Amado Electric, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 8, 1978

238 N.L.R.B. 37 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

AMADO ELECTRIC. INC.
Amado Electric, Inc. and Local Union No. 570 of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO. Case 28-CA-4460
September 8, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELI.O
AND MURPHY
On April 21, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
James T. Barker issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions,
and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, 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 Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Amado Electric, Inc.,
Tucson, Arizona, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order, except that the attached notice is
substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge.
Members Penello and Murphy agree with the Administrative Law
Judge's conclusion, which was not excepted to, that Respondent was not free
to withdraw recognition under Sec. 8(f) of the Act, because the General
Counsel demonstrated that the Union represented a majont) at the time
Respondent withdrew recognition. See Haberman Construction Compan3.
236 NLRB 79 (1978). In addition, even had the General Counsel failed to
show that the Union represented a majority of Respondent's employees,
Respondent would not be free to repudiate the agreement because Respon-
dent was a member of a multiemployer bargaining association. Thus, Re-
spondent's employees would constitute only a small segment of the appropri-
ate unit, See Authorized Air Conditioning Co.. 236 NLRB 131 (1978).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WIL L NOT refuse to abide by the terms of
the two collective-bargaining agreements entered
into with the Union on August 9, 1976.
WE WILL NOT, during the effective periods of
said two agreements, refuse to recognize and bar-
gain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment, with Local Union No. 570, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the employees in the following appropriate
unit:
All employees employed by the Respondent
engaged in residential and commercial electri-
cal work, excluding guards, watchmen, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the wage
rates or other terms and conditions of employ-
ment of employees in the above-described appro-
priate unit during the terms of any union con-
tract without first reaching agreement with the
Union about such changes.
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees be-
cause they are not willing to accept lesser wages
and working conditions than those specified in
the two contracts between us and the Union.
WE WILL. NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce any of our employees in
the exercise of the right to engage in self-organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through represen-
tatives of their own choosing, or to act together
for collective bargaining or mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain
with the Union for employees in the appropriate
unit above described, as required by the two con-
tracts between us and the Union signed on Au-
gust 9, 1976.
WE WILL, upon request, rescind any and all
unilateral changes made by us on and after June
1, 1977, in our wages, wage rates, and other
terms and conditions of employment during the
effective period of the two contracts signed by us
and the Union on August 9, 1976.
WE WILL restore and place in effect all terms
and conditions of employment provided by the
Residential Wiring Agreement and the Inside
Agreement which were unilaterally changed by
us if the Union so requests.
WE WILL honor and give retroactive effect
from June I, 1977, to all of the terms and condi-
tions of the Residential Wiring Agreement and
the Inside Agreement, and make whole its em-
ployees for losses they may have suffered by rea-
son of its failure to honor and apply the terms of
the Residential Wiring Agreement and the Inside
Agreement, together with interest.
WE WFl. . offer Daniel Brown, Danny Crobbe,
238 NI.RB No. 3
37
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Richard Cunningham, Ray Olsson, Richard
Torchia, and Mark Wactor immediate and full
reinstatement to their former positions of em-
ployment or, if those positions are no longer
available, to substantially equivalent positions of
employment, without prejudice to their seniority
or any other rights and privileges, and make the
above-named individuals whole for any loss of
wages and benefits they may have suffered by
reason of their unlawful discharges.
WE WI L make all payments to pension, wel-
fare, and other funds plus interest, on behalf of
those employees in the unit for whom we would
have continued had we fully complied with said
contracts of August 9. 1976.
AMADO ELECTRIC, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. BARKER, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me at Tucson, Arizona, on January 26,
1978, pursuant to a complaint and notice of hearing issued
on August 25, 1977, by the Regional Director of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board for Region 28.' The com-
plaint is based on a charge filed on July 26 by Local Union
No. 570, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union, and alleges viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the
Act. The parties were accorded full opportunity to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, introduce relevant evidence,
and to present oral argument. The parties waived oral argu-
ment and timely filed briefs with me.2
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the briefs of
the parties, and my observations of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
At all times material herein, Respondent has been a cor-
poration duly organized under the laws of the State of Ari-
zona engaged as an electrical contractor in the building and
construction industry. The Respondent concedes, and I
find, that in the calendar year preceding the issuance of the
I Unless otherwise specified, all dates herein refer to the calendar year
1977.
2 In its post-hearing brief, Respondent recommended that the hearing be
reopened for evidence to be presented concerning its motives relating to the
alleged violations of the Act. During the hearing, Respondent was afforded
ample opportunity to develop evidence of this nature in an offer of proof of
relevancy and materiality. Respondent's offer of proof was rejected as irrele-
vant and immaterial to the issues in the case. For the same reasons, I find no
basis for reopening the record herein.
On March 6, 1978, the counsel for the General Counsel made a motion to
correct the record. As the motion was opposed by neither Respondent nor
the Charging Party, the corrections contained therein are hereby granted and
incorporated, sua sponte, into the record as ALJ Exh. 1.
complaint herein, Respondent, in the normal course and
conduct of its business operations, purchased and received
goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 from suppli-
ers which received goods and materials at their Tuscon,
Arizona, facilities directly from enterprises located in States
of the United States other than the State of' Arizona.)
Upon these facts, I find that at all times material herein,
Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
11. IHE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVO.VED D
I find that Local Union No. 570, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR ILABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The principal issues in this proceeding are: (I) whether
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
repudiating its collective-bargaining agreements with the
Union, by refusing to bargain with the Union as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of its bargaining unit em-
ployees and, by unilaterally changing the terms and condi-
tions of employment; and, (2) whether Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Daniel
Brown, Danny Crobbe, Richard Cunningham, Ray Olsson,
Richard Torchia, and Mark Wactor and by failing and re-
fusing to reinstate or offer to reinstate them to their same or
substantially equivalent positions because they were union
members.'
B. Pertinent Facts5
1. Background facts
Antonio C. Amado has been Respondent's president and
sole shareholder since it was formed approximately 3 years
ago. Prior to that, he was a business partner in Amado-
Nigro Electric, and before that was a member of the Union
for nearly 7 years.
On August 9, 1976, Amado signed, as owner of Respon-
dent, two "Letters of Assent-A" authorizing the Saguaro
Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association,
Inc., herein called NECA-SC, to represent Respondent in
collective bargaining.6 This extended authority to NECA-
SC to represent Respondent on all matters deriving either
from the Inside Labor Agreement or the Residential Wiring
Labor Agreement between NECA-SC and the Union. By
signing the Letters of Assent-A, Amado bound Respondent
' The credited testimony of Antonio Amado and Sandra Wisniewski, and
fully warranted statistical projections deriving therefrom, fully support this
finding.
4 The discharge of a seventh employee, Joe Inocencio, was not an issue in
this proceeding.
' These factual findings are based upon the undisputed testimony of Ama-
do, including statements from his affidavit which he adopted during the
hearing.
6 it is undisputed that while Respondent paid yearly dues to NECA-SC,
Respondent was not a member of the Association.
38
AMADO ELECTRIC. INC.
to the terms and conditions of employment contained in the
two agreements, which were to be in eflect from June I,
1976, through May 31, 1978, and from June 20. 1976,
through June 19, 1978, for the Inside and Residential Wir-
ing Agreements, respectively. These agreements contained
exclusive-referral provisions and recognition clauses recog-
nizing the Union "as the exclusive representative for all of
[the employer's] employees performing work within the ju-
risdiction of the Union .... "
From August 9, 1976, through June 1, 1977, Respondent
used the Union's hiring hall to obtain employees, paid
union-scale wages to its union employees, and made contri-
butions to the Union's benefit funds as required by the la-
bor agreements.
By late May Respondent's work force of electricians con-
sisted of six employees, the alleged discriminatees herein.
and a foreman. Amado knew these electricians to be mem-
bers of the Union or to be represented by the Union under
the terms of the then viable collective-bargaining agree-
ments.
2. The alleged unlawful conduct
Late in May Amado concluded that Respondent could
no longer operate as a union contractor due to the competi-
tion it faced from nonunion contractors. Consequently,
Amado decided to withdraw Respondent from its contrac-
tual affiliation with the Union. Respondent was actively
engaged in at least two work projects in Tucson at the time.
On June 1, Amado approached the alleged discrimi-
natees while they were working at various jobsites. Amado
handed each employee an envelope which contained the
employee's payroll check and a termination notice effective
immediately. Each notice stated that the reason for the ter-
mination was, "Withdrawal-570 Affiliation." Amado then
detailed to the employees some of the reasons for his action.
He told them that Respondent was having economic prob-
lems and could not compete with nonunion contractors and
that Respondent could no longer afford to pay union scale
wages. He also said he felt it was unfair that the Union had
not organized more nonunion contractors.,
On the same day, Amado sent a letter to the Union
which stated, "We are hereby notifying you that Amado
Electric, Inc. is withdrawing from any affiliation with Local
Union 570." This withdrawal, as with the terminations
mentioned above, was intended by Amado to become effec-
tive immediately. Respondent ceased making contributions
to the Union's benefit funds on or about June 1. Amado
had served no notice upon the Federal Mediation and Con-
ciliation Service advising of the existence of a labor dispute
or that Respondent was terminating the agreement with the
Union.
One or two days later, Respondent hired nonunion re-
placement workers who completed the jobs then in pro-
gress. These replacements were not obtained through the
7 In its rejected offer of proof, Respondent sought to develop evidence
relating to subjective reasons for its own decision to withdraw from its con-
tractual arrangement with the Union. These reasons relative to the asserted
failure of the Union to refer a sufficient number of minority workmen, al-
leged complaints from general contractors concerning the poor quality of
work performed by the discnminatees, and averrals of violations of criminal
laws by employees on the job.
Union's hiring hall nor were they paid union wage scales.'
Since June I Respondent has not reinstated or offered to
reinstate any of the alleged discriminatees to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, nor has Respondent
complied with any terms of the pertinent labor agreements
between NECA-SC and the Union.
On June 3 the Union dispatched a letter to Respondent
demanding, in effect, that Respondent comply with its con-
tractual commitments with the Union. Thereafter, on June
8, pursuant to provisions of the collective-bargaining agree-
ments, a Joint Conference Meeting was convened which
was attended by representatives of NECA-SC and the
Union. Amado was present. After due deliberation follow-
ing the introduction of evidence, exhibits, and responses by
Amado, Amado was declared guilty, inter alia, of violating
the recognition and exclusive referral clause of the Agree-
ments and of failing to send the required 120-day-notice
letter advising of Respondent's intention to terminate the
Agreements.
IV. ANAt YSIS ANI) ( ON( ILUSIONS
I. Respondent's alleged refusal to bargain
As the record establishes, Respondent, an electrical con-
tractor in the construction industry, entered into the Letters
of Assent-A on August 9, 1976, and thus, bound itself to the
terms and conditions contained in the NECA-SC and
Union contracts. It is beyond doubt, and I find, that these
contracts were 8(f) or prehire agreements being, ". . .
merely a preliminary step that contemplates further action
for the development of a full bargaining relationship . . ."9
Under this type of agreement, "The employer's duty to bar-
gain and honor the contract is contingent on the union at-
taining majority support.... "
The conclusion compelled by the record evidence, and
fully warranted inferences to be drawn therefrom, is that,
over a period of 9 months subsequent to August 9, 1976,
during which time the Respondent relied exclusively upon
the auspices of the Union's hiring hall as the source of its
work force, the prehire agreement matured into a full bar-
gaining relationship, as contemplated by Section 8(f). Fully
supportive of this conclusion, is the testimony of Amado
that, at the point in time most crucial to the issues here
under scrutiny, his entire work complement of electricians
elected to suffer termination at his hands rather than work
in a nonunion shop. The implications of this decision on the
part of the employees in question, comprising the then en-
tire work complement of rank-and-file employees in Re-
spondent's employ, cannot be ignored and warrants a find-
ing, which I make, that at relevant times prior to June 1, the
Union commanded a numerical majority among Respon-
dent's unit employees denyving either from their actual
s Amado testified that the replacements were paid more than or less than
union scale wages depending on their knowledge of the electrical trade. For
a journeyman electrician. Respondent paid S1.50 to $2 per hour below the
union scale.
9 Ruttman Construction Companv, and Ruatman, Corporation, Joint Emplo -
ers, 191 NLRB 701, 702 (1971).
1' See N. L R.B. v. Loal Uniom N. 103, Inrernatrional Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL -CIO (Higdon Contracting
Co.) 434 U.S. 335 (1978)
39
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union membership of employees or their own voluntary
adoption of the Union as their chosen bargaining represent-
ative." The Union having attained majority status at a
point in time during the term of the viable collective-bar-
gaining agreements, Respondent was under an obligation
thereafter to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
employees' exclusive representative." Consistent with the
existence of union majority status was Respondent's own
practice of not only using the union hiring hall for em-
ployee referrals, as noted, but of paying union scale wages
to its unit employees, and making contributions to the var-
ious benefit funds as required by the labor agreements.
Consequently, in all the described circumstances, I find that
the 8(f) agreements ripened into traditional, collective-bar-
gaining agreements to which Respondent was bound.
Unilateral, midterm modification or repudiation of a col-
lective-bargaining agreement and withdrawal of recognition
of the Union as the representative of the unit employees,
have traditionally been held by the Board to be violations
of Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act."'
The record shows, and I find, that Respondent on and
after June I failed to accord requisite Section 8(d) notice to
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and repu-
diated its collective-bargaining agreements with the Union,
and has since refused to honor and abide by the terms and
conditions therein. I further find that Respondent has, since
June 1, unilaterally modified the terms and conditions of
employment and has discontinued its payments to the var-
ious benefit funds. I also find that Respondent has, since on
and after June 1, refused to recognize and bargain with the
Union as the collective-bargaining representative of its unit
employees.
On the basis of the foregoing and in accordance with the
precedence cited herein, I find that Respondent has acted in
derogation of its bargaining obligation under Section 8(d)
and has engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act.
2. The alleged discriminatory discharges
Respondent acknowledges, and I find that on June 1, it
discharged employees Daniel Brown, Danny Crobbe, Rich-
ard Cunningham, Ray Olsson, Richard Torchia, and Mark
Wactor.
" Cf. David F. Irvin and James B. McKelvey, Partners, d/b/a The Irvin-
McKelvy Company, 194 NLRB 52 (1971), enfd. in part 475 F.2d 1265 (C.A.
3, 1973). The redundancy of adjectival terminology is intentional, for the
instant record forecloses the notion that, in late May, the Union possessed
representative status only as a consequence of the acquiescence or sufferance
but not free choice of unit employees. In this regard, I have considered the
credited admissions of Amado made on the record and have drawn permis-
sible inferences arising therefrom, measured in the context of industrial reali-
ties. Moreover, in its answer, Respondent admitted that, "lalt all times mate-
rial herein, the Union has been the representative of the Respondent's
employees in the unit . .. and, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been
and is now the exclusive representative of the employees in said unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining ... "
12 See, e.g., Davis Industres, Inc.; Stag Construction, Inc.; and Add Miles,
Inc., 232 NLRB 946 (1977).
}" See, e.g., Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Company, 202 NLRB 614, 207
NLRB 1063, 1064 (1973), enfd. 505 F.2d 1302 (C.A.5, 1974): Davis Indus-
tries, Inc., supra.
The record indicates, and I find, that Respondent dis-
charged its union employees because, as Amado testified,
"... [Respondent] was going non-union" and because Ama-
do knew that the employees, as union members, could not
work for Respondent if it operated as a nonunion contrac-
tor. The record further indicates, and I find, that Respon-
dent has not offered the above-named individuals reinstate-
ment to their former or to substantially equivalent
positions.
In so doing, it is clear, and I find, that Respondent dis-
criminated against its unit employees in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or terms and conditions of employ-
ment because the discriminatees joined or assisted the
Union or engaged in other union or concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining.
Consequently, I find that Respondent engaged in con-
duct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
V. TH1E EFF1ECiT OF THE UNFAIR LAB()R PRA('CI'I(ES UPON
(OMMERC E
The activities of Respondent, as set forth in sections III
and IV, above, occurring in connection with the operations
of Respondent, described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has committed certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l),
(3), and (5) of the Act, it will be recommended that Respon-
dent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent, in derogation of its
statutory obligation, unilaterally reduced the wage rates of
its employees during the term of the collective-bargaining
contract covering the employees involved, I recommend
that the Respondent be directed specifically to restore the
wage rates in effect prior to such unilateral action and to
refrain from making unilateral changes in wages, rates of
pay, or other terms and conditions of employment of its
employees in the below-described appropriate unit during
the term of the contract without first reaching agreement
with the Union concerning such contemplated changes.
Further, I recommend that the Respondent make whole the
employees in the below-described appropriate unit for any
losses they may have suffered as a result of the unilateral
reduction in wage rates, and include thereon interest as cal-
culated in accordance with present Board policy.
Having found that Respondent discharged Daniel
Brown, Danny Crobbe, Richard Cunningham, Ray Olsson,
Richard Torchia, and Mark Wactor because they were
members of the Union and having further found that Re-
spondent has failed and refused to reinstate the discrimi-
natees to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
thereby engaging in conduct violative of Section 8(a)( ) and
(3) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent offer the
40
AMADO ELECTRIC, INC
above-named individuals immediate and full reinstatement
to their former positions of employment, or if said positions
are no longer available, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges to which they may be entitled. I shall also recom-
mend that Respondent make whole the discriminatees for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them. Backpay shall be computed in
the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), together with interest thereon in accord-
ance with the policy of the Board, set forth in Florida Steel
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).' 4
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the fol-
lowing:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amado Electric, Inc., is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. Local Union No. 570, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times material herein, the Union has been the
exclusive bargaining representative of all employees em-
ployed by Respondent engaged in residential and commer-
cial electrical work, excluding guards, watchmen, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act and said employees comprise
an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein, the Union has requested
that Respondent recognize and bargain with it as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the employees
referred to above in paragraph 3 with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment of such employees.
5. By repudiating the collective-bargaining agreements
to which it was bound, by refusing to honor and abide by
the terms of these agreements, by unilaterally changing the
terms and conditions of employment, and by refusing to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit, Respondent engaged in conduct violative
of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 8(d) of the Act.
6. By discharging Daniel Brown, Danny Crobbe, Rich-
ard Cunningham, Ray Olsson, Richard Torchia, and Mark
Wactor because they were members of the Union and by
failing and refusing to reinstate them to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, Respondent has engaged
in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
14 See, generally, Isii Plumbing & Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
ORDER 15
Respondent Amado Electric, Inc., its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to abide by the terms and conditions of the
two collective-bargaining agreements entered into with the
Union on August 9, 1976.
(b) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively con-
cerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment, with Local Union No. 570, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL CIO,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees
in the following appropriate unit:
All employees employed by the Respondent engaged
in residential and commercial electrical work, exclud-
ing guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(c) Unilaterally changing wage rates, terms, and condi-
tions of employment of employees in the above-described
appropriate unit, during the term of union contracts with-
out first reaching agreement with the Union about such
changes.
(d) Discharging its employees because they are members
of the Union and failing and refusing to reinstate such em-
ployees to their former or substantially equivalent positions.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing any employee in the exercise of the right to engage
in self-organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing or to act together for col-
lective bargaining or mutual aid or protection or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain with the Union
for employees in the appropriate unit described above as
required by the two contracts between Respondent and the
Union signed August 9, 1976.
(b) Upon request, rescind any and all unilateral changes
Respondent made on and after June 1., 1977. in Respon-
dent's wages, wage rates, and other terms and conditions of
employment during the effective period of the two contracts
signed by Respondent and the Union on August 9, 1976.
(c) Restore and place in effect all terms and conditions of
employment provided by the Residential Wiring Agree-
ment and the Inside Agreement which were unilaterally
changed by Respondent if the Union so requests.
(d) Honor and give retroactive effect from June 1, 1977,
to all of the terms and conditions of the Residential Wiring
Agreement and the Inside Agreement, and make whole its
employees for losses they may have suffered by reason of its
failure to honor and apply the terms of the Residential Wir-
ing Agreement and Inside Agreement, together with inter-
est as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
15 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.
41
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
716 (1962), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977).
(e) Offer Daniel Brown, Danny Crobbe, Richard Cun-
ningham, Ray Olsson, Richard Torchia, and Mark Wactor
immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions
of employment or, if those positions are no longer available.
to substantially equivalent positions of employment, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make the above-named individuals whole for any
loss of wages and benefits they may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against them, in accordance with the
recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled, "The Remedy."
(f) Make all payments to the pension, welfare, and other
funds on behalf of the unit employees as would have been
required under the terms of the Residential Wiring Agree-
ment and the Inside Agreement, but for Respondent's uni-
lateral and illegal repudiation of those agreements with the
Union on June 1, 1977.
(g) 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 to analyze the amount of backpay and other benefits
due under this recommended Order.
(h) Post at its principal place of business in Tucson, Ari-
zona, copies of the attached notice marked, "Appendix."' 6
Copies of said notice on forms to be provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 28, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representatives, shall be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily placed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(i) Notify the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board for Region 28. in writing, within 20 days of
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.
16 In the event that 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."
42