Emery's Tin Shop

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1992

306 N.L.R.B. 693 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

693
306 NLRB No. 133
EMERY’S TIN SHOP
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard 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 The complaint was amended at the hearing to reflect the fol-
lowing corrections in name spelling:
Par. 6(a)—Reith corrected to Reitz.
Par. 10—Darrell corrected to Powell.
2 There is conflicting testimony regarding some of the allegations
of the complaint. In resolving these conflicts, I have taken into con-
sideration the apparent interests of the witnesses; the inherent prob-
abilities in light of other events; corroboration or lack of it; and con-
sistencies or inconsistencies within the testimony of each witness
and between the testimony of each and that of other witnesses with
similar apparent interests. In evaluating the testimony of each wit-
ness, I rely specifically on his demeanor and make my findings ac-
cordingly. And while apart from considerations of demeanor, I have
taken into account the above-noted credibility considerations, my
failure to detail each of these is not to be deemed a failure on my
part to have fully considered it. Bishop & Malco Inc., 159 NLRB
1159, 1161 (1966).
Emery’s Tin Shop, Inc. and Carpenters District
Council of Western Pennsylvania a/w United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL–CIO. Case 6–CA–22928
March 10, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
On October 15, 1991, Administrative Law Judge
Peter E. Donnelly issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a brief.
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 brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Emery’s Tin Shop, Inc.,
Brookville, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.
Sandra Levine, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Sharon L. Smith, Esq., of Brookville, Pennsylvania, for the
Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PETER E. DONNELLY, Administrative Law Judge. Original
and amended charges in the above case were filed by Car-
penters District Council of Western Pennsylvania a/w United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL–
CIO (Union or Charging Party), against Emery’s Tin Shop
(Employer or Respondent). A complaint thereon issued on
October 5, 1990, alleging that Respondent coerced its em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by certain
threats, interrogation, and other unlawful conduct. The com-
plaint also alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
of the act by discharging employees Byron Powell and Dal-
las Skinner.1 An answer thereto was timely filed by Re-
spondent. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the
administrative law judge on February 13, 1991. Briefs have
been timely filed by Respondent and General Counsel which
have been duly considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. EMPLOYER’S BUSINESS
Employer is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the in-
stallation and fabrication of roofing, heating, and sheet metal
products in Brookville, Pennsylvania. During the 12-month
period ending July 31, 1990, Respondent received products,
goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 at its
Brookville, Pennsylvania facility directly from points outside
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The complaint alleges, the answers admits, and I find that
the Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts2
1. Supervisory status of Sandra Reitz
Sandra Reitz is the wife of Bill Reitz, the owner. With re-
spect to the matter of her authority and duties, it appears that
she runs the shop office with the help of another female of-
fice employee. According to Bill Reitz, he assigns the work,
however, when a job is finished, Sandra Reitz has the author-
ity and, in fact, does assign employees to other waiting jobs,
according to their ability, to finish up their day’s work. Al-
though Bill Reitz testified that he was the only company offi-
cial with the authority to assign work, Sandra Reitz did not
testify at the hearing and I am satisfied that the testimony
of Powell and Skinner accurately describes Sandra Reitz’ su-
pervisory responsibilities. That authority, and the exercise of
that authority, together with the apparent authority she con-
veys as wife of the owner, are sufficient to satisfy me that
Sandra Reitz is an agent of the Respondent within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2) and (13) of the Act whose actions are
imputable to Respondent. In addition, it also appears, based
on the probative evidence set out above, that Sandra Reitz,
694 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 All dates refer to 1990 unless otherwise indicated. 4 The Union won the election.
on her own authority, assigns work to employees and is a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
2. Allegations of coercion and discrimination
As noted above, Respondent is a roofing contractor located
in Brookville, Pennsylvania. Respondent employs about 18
employees who operate in crews of varying numbers, de-
pending on the nature of the work. On about June 18, 1990,3
Powell was employed on a crew working in Franklin, Penn-
sylvania. The crew was approached by Richard Bunch, a spe-
cial representative for the Union, who inquired about their
interest in being represented by a union. On receiving an af-
firmative response, a meeting of Respondent’s employees
was arranged for June 25 at the L & B Tavern in Brookville.
This meeting, led by Bunch, was attended by some nine em-
ployees, including Powell and Skinner. All those in attend-
ance signed union authorization cards and returned them to
Bunch. A petition for election was filed by the Union on
June 28.
On June 26, the day following the meeting at the L & B
Tavern, Bill Reitz, Respondent’s principal owner, called a
meeting of employees at the shop. At this meeting, according
to Powell, Reitz told the assembled employees that the eco-
nomics of the areas would not support an organized oper-
ation; that he would not be able to compete; that if the busi-
ness were organized, it would be necessary for him to shut
down the business and that he had enough money and could
retire. He asked those present if they had attended a union
meeting; he asked where. Those who indicated that they had
were asked if they had signed a union authorization card.
Those questioned responded either affirmatively or nega-
tively.
Reitz’ version was that he told the employees that he had
no objection to the Union but that union wage rates were not
affordable in a small town and he asked them whether or not
their families could afford a union wage rate for their serv-
ices. Whatever else Reitz may have said to the employees,
the corroborated testimony of Powell, Skinner, and ex-em-
ployee John White satisfy me that Powell’s account is essen-
tially credible.
Prior to the Union’s organizational effort, Powell was paid
an hourly rate of $8 per hour. In early July, after the petition
had been filed and the election was pending, Powell was told
by Bill Reitz that he was being given a raise to $9 an hour
for being helpful to management and showing leadership
qualities. About 2 weeks later, Reitz told Powell that because
of his improving skills and leadership, he was being given
another $1 raise to $10 per hour and that another employee,
Carl Deibler, was also being raised to $10 per hour, adding
that his raise was not to influence his vote in the upcoming
union election, but rather because of his skills in leadership.
It is undisputed that there was no regular basis for wage re-
views or granting wage increases. Reitz concedes granting
Powell a wage increase, although Powell never actually re-
ceived it because he was working on a ‘‘prevailing wage
rate’’ job at the time which paid more than $10 an hour and
he was discharged before actually receiving the increases in
his pay.
Similarly, Skinner was also told by Reitz that he was
going to receive a raise to $8.50 per hour; that he deserved
it and that it had nothing to do with the Union. At the same
time, Skinner’s unrebutted testimony discloses that Reitz
added that he thought that he and Powell were the ‘‘instiga-
tors of this whole union affair and we had better stop ral-
lying the troops or he was going to have to let us go.’’ The
parties stipulated that company payroll records do not indi-
cate that Skinner was given a pay increase. Like Powell,
Skinner testified that he was being paid more on a ‘‘pre-
vailing wage rate’’ job at the time of the increase, and was
discharged before receiving the increase in his pay. With re-
spect to Skinner, I am satisfied, having reviewed the relevant
testimony, that Reitz did advise Skinner that he would be re-
ceiving a wage increase. John White also testified that about
2 weeks before the election, he was given a wage increase
to $4.50 per hour. Except as to Skinner, Reitz concedes
granting wage increases to employees based on merit.
In late July or early August, White was working at the
shop premises with Jess Barnett, another employee. They
were engaged by Sandy Reitz in conversation. Reitz asked
them how they planned to vote at the upcoming election.
Barnett replied that he was going to vote against the Union
and White stated that he did not know yet. Reitz went on
to tell them that if the Union were elected, her husband,
Owner Bill Reitz, would have to shut the doors or retire be-
cause they would not be able to get the high prices they
would have to charge for their work if they were unionized.
During this same conversation, Reitz also advised them that
work would be reduced because union organization would
force them to raise their prices. This testimony is unrebutted
since neither Barnett nor Sandy Reitz testified at the hearing.
The election was held on August 8 from 7 to 7:30 a.m.,
preceded by a preelection conference attended by Powell as
the union observer, Sandy Reitz as the company observer,
the Board agent, and Bill Reitz. The Union was represented
by Dick Bunch and two other union officials. Bill Reitz ad-
dressed the union representatives, telling them that they were
trespassing on private property and that if they did not leave,
he would call the police and have them arrested, whereupon
the Board agent told Reitz that they were entitled to be there
until the vote began, and they did remain.
After the election and following the tally of ballots,4 Reitz
called the employees into his office. He announced to those
assembled that there had been thefts from the Company and
that he was firing Powell and Skinner for those thefts. Fur-
ther, that anyone who wanted could join them in unemploy-
ment or could go to work. Powell and Skinner waited to re-
ceive their paychecks and then left the premises. It also ap-
pears, according to Sergeant Donald Siple of the Brookville
Police Department that shortly before 8 a.m., Bill Reitz
called the police station requesting a police officer at the
premises because he intended to fire two employees and that
there might be trouble. An officer was dispatched. Shortly
thereafter, Siple received a telephone call from Sandra Reitz.
Siple testified, ‘‘She indicated to me that she wanted me to
reinstitute charges against Byron Powell and Dallas Skinner
and I asked her what for and at that time she said they were
very instrumental in getting a union vote and that if they
were going to cause Bill problems, Bill is going to cause
695EMERY’S TIN SHOP
5 By way of background, it appears that on the previous May 24,
following the theft of some roofing materials from a job where Pow-
ell and Skinner were employed, valued at $376.34, an investigation
was conducted by Siple which implicated Powell and another em-
ployee, Randy Carpenter, in the theft. No charges were filed, how-
ever, and Powell and Skinner continued to work for Respondent
until their discharges on August 8.
6 Powell testified that he paid the fine and costs rather than defend
against the charges because any attorney would cost him more than
the fine.
them problems.’’5 On August 9, Powell was notified of pri-
vate criminal charges filed against him. On December 14,
Powell pleaded nolo contendere to a misdemeanor charge of
theft by unlawful taking and was fined $150 and costs of
$66.6 Private criminal charges against Skinner were dropped
during a preliminary hearing before a magistrate.
In late August, a couple of weeks after the election, Skin-
ner was called at home by Bill Reitz. According to Skinner,
they discussed the Union being in the shop and Reitz told
him that if he were willing to sign a paper disavowing the
Union; that he did not know what he was signing, he could
return to work and the criminal charges would be dropped.
Skinner responded that he was willing to return to work but
would not sign anything. Reitz denied that the conversation
ever took place. However, I credit Skinner’s testimony in
this regard based on a review of the relevant testimony and
the credibility criteria set out above.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The 8(a)(1) allegations of coercion
Having credited the General Counsel’s witnesses con-
cerning Bill Reitz’ address to the employees on June 26, I
further conclude that these remarks constitute coercion within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. There can be no
doubt that threatening to close a plant if it selects union rep-
resentation is a threat of imminent job loss and the
nonspecific statements by Reitz to the effect that the ex-
penses of being organized would require him to close do not
insulate those remarks. It was also clearly unlawful interroga-
tion for Reitz to have questioned employees about their at-
tendance at a union meeting and the signing of union author-
ization cards.
I have concluded that in late June, Bill Reitz told Skinner
that he believed that he and Powell were the instigators of
the union organizational effort. This remark does, in fact,
suggest that the union activities of both Skinner and Powell
were under surveillance. This is the natural inference to be
drawn from that remark since that would be the obvious way
to obtain information about Skinner and Powell as ‘‘instiga-
tors.’’ During this same conversation, Bill Reitz told Skinner
that he and Powell had better stop rallying the troops or face
discharge. This is a clear threat of termination for exercising
the organizational rights guaranteed to employees in Section
7 of the Act.
It is undisputed that wage raises were given to employees
during the Union’s organizational campaign and that wage
increases were not granted on any regular basis. Despite Re-
spondent’s contention that the raises were unrelated to union
organizational activity, there is an obvious inference that Re-
spondent is the source of this benefit and has the power to
withdraw such benefits in the event that Respondent’s inter-
ests are not satisfied. The granting of such wage increases
violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. As to Sandra Reitz’ con-
versation with White in early August, it is undisputed that
Reitz asked White and another employee how they planned
to vote and that higher prices occasioned by the union orga-
nization would cause her husband to close or retire and result
in reduced work for the employees. These interrogations and
threats to close or reduce the work being done were unlawful
and coercive since, like similar remarks made by her hus-
band earlier, both constitute interference with the organiza-
tional rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.
Moving to August 8, at the preelection conference, Bill
Reitz threatened to arrest and prosecute the union officials
who were there for the preelection conference. However, the
record discloses that on advice from the Board agent con-
ducting the election that they were entitled to remain until
the election began at 7 a.m., Reitz acquiesced and they were
allowed to remain. In my opinion, these remarks, despite the
presence of a unit employee, were not coercive and did not
interfere with the organizational rights of employees guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
After the election, Bill Reitz offered to reemploy Skinner
and drop the criminal charges against him in exchange for
his renunciation of the Union. Such inducements offered to
employees unlawfully interfere with the Section 7 rights of
employees to join, assist, and bargain through labor organiza-
tions.
2. The discharges of Powell and Skinner
The General Counsel contends that Powell and Skinner
were discharged because they were active union supporters.
The Respondent argues that their union activities were unre-
lated to their discharges and that their discharges were occa-
sioned by their thievery. In my opinion, the reason advanced
by the Respondent is a pretext and, in fact, both Powell and
Skinner were discharged because of their union activity.
The record discloses that Powell and Skinner were among
the first group who signed union authorization cards at a
union meeting on June 25. Respondent became aware of
their union sentiments almost at once because in a meeting
with employees on the following day, he unlawfully interro-
gated them and they truthfully acknowledged their desire to
bring in a union. Thereafter followed several instances of un-
lawful conduct by which Respondent, through its owner and
his wife, unlawfully interfered with the organizational rights
of employees, notably Powell and Skinner, and evidenced a
clear antiunion bias.
On election day, immediately after the ballots were tallied,
at a meeting of employees, Bill Reitz discharged Powell and
Skinner, allegedly for theft of company materials which oc-
curred on the previous May 23, well before the election and
before the start of any union organizational effort among Re-
spondent’s employees. One must ask, why, even assuming
that Powell and Skinner were involved in the theft, Reitz
would allow them to continue working without filing crimi-
nal charges against them and then discharge them after they
became active union supporters in a campaign that produced
a union victory at the polls, and just minutes after learning
that the Union had won. The timing of the discharges, stand-
ing alone, suggests that retaliation was the motive, but apart
696 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7 The postelection offer to rehire Skinner and withdraw the crimi-
nal charges against him in return for his rejecting the Union suggests
that Reitz did not regard the thefts as a bar to employment, thus sug-
gesting that antiunion considerations motivated the discharges.
8 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980).
9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended 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 purposes.
from that, Respondent has provided no satisfactory expla-
nation for its conduct.
Respondent attempts to justify its position by contending
that Reitz did not want to discharge them until after the elec-
tion because it did not want to give the appearance of having
discharged them for union activity. This does explain, how-
ever, why, if they were thieves, they were not discharged at
the time of the thievery. The thievery was, in fact, con-
doned.7 The union organizational effort had not begun at the
time of the theft. There was no need at that time to avoid
the appearance of unlawful discharges that Respondent con-
tends that it feared. The union organizational effort did not
begin until some weeks later. Respondent also contends that
Powell and Skinner were allowed to work, despite the thefts,
out of deference to the fact that Powell’s brother was his
son-in-law, but that despite this compassion, thefts of com-
pany property continued. The record, however, apart from
Bill Reitz’ testimony, is totally devoid of any probative evi-
dence to show either that the thefts did, in fact, continue and
much less that either Powell or Skinner were responsible for
them.
Finally, there exists direct evidence establishing the real
motive for the discharges. In late June, Bill Reitz identified
Powell and Skinner, as noted above, as the instigators of the
union campaign and warned them to stop ‘‘rallying the
troops’’ or face discharge. Again, it is unrebutted that Sandra
Reitz, in seeking to revive the charges against Powell and
Skinner, explained to Sergeant Siple that it was being done
in retaliation for their union efforts. These events establish
a clear antiunion motivation on the part of Respondent in
discharging Powell and Skinner.
In applying the mandatory Wright Line8 rationale to the
instant case, it is apparent that the General Counsel has met
its burden of making a prima facie showing to support the
inference that the union activity of Powell and Skinner was
a motivating factor in Respondent’s decision to discharge
them. I further conclude that Respondent has not met its bur-
den of demonstrating that it would have discharged them
even in the absence of their union activity. Accordingly, I
conclude that Powell and Skinner were discharged because
of their union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
ON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III above,
occurring in connection with the Respondent’s operations de-
scribed in section I above, have a close and intimate relation-
ship to traffic and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found
that Respondent discharged Byron Powell and Dallas Skinner
for reasons which offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that Re-
spondent make them whole for any loss of pay they may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced
against them. All backpay and reimbursement provided, with
interest, shall be computed in the manner described in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), and
F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Sandra Reitz is an agent of Respondent within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act and a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
4. By coercing and interfering with the organizational
rights of its employees, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By discharging Byron Powell and Dallas Skinner, Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended9
ORDER
The Respondent, Emery’s Tin Shop, Inc., Brookeville,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with discharge if they select
union representation.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union mem-
bership, activities, and sympathies.
(c) Creating the impression among employees that their
union activities are under surveillance.
(d) Threatening employees with discharge if they do not
withdraw their support for the Union.
(e) Promising to rehire employees and withdraw criminal
charges against employees in return for their written renunci-
ation of the Union.
(f) Threatening employees with reduced employment if
they select union representation.
(g) Granting wage increases to employees to discourage
them from exercising their right to select union representa-
tion.
(h) Discharging employees in order to discourage their
membership in or activities on behalf of Carpenters District
Council of Western Pennsylvania a/w United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL–CIO.
697EMERY’S TIN SHOP
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.’’
(i) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Byron Powell and Dallas Skinner immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent employment, and
make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered
as a result of the discrimination practiced against them in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(b) Expunge from its files any references to the discharges
of Byron Powell and Dallas Skinner, and notify them in writ-
ing that this has been done and that evidence of their unlaw-
ful discharges will not be used as a basis for future personnel
action against them.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its facilities at Brookville, Pennsylvania, copies
of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’10 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 6, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places, including places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken
to comply.
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 vio-
lated 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
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge if they
select union representation.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their
union membership, activities, and sympathies.
WE WILL NOT create the impression among employees that
their union activities are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge if they
do not withdraw their support for the Union.
WE WILL NOT promise to rehire employees and withdraw
criminal charges against employees in return for their written
renunciation of the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with reduced employ-
ment if they select union representation.
WE WILL NOT grant wage increases to employees to dis-
courage them from exercising their right to select union rep-
resentation.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees in order to discourage
their membership in or activities on behalf of Carpenters Dis-
trict Council of Western Pennsylvania a/w United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL–CIO.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Byron Powell and Dallas Skinner imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent employment,
and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them.
WE WILL expunge from our files any references to the dis-
charges of Byron Powell and Dallas Skinner, and notify them
in writing that this has been done and that evidence of their
unlawful discharges will not be used as a basis for future
personnel action against them.
EMERY’S TIN SHOP, INC.