gombos, without revealing his union affiliation, asked
him for a job.
In response to Miller’s inquiry Gombos told him he had 7
years’ experience as a sheet metal worker. Miller asked if he
was available for a job on a Hampton Inn being built in Colum-
bus, Ohio. When Gombos said, “yes,” Miller asked for identifi-
cation data–and wrote it down on a note pad. He told Gombos
he would receive $7 an hour, be given a hotel room in Colum-
bus and receive a $12 a day food allowance. He then instructed
Gombos to report to Project Superintendent Eicher at the site at
7 a.m. on the next day; and he drew on the back of his business
card a map indicating where the site was in relation to the Co-
lumbus airport and handed it to Gombos.
Gombos reported as instructed where he met Eicher in the
early morning. After exchanging introductions, Eicher told him
that his roommate at the hotel would be Plumbing Foreman
Scott Winters, and that Winters had a company credit card and
would take care of him. Eicher then took him to an area where
there was a large amount of duct material. He told Gombos to
begin installation and gave him a phone number to call for any
needed equipment or supplies, with an assurance that his re-
quests would be taken care of right away. Promptly thereafter
Eicher left him alone and returned to his offsite office. Gombos
proceeded to assemble the ductwork below lines where it was
to be hung.
When the lunchbreak began at 12:30 p.m., Gombos first
went to his car where he donned a T-shirt and cap bearing the
union logo and then went to an area where three other employ-

6 Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 at 174 (1973);
Martin Luther King Sr. Nursing Center, 231 NLRB 15 at fn. 1 (1977).
ees, including Foreman Winters were eating. Introducing him-
self as a union organizer, he then addressed their concerns
about wages and benefits, including independent contractor
status. Winters interrupted saying: “You know I have to advise
the company that you’re here.” Gombos replied: “Do what you
have got to do, just do me a favor, walk don’t run, because
you’re not covered under Workers Comp and I don’t want to
see you fall and get hurt because it won’t be paid for.” Every-
one chuckled, and Winters left. Gombos continued his presen-
tation and at the end of the break he and the others went back to
work.
About 20 minutes later, Eicher arrived at the site, went di-
rectly to where Gombos was working, and ordered him off the
site immediately. Gombos asked: “Why,” and Eicher replied:
“You didn’t fill out any paperwork . . . tan application, a re-
sume, a W-2 . . . you’re not an employee.” When Gombos
asked for an opportunity to do so and volunteered to complete it
on the spot, Eicher gave him another reason for ordering him
off the site, stating: “There’s no foreman here [and] you can’t
be working out here without a foreman.” Gombos made a fur-
ther inquiry. He asked if he was being discharged because of
his union activity during lunchtime. Eicher answered: “I don’t
know what you’re talking about. . . . that don’t have nothing to
do with it.” Gombos had a final question. He asked: “Who’s
telling you to run me off?” Eicher replied: “Well Gerald
[Miller––said you didn’t have your paperwork . . . and [had] to
go.” At that point, Gombos gathered his things and left the site.
While Miller concedes that on August 28 he agreed to pay
Gombos $7 an hour, gave him Eicher’s name and directions to
the Hampton Inn construction site, he denies ever hiring him
stating that he merely made a job offer contingent on receipt of
a resume from which he could check references. Also, he
claims he made no arrangement for Gombos’ housing or ex-
penses because sheet metal installation at the site was not to
begin for “a week or two” and no foreman had been designated.
As to events on August 29, Miller claims that “sometime” in
the morning he was advised that “someone” had called his of-
fice in Covington (Ohio) stating that the Hampton Inn job had
shut down, and that he telephoned Eicher and told him to go to
the site and investigate.7 Continuing, he states that Eicher called
back later in the day and reported there had been no shutdown,
that a job applicant named “Gombos . . . [who] ‘wasn’t hired
in’ . . . just had a meeting, at break[time]” and that he had sent
Gombos home because he didn’t have any paperwork.8
Eicher claims he had no prior knowledge that Gombos would
come to the Hampton Inn site on August 29. Assertedly, he put
Gombos to work relying on Gombos’ statement that Miller had
hired him. In addition, he assumed that Miller in sending Gom-
bos intended sheet metal work to being immediately and would
send a foreman for that work within 3 hours. He denies making
any hotel arrangements for Gombos.
Testifying further, Eicher states that about 10:30 a.m., and
after he returned to his office in Columbus, Miller called and
7 Asked by his counsel if Eicher had mentioned Gombos in the call,
President Miller replied: “I don’t think he did. I’m not positive.” On
cross-examination, however, in the course of a rambling answer he
volunteered that “Bill [Etcher] knew, from me [emphasis added], that–
you know, that he [Gombos] was never supposed to go out there that
morning and work and everything.” I infer that he suddenly recalled
having discussed Gombos during the call.
8 Miller appears studiously to aviod use of the word “union” in re-
counting what Eicher said about Gombos’ lunchtime “meeting.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 38
told him to go to the site and find out whether the Hampton Inn
job had shut down. Assertedly he used the occasion to inquire
of Miller: “By the way Gerald, [I assume] you’re going to start
the sheet metal today? . . . [because] you sent a sheet metal man
. . . Gombos . . . [ who I ] started this morning.” Also, he claims
Miller denied having hired Gombos, that he (Eicher) went to
the construction site, arrived about noon and ordered Gombos
to leave telling him “you’re not an employee . . . and no sheet
metal foreman has been assigned to the job.” Eicher returned to
his downtown office, in time to answer a phone call in which he
told Miller there had been no shutdown and that Gombos was
gone with instructions to send (Miller) a resume. He claims no
knowledge of Gombos’ speaking about the Union at lunchtime.
I am singularly unimpressed by the Respondent’s testimony.
Miller was unable credibly to answer why he had given sheet
metal worker Gombos written directions to the Hampton Inn
jobsite if, as he claims, he had merely interviewed Gombos;
and the significance of his assertion that a “resume” was a nec-
essary prerequisite to hiring is belied by Foreman Eicher’s dis-
inclination to allow Gombos to provide background informa-
tion on site. Also, I find wholly unbelievable Eicher’s denial of
any knowledge of Gumbos’ union activity prior to ordering him
off the site.
On the other hand, Gombos appeared to be a candid witness
and his testimony includes an abundance of truth enhancing
detail and remained internally consistent after cross-
examination. I conclude that Gombos was hired by Miller and
then ordered discharged by him because he engaged in pro-
tected union activity during the lunchbreak; and that the Re-
spondent’s stated reasons for the discharge are pretextual.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
in the particulars and for the reasons stated above; and its viola-
tions have affected, and unless permanently enjoined will con-
tinue to affect, commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Having discriminatorily discharged employees, the Respon-
dent must offer them reinstatement and make them whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly
basis from date of discharge to date of proper offer of rein-
statement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as com-
puted in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended9
ORDER
The Respondent, G. M. Mechanical, Incorporated, Coving-
ton, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall

9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.

1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively informing employees that they were dis-
charged for protesting perceived unfair terms and conditions of
employment by picketing.
(b) Discharging employees for supporting Sheet Metal
Workers’ International Association, Local 33, AFL–CIO or any
other union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer David
E. Mains, Terry Brian Matthews, and Randy Gombos full rein-
statement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other bene-
fits suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against
them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this deci-
sion.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful discharges, and within 3
days thereafter notify the employees in writing that this has
been done and that the discharges will not be used against them
in any way.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make available
to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Or-
der.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all of
its jobsites and offices in Ohio copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”10 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In
the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since August 26, 1996.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States
court of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of
the 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.”
G. M. MECHANICAL, INC. 39
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the
National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide
by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.

To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected con-
certed activities.

WE WILL NOT coercively tell you that you will be or are dis-
charged for protesting perceived unfair terms and conditions of
employment by picketing.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discipline you for sup-
porting Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local
33, AFL–CIO or any other union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you for exercising rights guaranteed you by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer David E. Mains, Terry Brian Matthews, and
Randy Gombos full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed, and make them whole, with interest,
for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result
of the discrimination practiced against them.
WE WILL notify them in writing that we have removed from
our files any reference to their unlawful discharges and that the
discharges will not be used against them in any way.
G. M. MECHANICAL