Floyd Epperson

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 23 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

FLOYD EPPERSON 23
Floyd Epperson and United Dairy Farmers, Inc.
Charles R. Dorset Case 9-CA-6882
and United, the products are delivered in United's
March 1, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On November 16, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Ivar H. Peterson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Floyd Epperson
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General
Counsel filed limited exceptions with a brief in
support thereof and an answering 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
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
only to the extent consistent herein.
The Administrative Law Judge found, and we
agree, that Floyd Epperson, hereinafter referred to as
Epperson, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when
he discharged employees Archie Ball, Bob Rumpke,
Charles Dorsel, and Tom Thomas because of their
concerted efforts to improve their working condi-
tions. The Administrative Law Judge also found that
United Dairy Farmers, Inc.,' hereinafter referred to
as United, is not a joint employer of these employees,
and he therefore recommended that the complaint be
dismissed as to United.2 While we do not disagree
with most of the Administrative Law Judge's factual
findings,3 in our opinion those facts, as amplified
below, readily support a determination that United is
a joint employer of Epperson's drivers and, as such,
is equally liable for the unlawful conduct herein.
Briefly stated, the record discloses that United is
engaged in the processing, distribution, and retail
sale of dairy and other food products. Through an
oral arrangement, Epperson makes deliveries of
products which United's own drivers are unable to
handle. Although Epperson's drivers usually drive
tractors owned by Epperson or leased by him from
' The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently failed to specifically find
that Epperson and United are employers within the meaning of the Act. In
view of the evidence as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision, we correct that error and conclude that Epperson and United are
employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
2 In so doing the Administrative Law Judge cited Fleet Transport
Company, Inc., 196 NLRB No. 61, as involving a question of joint employer
status . However , we note that Fleet actually presented a question of whether
certain individuals were independent contractors or employees, and did not
involve a joint employer issue.
trailers. The record shows-that Richard Armstrong,
United's transportation manager and the "boss" of
Epperson's drivers, posts the schedules and has the
authority to modify . them and call the drivers
directly. Armstrong has also contacted the drivers at
their destination points and has given them new
instructions regarding return runs. Drivers Thomas
and Ball testified that they had been instructed to
telephone Armstrong in case of delays or break-
downs, which they did, and Thomas stated that he
had used United's tire service many times. The
drivers for Epperson were allowed to use all the
employee facilities at United as well as United's
garage and equipment for the repair of Epperson's
vehicles. Furthermore, the record shows that Arm-
strong would inform the drivers of specific routes to
take when they had an overloaded trailer. In
November 1971, Armstrong told Epperson that the
Warsaw, Indiana, transfer station was complaining
because driver Dorsel's truck was constantly late; as
a result, Dorsel was replaced on that run. With
respect to wages, the facts show that Epperson
receives payments from United and pays the drivers;
in addition, after Epperson received a raise from
United, he raised the wages of the drivers.
In our opinion, the evidence indicates that both
Epperson and United take part in determining
matters governing essential terms and conditions of
employment of the drivers. While Epperson hires the
drivers and determines their rates of pay, United,
through increases to Epperson, has some indirect
control over their wages. United establishes the work
schedule of the drivers, has the authority to make
changes in the drivers' assignments, selects routes for
the drivers, and generally supervises the drivers in the
course of their employment. In addition, the Warsaw
incident suggests that United has some control, albeit
indirect, over driver discipline. In light of all the
circumstances, we find that Epperson and United are
joint employers of Epperson's drivers. Accordingly,
we find that both Epperson and United violated
Section 8(a)(1) by discharging the four above-named
drivers, and that both shall take the appropriate
action as ordered below.
3 We disagree with the Administrative Law Judge 's finding that
Armstrong could veto a prospective employee . While the record does show
that driver Dorsel discussed with Armstrong the amount of work Epperson
would have before Dorsel changed from a part -time to a full-time driver, the
record does not support the Administrative Law Judge 's finding that
Thomas had a conversation with Armstrong before he became employed. In
this regard , the testimony shows that, when Thomas closed his business in
Missouri , he contacted Epperson about a job and Epperson hired him.
Thomas testified that "after Mr. Epperson told me to come back here [to
Cincinnati ]," he spoke to Armstrong . In our opinion, these meager facts do
not support the finding that Armstrong had veto power over hiring.
202 NLRB No. 9
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondents,
Floyd Epperson and United Dairy Farmers, Inc.,
Cincinnati, Ohio, their officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
any employee for engaging in protected concerted
activities.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Archie Ball, Robert Rumpke, Charles
Dorsel, and Tom Thomas immediate reinstatement
to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make them whole in the manner set forth in the
section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at their respective premises in Cincinnati,
Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly
signed by Respondents' representative, shall be
posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondents have taken to comply
herewith.
4 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."
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 having found,
after a trial, that we violated Federal law by
discharging four employees because of their concert-
ed activity:
WE WILL offer Charles Dorsel, Wesley A.
Thomas, Robert L. Rumpke, and Archie Ball full
reinstatement, and pay them for the earnings they
lost as a result of their discharge, plus 6-percent
interest.
WE WILL NOT discharge or discriminate against
any employee for engaging in protected concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with our
employees' union activities.
FLOYD EPPERSON
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
UNITED DAIRY FARMERS,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room 2407,
550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone
513-684-3686.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IvAR H. PETERSON, Administrative Law Judge: I heard
this case in Cincinnati, Ohio, on August 29 and 30 and
September 6, 1972. Briefly stated, the complaint issued by
the General Counsel alleged that the two Respondents,
Floyd Epperson and United Dairy Farmers, Inc.; had
been, in effect, joint employers of the persons here
involved who had been, allegedly, terminated in violation
of the Act. These persons are: Charles R. Dorsel, Wesley
A. Thomas, Robert L. Rumpke, and Archie Ball.
At the hearing counsel for United Dairy Farmers, Inc.,
herein called United, moved that the complaint be
dismissed as to it on the ground that it was not a joint
employer of the four alleged discriminatees. I took this
motion under advisement and afforded the parties time to
file briefs with me. Counsel for both parties did file timely
FLOYD EPPERSON 25
briefs, and , on September 15, I denied the motion to
dismiss the complaint as to United.
The complaint , in substance , alleges that supervisors of
the Respondents engaged in conduct violative of the rights
of employees as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.'
Upon the basis of the record in the case and my
observation of the witnesses as they testified , and a careful
consideration of the briefs filed with me by counsel for all
the parties, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Epperson, a sole proprietorship, operates a trucking
business and has hauled merchandise for United since the
early part of 1971. During the 1971 calendar year,
Epperson received revenues of approximately $95,300 for
services rendered to United. This figure includes some
$22,000 received for hauling merchandise from Warsaw,
Indiana, to Ohio. In the year 1972, up to the date of the
hearing, his revenues received from United were some
$80,000, of which approximately $33,000 was derived from
operations in interstate commerce. During the year ending
July 2, 1972, Epperson made 406 trips hauling milk for
United from Warsaw, Indiana, to United's Ohio locations.
The record shows that each tank of milk hauled by
Epperson for United was valued at between $2,000 and
$3,000. It thus appears that the value of the milk hauled by
Epperson for United in interstate commerce was at least
$812,000 in a I-year period.
Each of the four alleged discnminatees testified, without
contradiction, that during their period of employment with
Epperson they hauled only merchandise belonging to or
destined for the use of United. Indeed, Epperson admitted
that during the calendar year 1971 he received 95 percent
of his gross revenue from services he performed for United,
and that from January 1, 1972, until the date of the
hearing, his business consisted exclusively of services
performed for United. Truckdriver Dorsel testified that
before accepting a full time job with Epperson he discussed
with Richard Armstrong, United's transportation manager,
the amount of work that would be made available to
Epperson by United. Truckdnver Thomas also had a
conversation with Armstrong before he became employed
by Epperson. It seems clear from the record that
Armstrong, if he chose to do so, could veto a prospective
Epperson employee. Drivers Thomas and Ball testified that
while working for Epperson they drove tractors belonging
to United about 25 percent of the time and that on such
occasions Armstrong would assign the tractor to be used
by them. Neil Woods, a witness called by United, testified
that two tractors owned by Epperson bear United signs. In
addition, Armstrong testified that United leases and
maintains the trailers pulled by Epperson employees and
also carries the insurance on the trailers and the merchan-
dise. The record is clear that Epperson's drivers had
standing instructions to call United in case of any
mechanical failure of a trailer they were pulling. Driver
Dorsel testified that he was told to check out United
trailers and to report any deficiencies to United . Further-
more , drivers Thomas and Ball testified that they had each
transferred equipment for United , that is, taking new
equipment to other locations and bringing equipment to
Cincinnati for repair . Thomas added that he received extra
compensation for these services from United through
Epperson , and Dorsel testified that he had been paid
directly by United's Armstrong for taking United trailers
to the wash rack. The fuel for Epperson's tractors was
obtained at United's facilities and United 's Armstrong and
Office Manager Wallace Underwood stated that credit was
extended to Epperson for the amount of the fuel used and
deductions were made from payments to Epperson for
services he rendered . In addition , drivers Ball and Rumpke
stated that they had parked Epperson's tractors on United
property between loads , including overnight.
Each of the alleged discriminatees testified that Epper-
son had told them that Armstrong was "the boss " and that
they should take whatever orders he gave them. Armstrong
drew up the schedules for the drivers and assigned them
their runs . He determined the times when runs were to
depart and posted the schedules next to his office at
United's plant. Armstrong testified that he could modify
the schedule by adding or canceling runs and in this regard
he would call Epperson's drivers directly. Moreover,
Armstrong got in touch with Epperson drivers at the
destination point of their runs, and would give them new
instructions which required changes in their return runs,
and on other occasions he has given further instructions to
the drivers with respect to picking up groceries , sometimes
entailing a wait of up to 6 hours for the return load.
Drivers Thomas and Dorsel were in daily communication
with Armstrong with respect to the times their loads were
to leave , sometimes calling the dairy for that information
and at other times receiving calls from Armstrong or other
United employees advising them when the trailer was
being loaded. Dorsel also testified that he was required to
fill out daily trip reports for United and turn these over to
Armstrong.
The drivers for Epperson were allowed to use all the
employee facilities at the dairy, such as the cafeteria,
lavatories , showers, and mechanical shops and also
obtained free ice cream. In addition , the record is clear that
the garage of United and equipment therein housed was
available for use in the repair of the equipment owned by
Epperson and, in fact, was so used. The work done on
Epperson equipment in United 's garage was performed
both by Epperson drivers and at least one United
mechanic.
Concerning the four alleged discriminatees , Armstrong
admitted to Board Agent Weir that he did not want
Epperson to rehire them. Armstrong testified that he did
not want the four drivers reemployed by Epperson because
it seemed to him that they were involved in a union. There
is credible testimony that Epperson told driver Ball, about
a week after the terminations , that he (Epperson) did not
think that United would permit him to reemploy Ball and
Rumpke. Epperson further testified that he "knew" that
United would not permit him to rehire Thomas and
I These are Floyd Epperson-owner of Respondent Epperson ; Richard Wallace Underwood-office manager for Respondent Dairy Farmers
Armstrong-transportation manager for Respondent Dairy Farmers, and
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dorsel. In this, Epperson admitted that he felt that he
should remove Dorsel from the Warsaw, Indiana, run
because of a suggestion made to him by Armstrong.
On the basis of these facts and circumstances, counsel
for the General Counsel concludes that the "unavoidable
conclusion" is that United and Epperson were and
continued to be joint employers of the alleged discrimina-
tees. He further asserts that this conclusion is "based
primarily upon the exercise of control over Epperson's
employees by agents and supervisors" of United. Because
of the "close connection of the four discnminatees with"
United's principal enterprise the management of United
"of necessity exercises close control over" the daily
workweek of the drivers "as a matter of economic
reality."2 Additionally, he states that the Board, with
approval by the courts, has found point employer status in
similar circumstances, and in support thereof cites Man-
power, Inc., of Shelby County, 164 NLRB 287 (1967).
Counsel for the General Counsel additionally argues that
the "complete economic dependence of Epperson in this
matter, by his own admissions and the financial records
furnished by him, establish that the continuation of his
business depends upon his economic association with"
United. In support of this contention the General Counsel
cites a number of cases.3 Counsel for the General Counsel,
addressing himself to the definition of the term "employee"
in Section 2(3) of the Act, wherein it is provided that the
term "employee" "shall not be limited to the employees of
a particular employer, unless the Act explicitly states
otherwise" argues that, in the light of Austin Company, 101
NLRB 1257 (1952), and the determinations made by the
Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Hearst Publication, Inc., 322
U.S. I11, and Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.L R.B., 313 U.S.
177, the foregoing interpretation of the term "employer"
ought to "apply to this situation wherein Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, not explicitly delimited by Congress, is involved."
In sum, counsel for the General Counsel contends that
the evidence in this record establishes that Respondent
United did, in fact, exercise "effective and real control over
the job rights of the four discharged drivers" and that
Epperson has a substantial community of interest with the
Respondent United which exercises "an economic power
over Respondent Epperson to which Epperson must yield."
On the other hand, Respondent Epperson and Respon-
dent United argue that the drivers involved are not
employees of Epperson but are independent contractors.
Respondent United, in its brief, considers a long series of
cases and concludes that United does not have the "right
of control" employees of Epperson and, accordingly,
cannot be held to be a joint employer with Epperson. He
correctly points out that each case involving the "joint
employer" issue must be decided on the individual facts of
the particular situation.
United owns and operates about 135 retail convenience
food markets and also operates a dairy and a processing
plant in Cincinnati. Epperson owns and operates about
four trucks. In effect, Epperson 's services for United
2 In support of this conclusion counsel cites the decision of the United
States Supreme Court in the Boire v The Greyhound Corp, 376 U S 473, in
which court stated "that the question of whether Greyhound possessed
sufficient control over the work of these employees and qualified as a joint
employer with Floors' is a question which is unaffected by any possible
consist in making deliveries of products which United's
own employees are unable to handle . Epperson provides
his own equipment , storage , drivers, insurance , operating
expenses , and all other items of expense involved in his
operation. The drivers who are employed by him are
compensated by him and in all other respects regulated by
him. He is responsible for complying with Federal and
state regulations and the payment of state and local taxes.
United issues schedules of the loads it desires Epperson
to deliver. The four drivers testified that they had been told
by Epperson that Armstrong was "the boss" and that they
should take whatever orders that he gave them . Armstrong
determined the times that all runs would depart and posted
schedules next to his office . In addition, Armstrong
modified the schedule by adding or canceling runs and on
those occasions he would call Epperson 's drivers directly.
Armstrong also contacted Epperson drivers at the destina-
tion point of their run and gave them new instructions
regarding the return run and on some occasions directed
the drivers to pick up groceries . Thomas and Dorsel
testified that they contacted Armstrong on a daily basis
concerning the times their loads were to leave by calling
the dairy directly or receiving calls from Armstrong or
other United employees . Dorsel testified that he was
required to fill out a daily trip report for United and turn
them over to Armstrong . Thomas and Ball testified that
they had been instructed to call Armstrong in any situation
involving a problem on the road such as delay or
breakdowns; in addition, Thomas has called Armstrong
for tire service on the truck he was driving . It is not
disputed that Epperson's drivers had been instructed to call
Armstrong directly for instructions involving an overload-
ed trailer , in which case Armstrong would inform them of
what route to take around the highway scales. In addition,
Dorsel testified that Armstrong told him the route he
should take to Warsaw, Indiana , so as to avoid the scales.
In November 1971, Armstrong expressed a desire that
Epperson replace Dorsel on the Warsaw run, and Epper-
son did so.
Thomas testified that he went to Armstrong to request an
increase in wages and driver Rumpke testified that he
discussed with Armstrong his desire to have taxes withheld
from his pay. Counsel for the General Counsel argues that
the fact that United "was the most was clearly demonstrat-
ed by the fact that only after Epperson was given an
significant factor in the employment situation of the
Epperson drivers increase in the rate paid him . . . did the
drivers receive an increase in pay."
Counsel for the General Counsel further points out that
Epperson drivers used all the employee facilities at the
dairy. Also, he points out that the United garage and the
equipment therein contained was available for use in the
repair of Epperson's equipment and was so used. Work
done on Epperson's equipment in United 's garage was
performed both by Epperson drivers and at least one
mechanic of United. However, it was contended that the
United mechanic was on his own time and in the employ of
determination as to Floors ' status as an independent contractor "
3 Hamburg Industries , Inc, 193 NLRB No 13, Troupe Leasing Co, 174
NLRB 200 (1969), Hoskins Ready-Mired Concrete, Inc, 161 NLRB 1492,
The Greyhound Corporation, 153 NLRB 1488 (1965), and Lowery Trucking
Co, 177 NLRB 13 (1969)
FLOYD EPPERSON 27
Epperson while working on the latter's equipment. Howev-
er, it is evident when so working the mechanic was using
equipment and facilities of United.
In his brief, counsel for United points to the Board's
decision in Cement Transport, Inc, 111 NLRB 175 (1955),
in which the Board held that two concerns were not joint
employers. Additionally, he relies on Reisch Truck &
Transportation Company, Inc, 143 NLRB 953 (1963). In
that case the Board stated that "the determination of
whether an individual is an independent contractor or an
employee under the amended Act requires the application
of the common law `right of control' test . Under this test,
an employer-employee relationship exists where the person
for whom the services are performed reserves the right to
control not only the end to be achieved but also the means
to be used in reaching such end. The resolution of this
question depends on the facts of each case and no one
factor is determinative." The Board further noted that the
independent contractor status in that case was "clearly
revealed" by the "virtual freedom" the truck owners had
"in deciding when or whether they will take an assignment,
selecting routes of travel, in fixing the time of delivery and
return, in determining whether they or others will drive
their vehicles, and by their freedom to select their own
maintenance facilities ." The Board further pointed out that
the alleged point employer "does not withhold income or
social security taxes, or pay for workmen's compensation
for the drivers of the leased tractors, or provide the
employment benefits of its own employees to the owners
and their drivers, nor are its rules and regulations given to
or applied to the over-the-road drivers." More recently, in
Fleet Transport Company, Inc., 196 NLRB No. 61, the
Board refused to hold point employer status in a situation
quite similar to that obtaining here.
Upon a consideration of all the facts in this case and the
applicable Board precedents, I come to the conclusion that
United is not a point employer of Epperson's employees.
Accordingly, I shall dismiss the complaint as to United.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
There is no dispute that several of Epperson's employees
spoke to him before March 12, about arranging to
withhold taxes, contributing to social security, and partici-
pating in workmen's compensation programs and employ-
ee hospitalization plans. Epperson failed to undertake any
affirmative action to implement these employee requests.
About March 1, when Epperson had not taken any action
with respect to these matters, the four drivers decided to
hold a meeting at employee Thomas' home. This meeting
was held on Sunday, March 12, and they discussed
improvements in their terms and conditions of employ-
ment.
Rumpke, at the request of his fellow workers, prepared a
list of matters in which the employees were interested,
reading as follows:
er Equalize out the weeks on trips with Warsaw, Ind.
included for all drivers Fix speedometers brown KW
caliberate one on 1970 Raise in pay first month
Archie Ball
Bob Rumpke
Charles Dorsel
Tom Thomas
Each of the employees present-Ball, Rumpke, Dorsel,
and Thomas-signed the document. During much of the
afternoon of March 12, a Sunday, the assembled employ-
ees attempted to get in touch with Epperson in order to
present to him their list of demands; however, they could
not reach him that afternoon. Thomas was designated as
the employees' spokesman for the purpose of getting the
demands to Epperson at the earliest opportunity. Thomas
finally did reach Epperson on the evening of March 12 and
told Epperson that the four employees had met and
discussed various improvements in their employment
relationship. Epperson asked Thomas to read to him what
the employees wanted, which Thomas did. Epperson
replied that he did not have to talk to the employees, that
they were all fired. He told them that they should bring
their keys down and pick up their checks. That evening,
Thomas again talked with Epperson but the latter adhered
to his position. During the evening Dorsel and Rumpke
also engaged in telephone conversations with Epperson but
the latter stated there was nothing to discuss and that the
employees were all fired, that he wanted them to turn in
their keys and pick up their final checks.
Respondent Epperson's only defense presented at the
hearing was that employees quit their employment rather
than having been discharged. However, Armstrong testi-
fied that Epperson stated to him that the drivers had been
terminated because they wanted him to make an instant
decision concerning improvements in their working condi-
tions and that Epperson said that he had made it and that
he did not then have any drivers.
I think it perfectly obvious that the four drivers were
summarily terminated because they endeavored to improve
their working conditions, which effort obviously is protect-
ed by Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly, I find that
Respondent Epperson violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by terminating the four drivers.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By terminating Archie Ball, Robert Rumpke,
Charles Dorsel, and Tom Thomas on March 12, 1972,
Respondent Epperson engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent United has not engaged in any unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
MARCH 12, 1972
Workmans compensation insurance Social Security
paid Withholding tax taken out Some type of hospitali-
zation-given Better relation with employee & employ-
THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find it
necessary that Respondent Epperson be ordered to cease
and desist from the unfair labor practices found and also
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
refrain from related invasions of his employees' rights
under Section 7 of the Act , and to take certain affirmative
action.
The Respondent , having discriminatorily terminated the
foregoing employees , I find it necessary that he be ordered
to offer them full reinstatement with backpay computed on
a quarterly basis, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, as
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1960) and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962), from the date of the termination until the date
reinstatement is offered.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]