Jocquel Supply Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 3, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 485 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

JOCQUEL SUPPLY CO. INC. 485
Jocquel Supply Co., Inc. and Local 297, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of' America. Case
25-CA-3945
August ^ 3, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER'
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On March 10, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg
issued his Decision in the above -entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent ' had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease
and., desist therefrom and, take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision . Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions
to the TrialExaminer's Decision and a supporting
brief. The' General Counsel=filed a brief in support of
the Trial Examiner's Decision and the Charging Party
fileda brief opposingthe Respondent 's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National' Labor Relations. , Act, as amended, the
National Labor - Relations Board -has delegated its
powers vin connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The°Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner . made at ' the-hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. , The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the 'exceptions, the briefs; and
the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the
findings,? conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT , OF TIM CASE
MAx RosENBERG, Trial Examiner : This case was tried
before me in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on January 6and 7,
1971, pursuant to a complaint filed by the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board and an answer filed
thereto by Jocquel Supply Co., Inc ., herein ' called the
Respondent.' The issues , presented relate to, whether
Respondent violated Section 8(axl) and (3 ) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as, amended. Briefs have. been
received from the.General-Counsel and Respondent, which
have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record made in this proceeding and my
observation of the witnesses who testified , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE RESPONDENT'.s BUSINESS
,,Respondent, an Indiana corporation, has at all times
material herein maintained its principal office and place of
business in'Fort Wayne, `Indiana, where it has engaged"°in
the wholesale sale and distribution of building construction
supplies and related products. During the pertinent annual
period, Respondent purchased, transferred,, and-delivered
,to its facility , -goods, and materials Valued in excess of
$45,000 which ' were transported to said , facility directly
from States " other than the State of Indiana. In the same
period, Respondent purchased ,transferred, anddelivered to
its facility building supplies and other goods , and materials
valued in excess of $ 11,000 which were ° transported to this
installation from, and received -from, other enterprises
located in the State of Indiana, which other enterprises had
received the said goods and materials directly from States
other than the State of Indiana. During the material annual
period, Respondent also sold and distributed products
valued in excess of 3186 ,000. The =complaint 'alleges ,,' ` the
answer admits , and I find that Respondent is an -employer
engaged in -commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act,, as 'amended, the, National Labor
Relations Board adopts,'as'its Order the Recormmend-
ed Order-of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondent, Jocquel Supply Co., Inc., Fort' Wayne,
Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set'forth-in the trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
1 In sec. III, par. 2, of his Decision; the Trial' Examiner stated that on
September 4 Union President Dunfee drafted and delivered a letter to
Donald Stinson, Respondent's president , requesting representational rights.
The, record reflects that date , to be -September 2. We hereby correct the
inadvertent error of the Trial Examiner.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 297, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
herein called the Union , is a labor,organization-within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that, on or about September 10,
1970,2 Respondent violated ' Section 8(axl) of the Act by
coercively interrogating its, employees,, concerning their
union activities and ' desires and those of their fellow
employees , by changing the,-hours of work for its
employees;°by ate, teririg the length of 'their; lunch period, and,
by advising them that they would henceforth be required to
' The-complaint, which issued on-October 30, 1970, is, based on a charge
filed on September 15,,1 970, and served on September 16, 1970.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter fall in 1970.
192 NLRB No. 68
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
punch a timeclock,,solely because they joined or assisted
the Union in its attempt to obtain representative status at
Respondent's business :operation 'in'Fort Wayne, Indiana.
the complaint further alleges that Respondent violated
Section S(aX3) of the statute by ' discharging employees
Junior Wine,- Samuel ' Moreno,' and Russell Lahr, on or
about September 15, ' an'd 'by changing their terms and
conditions ^of` 'employment' as described `immediately
above.3 ' 'Respondent`denies' the-' commission of `any labor
practices proscribed' by the Act.
> It ` is' undisputed and I findlthat, on or'about August 28,
John- Dunfee, the Union's-president, received a telephone
call from Junior Wine, one'of-the alleged discriminatees, in
which the latter inquired as to how the' employee's at
Respondent's, business, establishment -mightobtain'collec-
tive -- representation. Dunfee`,invited -junior 'to visit the
Union's offices for a briefing on the procedures involved.
The next evening, Junior and his brother Russell Lahr,
another alleged discriniinatee , called on Dunfee at his
office. Dunfee explained - the mechanics for procuring
representational status. ' On September 1, the Union
conducted a: meeting- at its, headquarters which was
attended-by Junior Wine, Lahr, Chester Wine„and`alleged
discriiniuatee Samuel ,Moreno. In, the course; of this
meetiu'g,-gall four,employees= signed union authorization
;,cards.* Dunfee then,tojsl-`the men that-he would present a
-letterlett to -, Respondent the, following ,_,day demanding
exclusive recognition as.,their , bargaining agent." On the
morning of September 4, Dunfee drafted a letter addressed
to - Donald _Stinson, Respondent's , president, requesting
representational rights- among the unit of employees
theretofore found appropriate and suggesting -a bargaining
session ,for September S. Later that day, Dunfee, delivered
the document to,,Stinson who, after reading it, remarked,
"O.K,,,we'll be in touch.",
,It,, is-uncontroverted and I find that, on September 4,
Dunfee was., contacted, by Donald , Strutz, Respondent's
counsel. Strutz opened the telephonic conversation ,,by
advising, -that ohe-,was,- ,a, personal friend of Stinson- and
suggested that ,the ,panties consent to an election to poll the
sentiments of Respondent 's employees regarding unioniza-
tion. Dunfee thereupon telephoned the Union's attorney
for instructions , and was informed by the latter to
investigate-the composition of the unit . On the same date,
Dunfeee called Strutz to obtain this information. Although
Strutz "assured Dunfee `that he would obtain the 'desired
data that -day, "Strutz, failed to contact Dunfee for the
remainder ,of theweek despite Dunfee's repeated attempts
to reach Strutz. -
It is undenied and I find that , on September 2, Stinson
learned that the Union represented employees junior Wine,
Lahr,, and Moreno when he recieved Dunfee's letter
demanding, ,recognition on that date'." At the conclusion of
a The complaint also averred that Respondent- refused , in violation of
Section 8(aX5), to bargain with the Union-on and after September 4 as „the
duly , designated bargaining, agent for ,all-full-time and regular part-time
employees at its facility, exclusive of all office clerical employees, casual
employees, professional ' employees- anti' all supervisors ' as defined in' the
-Act, a-unit which,I ' find-to be appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the statute .,It additionally
charged , that- Respondent offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(5) when,
on September 10 and 11 , Respondent unilaterally altered-the existing-hours
of employment and the lunch periods for employees ; unilaterally changed
-the, workday on September„ 10,„Stinson handed letters ,to
Junior Wine :and Lahr which read, "As, ofSeptember' 11,
1970, your newihours will be from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00'.P.M.
You will also 'have a one hour break forlunch.Tiine will be
kept by a time clock."
Junior Wine testified that , when he received the foregoing
communication on-September 10, Stinson inquired, "I
guess you want the union ," to which Junior replied, "Yes,
sir, but I'm not the only one..., .; I believe all of us want the
union." Lahr testimonially recounted that, upon being
handed the letter on September 10 regarding the changes in
working conditions; , Stinson remarked, "I` understand' that
you and Junior [Wine] want'a union in here ." When Lahr
replied in the affirmative with the statement "We're not the
only ones," , Stinson inquired "Who else is' there?",, Lahr
thereupon mentioned the name of Moreno .FThe_following
day, and according to the testimony of Moreno, he engaged
in a conversation with Stinson at theend of the work `shift.
During-the coiloquy',Stinson asked Moreno "if I was a part
of the-well, if I was in'with the boys-oil the union . I said,
yes, I was in with them . And then he-told me he `felt kind of
bad about the, deal,'the way,, the pay -was , and everything,
and he was going to contact each one of us individually and
see what he could come up with for, us . And then,,-, that
everything he told me from then on would be-in writing."
On September 11,` Respondent installed a :,time clock' in
Stinson's office - building. 'Stinson 'testified that he` had
received complaints, from ` Junior Wine-and Lahr - that- the
clock was defective, in consequence of which=he instructed
his secretary to type .a letter which recited "Due to thefact
that the time clock we have is not working properlywe will
not begin working on the time stated in the letter written to
you on September, 10,1970 . The new hours stated ' in-that
letter ' -will not go ` into effect until'further notice." However,
this document was'never delivered by Responderitdireedy
to Junior Wine or Lahr. -
On the evening of September -10, Junior Wine and Lahr
paid a call on Dunfeeat .the,latter's'office. Hind that,^in an
ensuing conversation ,,, these employees informed,Dunfee
that they had_received,a,letter,from Stinson ,that day setting
forth the changes "in working conditions , ' Junior told
Dunfee that he had been interrogated by Stinson concern-
ing Junior's involvement with the Union 's organizational
campaign, and Lahr added that Stinson had questioned
him "about Sam Moreno and about Junior Wine and me
wanting the union in." The next day, September 11, Dunfee
telephoned the Union's counsel to report on the intelligence
which he had obtained from Junior Wine and Lahr. On
Sunday, September 13,,Dunfee summoned Junior Wine,
Chester Wine , Lahr, and Moreno to'the union hall where ,a
meeting Was,-conducted., During' the conver'sation,l`Dunfte
briefed the men'o'n the ' events' which' had transpired , noting
that, it , appeared— to film `that there were unfair labor
older terms and conditions of employment suchias requiring employees, to
punch a timeclock ;`aud offered to bargain directly and individually with
the employees , in the ` above-described ' appropriate unit . Prior ' to the
commencement of the hearing on January 6, 1971,° the parties executed an
informal settlement agreement, subsequently approved by the, Regional
Director for Region 25 on January , 15, 1971 , which removed the alleged
violations of,Section8(ax5) from the instant litigation. -
1i At'this time, Respondent also had in its employ an individ ual named
Paul Frantz, thus ''Waking a total of five employees in the appropriate unit.
JOCQUEL SUPPLY CO. INC. 487
practices committed; that,the lack of courtesy from counsel
representing, the employer was a-that it was a stalling
tactic, that we were in a poor position at that point andwe
should do something about it." Thereupon, a strike vote
was taken and-the men unanimously manifested their, desire
to cease work-the =following day. Dunfee instructed his
members - to, report for strike' duty at 7:30 a.m. on
September 14. At the appointed hour on the latter date, the
work stoppage commenced. -
It is undisputed and I find that, with the commencement
of the strike on September 14, Stinson` prepared Indiana
'Employment Security Form No. 501 which he handed to
JuniorWine, Lahr, and Moreno while they picketed on that
date. In a space entitled "Reason For Unemployment,"
Respondent'typeddin the-notation-'On-Strike for Recogni-
=tion." During, his testimony,- Stinson admitted and I find
that, as of=September 1'4,he"did not consider them [Junior
Wine, Lahr, and Moreno] to be' employees" of
Respondent .5 The strike continued unabated-until Decem-
ber 18,'when,-as all parties concede, and I find, Respondent
ceased business operations for nondiscriminatory reasons.
It' is uncontroverted andI=''fifid`that, at no time during the
period from September 14 to December 18, did any of the
strikers indicate to-Respondent' that they unconditionally
wished to terminate their work stoppage. Respondent also
has ` acknowledged ' and I find that none of the strikers were
permanently placed in-the course of the strike.
Respondent contends' that the change in working
conditions which it announced to the employees in its letter
of September 10 was prompted by considerations, totally
unrelated to their engagement in protected, concerted
activities . I find no merit in the contention. Respondent,
through Stinson, . concededly was aware , as early as
September 2 that Junior Wine, Lahr,, and Moreno had
thrown their lot in with the Union and, I find, based on the
credited testimony of Wine, Lahr, and Moreno, that
Respondent - buttressed this awareness when, Stinson
interrogated them on September 10 and 11, regarding their
union adherence and that of their fellow employees.
- With respect to installation of, the timeclock on
September -10, it is clear on this record and I find that, prior
,to, that date, it had been the. uniform practice for the
employees to yrecord their own time on cards and turn them
in to the office on a weekly or monthly , basis. Indeed,
Stinson acknowledged on the stand that-he felt no need to
utilize a 'timeclock to keep track of his employees' hours of
work during the entire period of employment ,of Junior
Wine, Lahr, and Moreno, which spanned almost 2 years.
According to Stinson, he first noticed about a week prior to
September _10 that he was" experiencing difficulty' in
contacting' the men in the warehouse to report to his office
s Lahr testified that, while picketing on September 14 or 15, Stinson
approached the line and` stated that "-You know that the State and the
Social Security both recognize that you lost your job when you walked off"
and that "he would see that we never worked for him again:' Lahr further
,testified that,-on,or about October 9, Stinson approached the picket line
and informed Lahr, and Moreno that "he guaranteed that none of us would
ever be employed by him again, and that he would be there longer than
Any of, Eus."" Sam Moreno related that, approximately a week after the work
stoppage commenced, "Stinson came to the picket line to discuss the matter
of a loan which Moreno owed Respondent . During their conversation,
Stinson "said we no longer worked for him, we were fired," About a week
later, Stinson visited the strikers and "wanted to know what we were doing
and obtain their delivery orders. ^ He testified that he
installed the apparatus to insure that the men would appear
in the office at- the start of their shift to receive the orders.
However, when shown a sworn affidavit which hegave,to a
board agent on -October -14; Stinson confessed he stated
therein that "In the past these mein""[Junior Wine and Lahr]
had kept track of their time by,writing it on the time card"
and that "I had no particular, . reason. in installing .it [the
timeclock] for use. 1I just decided to do -so." No mention°was
made in 'the-affidavit of'any^commun'cation gap between
Stinson and his men as -the predicate for,the installation of
the device.
'Regarding, the change in working -hours-which was
instituted on September 10, Stinson admitted and I find
that, prior to that date, , the affected- employees commenced
work 'at 7:30 a.m. and ended their shift at'' p.m. on
weekdays, while the- trick extended from 7:30 a.m. to 12 m.
on Saturdays: If they so desired, employees were permitted
to take one-half hour for lunch, or no lunch break at all,
with the result that they could escalate the number of
weekly hours toiled and be paid for them. However,
beginning on September '10, Respondent made it mandato-
ry that the men thereafter report-for duty at 8 a.m. and
work until 5 p.m., and that they take,a compulsory 1-hour
lunch respite. According to-S[inson; this step was dictated
by slack business conditions which developed on'Septem-
ber 10, `although` he steadfastly maintained that the
employees did not suffer economically as a result thereof. I
'find Stinson's explanation in this regard, implausible' if not
incredible.Thus, despite the assertion made- in hiss sworn
affidavit that business normally tapers off"'during the fall
and winter months" and normalizes in the spring, Stinson
testimonially allowed as how sales did not commence to fall
off until "a week after the strike started" on September 14.
Furthermore, Respondent made no effort to support this
contention by the production of business records:„ Moreo-
ver, although Stinson claimed that the men continued to
work 9 hours per day, after September L0, such aclaim is
belied by ,simple mathematics which clearly establish that
the employees were able ,to work only,4 hours,daily, after
being required to take an hourly work break.
In sum, I am convinced and find that, faced with the
Union's demand for recognition on September. 2, and its
knowledge that Junior Wine, Lahr, and Moreno, had
enlisted the collective support of that labor organization,
Respondent set out on a ,course to penalize them for
engaging in concerted activities protected,by the Act. This
chastisement, took the form of forcing the men to,punch a
timeclock when reporting for work,, a, requirement, not
theretofore imposed, and of curtailing the weekly number
of hours of ,work by ,making it mandatory that .the
out there , when we no longer worked' there : " Stinson added that "he'd
guarantee me I'd -never work for-him again , never'riv"oik any one of us.-In
his testimony, Stinson proclaimed that he did , not engage in any of the
foregoing colloquies on advice of counsel . I do not credit. Stinson's
testimony, not only because he conceded that he "did not consider" that
Junior , Wine, Moreno, and .Lahr were employees of Respondent- on
September 14, but ,also because they impressed me,as sincere and honest
witnesses who earnestly sought to utter , the truth while- on the ,stand.
Accordingly, I find that , when Stinson ;proffered the= men the Form =No,
501, on September 14, Respondent thereby discharged these -employees on
this date, a personnel action which was, reiterated to them when Stinson
subsequently announced ,that they "were fired.
488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees take anvunpaid lunch hour, and by reducing.the
work, shift by-one-half hour.,-
. Based on credited: testimony; I have "heretofore found
that, on-September, 10 and 11; Stinson coercively interrogat-
ed " Junior Wine, Lahr; and. Moreno --concerning': their
activities on-behalfof the Union and those of their, fellow
employees .,.By this 'conduct, I conclude' -that"Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1)-o€ the Act.
Ihavefoundthat, on September 10, Respondent-changed
the hours,,of -employment- for, its. employees,, altered the
duration „of their- lunch period, and, required tthat A hey
punch a timeclock, because they joined and assisted the
Union.-.in its , ;campaign to" organize -Respondent's- employ-
ees. I ,conclude ,,that; by engaging in such conduct,
Respondent violated- Section 8(a)(l),and (3) of,the.Act. , .,, ,
I have also found that, on September 14,E Respondent
discharged Junior Wine, Lahr, and Moreno, because, they
engaged , in, 4 work stoppage protected under the-statute. By
the foregoing conduct, I conclude that Respondent thereby
violated Section 8(a)(3).6
IV. THE EFFECT- OF THE UNFAIR, LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III,
above,, occurring in, connection" with the, operations of
Respondent` set forth insection I, , above,, have a close,
intimate , and `substantial, relation to. trade, traffic, and
commerce amongT the several",States, and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening aiid'obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof."
Having found that, Respondent has engaged in-certain
unfair'labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist" therefrom - "and, take "'-certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the A'ct.
I' have heretofore ' found `that, on - September 14,
Respondent's ,employees, engaged f in it protected work
stoppage for Which Respondent discharged "Junior'Wine,
Russell Lahr, and" Samuel Moreno on that date.`I have also
found that, on December 18, Respondent ceased` business
operations for' nondiscriminatory reasons and that none of
the strikers had been permanently -replaced during this
period. I have'-further found that "none' of the strikers
unconditionally; manifested to Respondenttheir`-intention
to abandon the walkout prior to December' 18.
Or'dinariily; discriminatorily discharged ' employees are
awarded -backpay from -the "date of their discharges to =the
date when a' `valid -reinatatement'offei is' made to'them
Here, however, the discharged employees were engaged in'a
protected, strike on, and,after, the date of tht=,discrimination
against them ;which ', continued, until' Respondent, closed its
operations for, economic-reasons. The'Board''s established
6 Comodore'WatchCase Co., Inc., 114NLRB 1590; ,
At the "hearing; the General Counsel,sought to establish that the work
stoppage constituted an unfair-' labor practice` strike at its inception . In this
connection, , Dunfee testified , that employees voted to quit work on
Seotember 14 because of their consternation over Respondent's refusal to
meet, with the unions reprtatives to hammer out a collective , agreement
as-well as ' because Respondent had' committed unfair labor practices=in
altering their working conditions and unlawfully interrogating them. Some
practice is not-to award backpay to employees discrimina-
torily, discharged while on strike, on" the-theory that; 4until it
appears that the -employees, who desire, employment have
given up the strike,.it cannot be,established that theloss^of
pay --; was , conclusively,- attributable to the „employer's
conduct.7 Accordingly, Ishall not,afford a backpayaward
in this-,case based on the -discharges. -However, as- the
Respondent Js- no -longer in, business, I -shall recommend
that, in the event it resumes--, operations in the future,
Respondent, shall;,. upon their unconditional application for
reinstatement, offer to Junior _ Wine;;,Russell : Lahr, ,and
Samuel -Moreno,' as well as, Chester Wine, immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially""equiva-
lent;positions.
I. have also found that Respondent curtailed the hours of
work for employees because they engaged in , activities
protected.by, -the -,Act.-As,it is-not entirely clear,pn this
record which of the employees suffered financial loss,, or,the
extent ^of: the,,-loss-,if any, as a result of the foregoing
discrimination, practiced against„them, .I shall;; recommend
that Respondent, aftercappropriate, complianceproceed-
ings, make the affected, employees'whole for any loss ofwpay
incurred. Backpay. in: this -, regard shall be,, computed-„in
accordance with the:;Board €ula.set, forth in F. -W
Woolworth Company 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at
the rate of •6 percent, per annum computed, inthe manner
prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating;Co., ,138 NLRB 7.1}6.
, Upon the basis of the foregoing -findings of , fact and
conclusions, and upon, the- entire record in the case, I make
the following: ' • _ r .,
^_ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent ` is an employer engaged commerce
within'the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)76f the Act.
2.' The Union is: a' labor" organization within the
meaning' of Section 2(5)'of the Act.
3. By discharging- Junior' Wine, Russell ` Lahr, 'and
Samuel Moreno; thereby"discriminating in regard -to their
hire and-"tenure 6-employment; inorder'to discourage their
membership in- and' activities =on, behalf' of the Union,
because th ey" engaged in ' a 'concerted work stoppage
protected by the Act, the Respdndenthas engaged in and is
engaging n unfair labor practices within'the"meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) of the=Act.
4'." "By curtailing' -the "' hours' of work and requiring that
employees 'punch a, timeelock, 'in order to discourage
membership ^ in 'and- activities on "behalf' of the Union,
thereby discriminating in' regard to- their hire and tenure of
employment, the- Respondent has engaged in and Is
engaging in unfair labor'-practices within the me Of
Section 8(a)(3)-of3the Act. " ' -
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing; eni-
-ployees in, the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the, Act, the Respondent has engaged in,-and, •is
employee ^ witnesses testified that the unfair labor practices in which
Respondent indulged alone triggered their walkout, while others stated that
these ' practices played no role in their decision' tot uit work . I deem-it
unnecessary` ,to pass on,the"General Counse'l's contention for, under the
peculiar circumstances, of this case, the remedial order toy be fashioned
herein would be the same regardless of whether the-strike was an unfair
labor practice strike or an economic work stoppage.
7 See ' GopherAviation, "Inc., 160 NLRB 1688, 1701.
JOCQUEL.SUPPLY CO. INC. 489
engaging in unfair-labor practices within the purview of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices-within the meaning of Section 2(6)-,and (7) of the
Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
and Chester Wine,, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 25, shall be duly signed by a
representative of Respondent prior to mailing.
(f) Notify the Regional Lector for Region 25, in writing,
within 20 days of receipt of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.9 -
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, I recommend that Jocquel Supply Co., Inc., Fort
Wayne, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging employees, thereby discriminating in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to
discourage membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union, or any other labor organization, because they
engage in protected, concerted work stoppages.
(b) Curtailing the hours of work for employees and
requiring them to punch a timeclock, in order to discourage
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, or any
other labor organization, thereby discriminating in regard
to their hire and tenure of employment.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union sympathies and activities, and the union sympathies
and activities of their fellow employees.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor" organizations, to join or assist
the Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of theilr own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) In the event Respondent resumes business operations
in the future, and, upon their unconditional application for
reinstatement, offer to Junior Wine, Russell Lahr, Samuel
Moreno, and Chester Wine, immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions.
(b) Make any affected employee whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
practiced against him, in the manner set forth in the section
of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Upon the resumption of operations, notify Junior
Wine, Russell Lahr, Samuel Moreno, and Chester Wine, if
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States , of their
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from
the Armed Forces.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to ascertain any backpay due under the terms of
this Recommended Order.
(e) Mail to Junior Wine, Russell Lahr, Samuel Moreno,
8 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 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. In the event
that the Board's Order is enfort5d by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Mailed by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Mailed
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board:'
9 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith:'
APPENDIX
NOTICE
MAILED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees for engaging
in a lawful strike against our Company.
WE WILL NOT cut down the hours of work for
employees or require them to punch a timeclock
because they join or assist Local 297, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America.
WE WILL NOT ask our employees about their activities
on behalf of the Union or the activities of their fellow
employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights
under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL, in the event we go back into business in the
future, offer to Junior Wine, Russell Lahr, Samuel
Moreno, and Chester Wine, immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions if they unconditionally ask us for reinstate-
ment.
WE WILL pay any employee who is entitled to such
payment any wages lost because we changed the hours
of work and lunch periods.
WE WILL, in the event we go back into business,
notify Junior Wine, Russell Hahr, Samuel Moreno, and
Chester Wine, if serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States, of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
All our employees are free to become or refrain from
becoming members of the above-named Union or any
other labor organization.
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR , RELATIONS BOARD
JocQUEL SUPPLY Co., 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 othermaterial.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board 's Office, 614
ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46204, Telephone 317-633-8921.