Jack Thomas, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 1552 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jack Thomas, Inc. and United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefit-
ting Industry of the United States and Canada, Lo-
cal 162, AFL-CIO. Cases 9-CA-9724 and 9-RC-
11144
June 21, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On April 13, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions.
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 has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu-
sions 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 Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Jack Thomas, Inc., Day-
ton, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 9-RC-11144 be,
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 9, for further processing in accordance
with the Administrative Law Judge's recommenda-
tions concerning that proceeding, which we have
adopted to toto, including, if necessary, the direction
by said Regional Director of a second election at a
time he deems to be appropriate.
1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge it is the Board 's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, inc. 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3, 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON , Administrative Law Judge: These
cases were heard at Dayton , Ohio, on February 25, 1976,
pursuant to a charge filed on October 14, 1975,1 by the
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, Local 162, AFL-CIO 2 (herein referred to as the
Union), and a complaint issued on December 9.
The complaint , which was amended at the hearing , alleg-
es that Jack Thomas, Inc., (herein referred to as the Re-
spondent) violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein referred to as the
Act), by interrogating employees concerning their sympa-
thies and activities on behalf of the Union ; threatened an
employee with loss of benefits should the employees select
the Union as their collective - bargaining representative and
discriminatorily laid off and/or discharged and thereafter
refused to reinstate Christopher Inman because of his in-
terest in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of the
Union and to discourage union membership.
Respondent in its answer filed on December 22, and
amended at the hearing, denies having violated the Act. It
asserts the reason for Inman 's layoff was a lack of a re-
quirement for a man of his skills as an apprentice on the
jobsite and, in answer to the alleged failure to reinstate
him, further asserts that since his layoff Inman has volun-
tanly sought and gained employment with another em-
ployer thereby precluding him from reinstatement to his
former position
The issues involved are whether the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by unlawfully interrogat-
ing and threatening its employees with respect to their
union activities , and whether Respondent discriminatorily
laid off and/or discharged Inman and denied him rein-
statement because of his union activities.
On December 15, the Regional Director of Region 9, by
order, consolidated for hearing with the issues arising un-
der the complaint the resolution of an objection and a
challenge to a ballot in the election conducted in Case 9-
RC-11144 . The election was conducted on September 25,
pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election approved by the Regional Director on September
10, based upon a petition filed by the Union on July 31
The objection in pertinent part alleged the Respondent laid
off Inman because of his union activity and the challenge
involved the ballot cast by Inman which was challenged by
the Respondent 's observer on the ground he was no longer
an employee on the date of the election.
The parties at the hearing were afforded full opportunity
to introduce relevant evidence , to examine and cross-exam-
ine witnesses , to argue orally on the record, and to submit
briefs.
Upon the entire record in these cases and from my ob-
servation of the witnesses , and after due consideration of
All the dates referred to are in 1975. unless otherwise stated
i The pleadings were amended at the hearing to reflect the correct name
of the Union
224 NLRB No. 208
JACK THOMAS, INC 1553
the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Respondent, and
the Union, I hereby make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, an Ohio corporation with its principal of-
fice located at Dayton, Ohio, is engaged in business as a
plumbing contractor in the construction industry During
the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the com-
plaint on December 9, Respondent in the course of its op-
erations from its place of business located in the State of
Ohio, had sales and performed services valued in excess of
$50,000 in interstate commerce for customers located out-
side the State of Ohio
Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits and I find that the United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefittmg Industry of the United States and Canada, Lo-
cal 162, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background
Respondent, with its principal office located at Dayton,
Ohio, is engaged in business as a plumbing contractor in
the construction industry Its officials include Jack Thom-
as, who is the president and principal stockholder,' his
daughter, Sherry Thomas, who is secretary-treasurer, and
Vice President Dwyer
During the summer of 1975, Respondent as part of its
operations was engaged in performing plumbing work on
the International Paper Company jobsite located at Wil-
mington, Ohio It employed five employees there including
the discriminatee Christopher Inman The other employees
were Marvin Swearingen, James Boggs, Walter Williams,
and Foreman Herbert Stone 4 Christopher Inman was em-
ployed by the Respondent from May 24 until he was laid
off on Thursday, August 7 Although he performed plumb-
ing work as did the other employees he was classified on
Respondent's records as a labor helper, which according to
President Thomas was the same as an apprentice At the
time he was laid off Inman had been working at the Inter-
national Paper Company jobsite for approximately 5 or 6
weeks and had previously performed work at the
Respondent's other jobsites
The Union began an organizing campaign among
3 Respondent admits and I find that President Thomas is a supervisor
under the Act
4 Although Foreman Stone was the only full time supervisor present at
the jobsite and assigned employees their work his supervisory status was
not litigated at the hearing
Respondent's employees about the latter part of June or
early July According to Inman, the Union' s Business
Agent Webster visited the jobsite on several occasions be-
tween the latter part of June or early July and the first part
of August and discussed the union with him and provided
him with union cards Inman discussed the union with
other employees expressing his interest, gave them union
cards, and signed a card himself which cards he returned to
Business Agent Webster Marvin Swearingen, James
Boggs, and Foreman Stone acknowledged Inman had dis-
cussed the union with them and expressed his interest in it
President Thomas denied having any knowledge of
Inman's union activities but stated he assumed union activ-
ities were occurring in July, when he observed Business
Agent Webster on the jobsite Thomas acknowledged
Foreman Mike Shoreman had informed him Business
Agent Webster had talked to him about signing a card and
his other foreman told him Webster had been on the job
Foreman Stone 5 also stated he told President Thomas he
had union cards himself whereupon Thomas told him to go
ahead and sign them
On July 31, the Union filed a petition in Case 9-RC-
11144 6 seeking to represent the Respondent's journeymen,
plumbers, pipefitters, apprentices, refrigeration employees,
and laborers at its Dayton, Ohio, facility
B The Unlawful Interrogations and Threat
The General Counsel presented three employees, Chris-
topher Inman, James Boggs and Marvin Swearingen, who
testified to certain individual conversations which they had
had with President Thomas concerning the union
Inman testified the latter part of June, President Thomas
asked him if he had signed a union card Upon replying he
had not, Thomas told him that was good because they had
tried to organize his shop a year and a half ago z and then
stated that if they had to go union, he would have to go out
of business President Thomas admitted asking Inman
whether he had signed a card and after Inman replied he
had not he further told Inman the union would probably
break him I credit Inman's version and, based upon his
testimony and Thomas' own admissions, find that Presi-
dent Thomas coercively interrogated Inman concerning
whether he had signed a union card and threatened him
that should the employees select the union to represent
them the Company would have to go out of business
Both Swearingen and Boggs testified about 2 weeks prior
to the election, which was held on September 25, President
Thomas asked each of them what they thought about the
union Swearingen stated he told Thomas he did not think
much about it and Boggs' response was he really did not
know what he was going to do Thomas admitted asking
Swearingen what he thought about the union and although
he did not specifically deny having asked Boggs the same
question, he denied having any conversations with other
5 Foreman Stone testified as a witness on behalf of the Respondent
6 Although the evidence does not establish the date the petition was re
ceived by the Respondent a commerce report submitted in connection with
the representation case was signed by President Thomas on August 4
7 A prior election involving the Respondent and the Union had been held
on December 21 1973
1554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees about the union. Both Swearingen and Boggs
impressed me as credible witnesses and, based upon their
credited testimonies and President Thomas' admission, I
find that President Thomas coercively interrogated each of
them concerning what they thought about the union. Fur-
ther, in finding President Thomas also interrogated Boggs,
such conduct is consistent with his admitted interrogations
of both Inman and Swearingen.
C. Christopher Inman's Termination
On Thursday, August 7, Christopher Inman and Walter
Williams, a laborer, were laid off.8
Inman stated that afternoon President Thomas came to
the jobsite and informed him that because of the work situ-
ation there was a slowdown and he would have to lay him
off. Thomas paid him 9 and told him to get back in touch
with him in a few weeks concerning reinstatement.
President Thomas testified the reasons for laying Inman
off were because he wanted to cut the payroll down and
the job was coming to the point where it did not justify
having five employees. He selected Inman rather than
Swearingen because he thought Swearingen had more
knowledge of the fob 10 and was a better worker than In-
man.ll According to Thomas, at the time Inman was hired
Inman had informed him he could not read blueprints that
well and since he could not install pipe by himself there
was no other place to put him.12
According to both President Thomas and Foreman
Stone, about a week prior to the layoff they had discussed
it at which time Stone informed Thomas he would like to
keep Swearingen.
While Foreman Stone acknowledged both Swearingen
and Inman were good workers, his request to keep Swear-
ingen was based on the fact he was a local boy, knew all
supplies and how to get materials quick. Although Fore-
man Stone stated he had always recommended which em-
ployees he thought should be laid off and that Thomas
always took his advice there is no evidence he was specifi-
cally asked in the instant case which employees should
have been selected for layoff.
President Thomas stated the final decision on the layoff
occurred on August 7.
Inman testified at the time he was laid off he was en-
gaged in installing underground piping and was perform-
ing essentially the same work as the other employees with
the exception that Foreman Stone did more blueprint work
and James Boggs also operated a backhoe . Inman estimat-
ed only 60 to 70 percent of the underground pipe work 13
had been completed at the time he was laid off and there
8
The layoff of Walter Williams, whose services according to President
Thomas were about done, was not alleged to have been discriminatory
9 The normal payday was Friday
10 While Inman had more job seniority than Swearingen, there was no
evidence seniority was ever followed
11 President Thomas acknowledged Inman was a good worker
12 Christopher Inman denied ever telling President Thomas he could not
read blueprints However, he admitted he could not read them to the degree
required of a journeyman Swearingen also acknowledged he could not read
blueprints well and had problems with the blueprints at the jobsite
13 The underground pipe work was only the first phase of the plumbing
work and did not include the remaining two phases
was still work to be done. He denied there had been any
slowdown or cutbacks in the work.
Marvin Swearingen, who is presently employed by the
Respondent, testified that prior to the layoff he and Inman
worked together performing the same work putting in un-
derground piping and stated they possessed equal skills.
Swearingen estimated at the time of the layoff less than
half the underground pipe work had been completed. Ac-
cording to him they continued doing the same work after
the layoff as before and the underground pipe work was
not completed until after the election.
James Boggs 14 testified he spent 50 percent of his time
operating the backhoe and the remainder of the time per-
forming the same underground piping work as Swearingen
and Inman. Boggs estimated at the time of the layoff they
had finished not quite half of the underground piping and
stated that following the layoff they continued doing the
same work they had been doing prior to the layoff.
Foreman Stone estimated at the time of the layoff ap-
proximately 75 percent of the underground pipe work had
been completed.
Although President Thomas contended at the time of the
layoff they were getting to a point where work would have
to be stopped unless the general contractor performed cer-
tain work such as errecting walls, he acknowledged they
never had to stop working because such preparatory work
had not been done.
Following his layoff Inman stated about 3 or 4 weeks
later he called Respondent's shop and talked to Vice Presi-
dent Dwyer about getting his job back. However, Dwyer
informed him things were slow and he did not see any
chance of ajob in the near or foreseeable future. Vice Pres-
ident Dwyer did not testify and I credit Inman's undisput-
ed testimony.
President Thomas admitted he never asked Inman or
attempted to contact him to see whether he wanted his job
back. His reason was he assumed Inman was working and
did not want to return to work. According to Secretary-
Treasurer Thomas about the dr to of the election, although
the exact date was not established, she contacted Quality
Plumbing Service and spoke to the owner, Carl Inman,
who is a brother of Christopher Inman.ls Without identify-
ing herself she asked whether Christopher Inman was in,
whereupon Carl Inman informed her he was not in but
would be in later that day. She further stated Carl Inman
indicated to her that Christopher Inman was employed
there. Carl Inman acknowledged an unidentified woman
had called and inquired whether his brother was working
for them whereupon he represented that he was.
Although Christopher Inman had previously worked for
Quality Plumbing Service in 1974 and in March, April, and
May 1975 both he and Carl Inman denied he was em-
ployed there in September. I credit their denials which
were corroborated by the Company's pay records. Carl
Inman's explanation for representing his brother was em-
ployed there was because he thought he had applied for
credit and they were trying to verify his employment.
14 President Thomas considered Boggs to be an apprentice
15 Secretary-Treasurer Thomas' explanation for calling was because she
and her father had been told Christopher Inman was employed there The
sources of her information were not identified
JACK THOMAS, INC 1555
According to the testimony of Secretary-Treasurer
Thomas, information taken from Respondent's records
show that after Inman was laid off the Company hired two
employees, Allen Purnell and James Garrett i6 Purnell,
who was hired on September 1, was classified as ajourney-
man and Garrett, who was hired on November 14, was
classified as a labor helper 17
Swearingen testified that he worked with both Purnell
and Garrett after they were hired and they performed the
same type work that Inman had or would have been per-
forming except for his layoff While Purnell also helped
them pipe up the oil tanks Swearingen described it as being
basically the same underground type work
James Boggs stated Purnell did the same type of work as
all of them did and Garrett's work involved running oil
lines inside the building which he described as being easier
than underground piping work
D Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends contrary to Respondent's
denials that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act by unlawfully interrogating and threatening
its employees with respect to their union activities, and by
discriminatorily laying off and/or discharging Christopher
Inman and denying him reinstatement because of his
union activities
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act Section 8(a)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part
"It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer
by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term of condition of employment to encour-
age or discourage membership in any labor organization
11
Based upon my findings supra, President Thomas coer-
cively interrogated Inman concerning whether he had
signed a union card and threatened him that should the
employees select the union to represent them the Company
would have to go out of business, and coercively interro-
gated Swearingen and Boggs concerning what they thought
about the union
The interrogation of the employees concerning their
union activities is not unlawful per se The test to be ap-
plied is whether, under all the circumstances, such interro-
gation reasonably tends to restrain or interfere with em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights under the Act Blue
Flash Express Inc, 109 NLRB 591 (1954) With respect to
findings of unlawful interrogations the Board has held that
where selected employees are questioned about their union
sympathies without any legitimate reason therefore and
without assurances against reprisals such conduct by its
very nature tends to inhibit employees in the exercise of
their right to organize and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the
16 Although Swearingen and Boggs contended another employee named
Rick or Vic was hired subsequent to the layoff he was not further identified
nor were his periods of employment established
17 Purnell quit on September 29 and Garrett was laid off on February 20
1976
Act Engineered Steel Products, Inc 188 NLRB 298 (1971)
Further, while an employer may speak freely to employees
regarding issues arising in connection with a union organi-
zational campaign such statements are unlawful if they
contain threats of reprisal such as plant closure Compo-
nents, Inc 197 NLRB 163 (1972)
Applying these principles to the findings enumerated su
pra, concerning the interrogations and threat directed
against Inman, Swearingen and Boggs, I find such conduct
interfered with, restrained, and coerced them in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and
Respondent by engaging in such conduct thereby violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
The remaining issue is whether the Respondent discrimi-
natorily laid off and/or discharged Christopher Inman and
denied him reinstatement because of his union activities in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
The finding set forth, supra, established that Inman prior
to his layoff on August 7 was actively engaged in union
activities at the Respondent's jobsite Although President
Thomas denied having any knowledge of Inman's union
activities he admittedly assumed by observing Business
Agent Webster at the jobsite in July that union activities
were occurring Additional evidence of his knowledge of
union activities was established by reports from his fore-
men that Business Agent Webster had visited the jobsite
and attempted to get them to sign union cards and the
filing of the representation petition by the Union on July
31 Thus, not only did the Respondent have knowledge
that some of its five employees were engaging in union
activities but by unlawfully interrogating Inman concern-
ing whether he had signed a union card and threatening
him about the Company going out of business I find, con-
trary to Respondent's denial, that it at least had reason to
believe he was engaged in such activities
The Respondent asserts the reasons Inman was laid off
was to cut down on the payroll and the job was coming to
the point where it did not justify having five employees
However, the evidence established that the work Inman
was performing along with other employees prior to the
layoff continued to be performed following the layoff and
that at least two new employees were subsequently hired to
perform such work or similar work without recalling In-
man This occurred notwithstanding Inman upon his at-
tempt to return to work as instructed was informed no
work was available then or in the foreseeable future While
the Respondent did contact Inman's brother to inquire
whether he was employed by his company, the purpose of
such call was not to offer him reinstatement By continuing
the same work and hiring new employees without recalling
Inman while informing him work was not available, I am
persuaded and find that Respondent's reasons for laying
him off and not recalling him were clearly refuted by the
evidence Rather, upon considering the evidence, including
Inman's union activities, Respondent's belief he was en-
gaged in such activities, Respondent's union animus estab-
lished through its unlawful acts of interrogations and
threat, including those directed against Inman personally,
and having rejected the Respondent's defenses concerning
the reasons for laying him off and refusing to reinstate him,
I am persuaded and find that the evidence established Re-
1556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent discriminatorily laid Inman off on August 7 and
thereafter refused to reinstate him because of his union
activities, and the reasons proffered by the Respondent for
its actions were but a pretext to conceal its real discrimina-
tory motive. Direct evidence of discriminatory motivation
is not necessary to support a finding of discrimination and
such intent may be inferred from the record as a whole.
Health International Inc., 196 NLRB 318 (1972).
Therefore, I find that the Respondent by laying off In-
man on August 7, and thereafter refusing to reinstate him
because of his union activities, thereby violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Having found that Inman was discriminatorily laid off
and denied reinstatement, the fact he may have since ob-
tained employment elsewhere would not bar him from re-
instatement as the answer asserts.
E. The Challenged Ballot and Objection
Having found that Inman was discriminatorily laid off
and denied reinstatement in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act, he was therefore an eligible voter in the
election and the challenge to his ballot should be overruled
and his ballot counted. Further, inasmuch as Inman was
discriminatorily laid off and denied reinstatement within
the objectionable period and such conduct falls within the
scope of the objection and was sufficient to have interfered
with the election and to warrant setting aside the election,
the objection was proven by the evidence and should be
sustained.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring
in connection with the operations of Respondent described
in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
and thereafter refusing to reinstate him because of his
union activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
to effectuate the policies of the Act. Accordingly, the Re-
spondent shall be ordered to immediately reinstate Chris-
topher Inman to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent job without preju-
dice to his seniority and other rights and privileges and to
make him whole for any loss of earnings and compensation
he may have suffered because of illegal discrimination
against him in his employment from the date of his dis-
criminatory layoff on August 7, 1975. Backpay shall be
computed in accordance with the formula and method pre-
scribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), and payment of 6 percent interest per annum
shall be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Further, in Case 9-RC-11144 I shall recommend that
the case be remanded to the Regional Director and the
challenge to the ballot of Christopher Inman be overruled
and his ballot counted and in the event the Union receives
a majority of the valid ballots cast that a certification of
representative be issued. However, after counting the bal-
lot of Christopher Inman should the Union not receive a
majority of the valid ballots cast and having found the
objection was sustained by the evidence, I shall recom-
mend that the election held on September 25, 1975, be set
aside and the Regional Director for Region 9 shall conduct
a new election.
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:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Jack Thomas Inc., is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, Local 162, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning
whether they signed a union card or what they thought
about the union, and by threatening an employee that
should they select the union to represent them the Compa-
ny would have to go out of business, Respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
and has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By laying off Christopher Inman on August 7, 1975,
ORDER 18
Respondent, Jack Thomas Inc., Dayton, Ohio, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating its employees concerning
their union membership, sympathies, or activities.
(b) Threatening employees that should they select the
union to represent them that the Respondent would have
to go out of business.
(c) Discouraging membership in United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefit-
18 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
JACK THOMAS , INC 1557
ting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 162,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization by laying off,
refusing to reinstate , or in any other manner discriminating
against any employee in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act , except that such rights may be affect-
ed by an agreement requiring membership in a labor orga-
nization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer immediate reinstatement to Christopher In-
man, to his former job or , if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his se-
niority and other rights and privileges and make him whole
for any loss of pay or other compensation he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the
manner set forth in that portion of this decision entitled
"The Remedy "
(b) 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 and determine the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order
(c) Post at its Dayton, Ohio, facilities copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix " 19 Copies of said notice,
on forms furnished by the Regional Director for Region 9,
after being duly signed by the Respondent 's authorized
representative , shall be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places , including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other
material
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint be
and it hereby is dismissed insofar as the alleged unfair la-
bor practices not specifically found herein
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in Case 9-RC-11144 that the case
be remanded to the Regional Director for Region 9 and
that the ballot of Christopher Inman be counted and in the
event the Union receives a majority of the valid ballots cast
that a certification of representative be issued certifying the
Union as the collective -bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit However , after counting
the ballot of Christopher Inman should the Union not re-
ceive a majority of the valid ballots counted , the election
held on September 25, 1975, is hereby set aside , and the
Regional Director for Region 9 shall conduct a new elec-
tion in the appropriate unit at such time as he deems the
circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining repre-
sentative
19 In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
about their union membership , sympathies , or activi-
ties
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that should
they select the Union to represent them the Company
will have to go out of business
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, Local 162, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization , by laying off , refusing to re-
instate or in any other manner discriminating against
our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of employment
WE WILL offer to Christopher Inman, immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job, or if that job no
longer exists , to a substantially equivalentjob with in-
terest and backpay
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization , to form, j oin, or assist
any labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain
from any or all such activities , except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
JACK THOMAS, INC