Labs Truck Repair Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 1130 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Charles Satz, Leo Satz and Sam Satz, a Co-Partnership
d/b/a Labs Truck Repair Company and District
15, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 22-CA-4693
August 29, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Act, herein called the Act. Respondent filed an answer and
a hearing was held before me at Newark, New Jersey, on
January 25, 1972. Subsequent to the hearing, General
Counsel and Respondent filed briefs which have been
carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case1 and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
On April 11, 1972, Trial Examiner George J. Bott
issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a
brief in answer to the exceptions of the Respondent.
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders
that Charles Salz, Leo Salz and Sam Salz, a co-
partnership d/b/a Labs Truck Repair Company,
Linden, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successor,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE J. BoTT, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge of
unfair labor practices filed by District 15, International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, on November 22,
1971, against Labs Truck Repair Company, herein called
Respondent or Company, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on
January 7, 1972, alleging that Respondent had violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
1 General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the record is hereby
granted
2 I find, contrary to Respondent's contention, that Bonano is a
supervisor under the Act Bonano assigns work to the employees and
instructs them in the performance of their work Bonano initials timecards,
gives employees time off from work, and is the person employees speak to if
they are ill, or going to be late, or want to leave early Bonano participates
in the hiring process, and he also enjoys benefits not received by other
employees, such as a free company car and gasoline Employees consider
Respondent is a partnership with its principal office and
place of business at Linden, New Jersey, where it is
engaged in the business of providing and performing
repairs on trucks and forklifts.
During 1970, Respondent provided services valued in
excess of $50,000,, of which services in excess of $50,000
were provided and performed for other enterprises which,
in turn, performed services in excess of $50,000 for
customers outside the State of New Jersey.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discharges
The Facts
Respondent is engaged in the repair and service of trucks
for Linden Motor Freight, a company having common
ownership and sharing the same premises, although
Respondent's operations are conducted in one building of
the complex. At the time of the events in this case,
Respondent employed approximately 13 employees. At the
hearing it was stipulated that Louis Salz and Sandy Salz
are supervisors and agents of Respondent.
Louis Satz is in ultimate charge of Respondent, but Pat
Bonano, the shop foreman or maintenance supervisor, is in
charge of Respondent's day-to-day operations.2
Charles Eigner and William Scheller, the alleged discri-
minatees who were active in attempting to, organize
Respondent's employees into a union, were discharged on
November 19 and 18, 1971, respectively, at the height of
the Union's effort.3 Respondent claims that it laid off
Scheller for economic reasons. It admits Eigner's termina-
tion, but bases it on his refusal to accept an assignment to
the night shift.
Eigner was first employed by Respondent in October
Bonano to be shop foreman or maintenance supervisor, and he has also told
employees that he is ;such. Mail is addressed to him as maintenance
supervisor Employees receive all their instructions from Bonano and he is
the only management representative present in the shop regularly The
testimony about his function is uncontradicted
3 The parties agree : that the Union filed a petition for an election on
November 22, 1971 Charges of unfair labor practices were filed against
Respondent on November 22, and these appear to have blocked the
processing of the petition
198 NLRB No. 168
LABS TRUCK REPAIR COMPANY 1131
1967 as an apprentice diesel mechanic. He entered the
military service and returned to Respondent's employ in
March 1971 as a second class mechanic on the day shift.
Sometime during the middle of October 1971, Louis Salz
asked Eigner to take an assignment on the night shift, but
he refused. He argued that his wife worked days; that he
had been hired for the day shift; and that he could have
been employed at other establishments at a higher rate if
he wished to work nights. He also contended that other
employees were more in line for such a transfer since he
had more seniority. Salz asked Eigner to consider his
request and to discuss it with his wife, but Eigner made it
clear that there was nothing to discuss, for his mind was
made up. Salz concluded the discussion regarding the
transfer by summing up Eigner's position as "either you
work days or you don't work," and Eigner agreed that this
was so.
Sometime during the conversation, Eigner volunteered
that the mechanics, unhappy about their share of overtime,
were talking about joining a union. According to Eigner's
uncontradicted testimony, Salz replied that he would not
permit a union at Respondent, but "would fight it all the
way."
About a week after meeting with Salz, Eigner cryptically
commented to Supervisor Bonano that it looked like he
was not going to be fired. When Bonano asked for
clarification, Eigner told him about Salz' earlier request,
but Bonano told him to forget about the matter, since he
had heard no more about it.
In September 1971, Eigner and other employees had
engaged in general talk about organizing a union, but no
affirmative actions were taken until Eigner arranged to
meet the Union's representative after work on November
16. When he had met with the representative and had
examined the scale of wages provided in a collective-
bargaining contract with another company, he and
employee Sauer returned to Respondent's shop and signed
up the three employees then working. The next day he
discussed comparative wages with another employee in the
shop and solicited him for the Union. Since this employee
was reluctant to make a decision regarding the Union until
he had seen a copy of the union contract containing the
wage rates which Eigner was quoting, Eigner sent a copy to
him with Scheller that afternoon. After work that day,
Eigner secured another employee's signature to a union
card in the company's parking lot.
On November 19, shortly before noon, Salz terminated
Eigner and told him it was because he had refused to work
nights. Eigner volunteered to take the night assignment,
but Salz turned him down on the ground that he had
previously made a choice. When Eigner argued that the did
not want to lose his accumulated seniority and would take
the night job, Salz replied that he had already hired a
replacement. According to the credited testimony of other
employees, no one was hired to replace Eigner, but it does
appear that, on November 22, 1971, Respondent placed an
ad in a newspaper for a mechanic.
Eigner was not permitted to finish out the day. Although
he had asked Salz for permission to come back the next
day for his tools, Bonano told him after his meeting with
Salz that Salz wanted him and his tools out of the shop
immediately.
Scheller was promoted to mechanic's helper in August
1970 and given a $15-per-week increase in wages. He
worked overtime on every Saturday until he was terminat-
ed.
Scheller signed a union card and, on November 17, 1971,
during a coffeebreak on company property, he solicited
another employee to join the Union. The solicited
employee advised Scheller that he did not wish to make an
instant decision because he had hopes of getting a
substantial increase in wages and also wanted to discuss
the matter with his wife.
On November 18, Terminal Manager Liottit informed
Scheller that he was being laid off because of economic
conditions. The termination was effective immediately and
Scheller was not allowed to finish the workday. He had no
prior notice of possible layoff and he was the only
employee laid off. Although he has not been recalled,
Respondent hired Victor Rezabala as a mechanic's helper
on December 1. Rezabala testified without contradiction
that ever since he was employed, he and other employees
have regularly worked overtime on Saturdays.
On December 2, Scheller met with Salz at the latter's
request. After some preliminary remarks about their war
experiences, Salz commented that "you and I both know
what is going on," and Scheller said he did. After this
oblique reference to the union activity, Salz said there had
been no union at Respondent for 27 years, and one was not
needed. There also was some reference made to "holidays
and pay raises" after Scheller complained about certain
objectionable working conditions. At some point in the
discussion , Scheller asked Salz if he was going to take him
back to work and, stated that he would drop the unfair
labor practice charges filed by the Union on his behalf if
he were reinstated. Salz replied that "we can't take you
back under these circumstances," and he also asked
Scheller how he would know that Scheller would not vote
for the Union if he were reinstated. Scheller answered that
there was no point in lying, because he probably would
vote for the Union.
Bernard Alderman was Respondent 's only witness and
his testimony was restricted to the asserted economic
justification for Scheller's layoff. Alderman, assistant
secretary of Linden Motor Freight, with which Respondent
is closely related, is also in charge of Respondent's books
and records. He testified that Respondent performs
services exclusively for Linden Motor Freight and that the
latter company derives 40 percent of its revenues from
work on the piers which had been closed down from
September to late November 1971 by the longshoremen's
strike. Alderman said that since Linden Motor Freight's
income dropped as a result of the strike, fewer drivers were
used. He also said that as a result of Linden Motor
Freight's reduced activity, there was less service work for
Respondent to perform. Alderman did not know how
many employees Linden laid off during the period in
question nor was he able to say what effect the termination
of the dock strike had on Linden's revenues. He had no
records of Respondent with him when he testified and he
was unable to testify as to the amount of any reduction in
1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's income during Linden's strike difficulties nor
was he able to state what Respondent's work backlog was
at the time.
B. Alleged Unlawful Interrogation and Withdrawal
of Christmas Bonus in Violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act
The facts
About a week after Scheller and Eigner were terminated,
Respondent called a number of employees individually
into a conference room to talk with them. Employee Spears
had never been in this room before nor had he previously
met Sandy Salz, who did the talking. Salz said he had
heard about the union activity and felt that he was entitled
to "equal time" in order to talk about some of the benefits
the men enjoyed without a union . Salz also asked Spears if
he was for the Union and would vote for it. Spears
declined to answer.
When employee Laudeman met with Supervisor Bonano
and Louis Salz in the conference room, Salz asked him if
he knew what was going on in connection with the Union
and if he were involved in it. He replied that he was not.
Sandy and Louis Salz spoke with employee Powers in the
conference room in December. Powers had signed a union
card for Eigner and one of the Salz' asked him how he felt
about the Union.4 Powers replied that he was still thinking
it over. During the meeting, Powers was told that the
regular employee Christmas bonus would be withheld that
year on advice of counsel, but that it would be paid "after
this case was over." 5 Asked if Respondent promised him
any benefits or made any threats to him during the
interview, Powers stated that there were no threats but
there was an indication that Respondent was "looking
into" certain benefits for employees, such as "a schedule of
holidays." Employee grievances were also discussed, and
Powers was also told that Respondent did not want "a
union at this time."
Employee Sauer met with Louis Salz on December 19 at
which time Salz told him that he felt that the employees
"were stabbing him in the back" in organizing a union
without first talking with him. Salz said he did not want a
union in the shop. Sauer disagreed with Salz and reminded
him of an earlier unsuccessful employee effort to get wage
increases. Sometime during their conversation, Salz in-
formed Sauer that, on advice of counsel, the Christmas
bonus would not be paid that year because charges had
been filed against Respondent. Also, according to Sauer's
uncontradicted testimony, Salz was uncertain when the
bonus would be paid.
4 The exact words were "which way was (he) going."
5 The answer admits that during the years prior to 1971, Respondent
followed a practice of paying its employees a Christmas bonus payable at
Christmas time.
6 Saxon Paint Stores, Inc., 160 NLRB 1757.
r Alderman, Respondent's only witness, contributed nothing by way of
explanation in Eigner's case, and his testimony about Linden Motor
Freight's economic problems does not really support his undocumented
opinion that Respondent's operations were adversely affected by the dock
C. Analysis, Additional Findings and Conclusions
With Respect to the Unfair Labor Practices
1. The discharges
If, as Respondent contends, it did not know or suspect
that the dischargees were engaged in union activity, the
discharges could hardly be held to have been discriminato-
rily motivated.6 Although there is no direct evidence of
company knowledge of Eigner's and Scheller's activities
before they were discharged, it may be inferred from the
record as a whole. Based on the following circumstances, I
find that Respondent knew or suspected that Eigner and
Scheller were union activists when it dismissed them from
employment: (1) The timing of the discharges, shortly after
the Union agreed to help organize the employees and a day
or two after Eigner and Scheller had solicited other
employees to join the Union; (2) Respondent has actually
put forward no positive explanation for Eigner's and
Scheller's terminations 7 and its suggested explanations that
Eigner was terminated because he had refused a nighttime
assignment and Scheller because Respondent could not
afford to keep him are incredible and clearly pretextual in
the circumstances of this case; (3) Respondent's plant is
small, employing only 13 persons in the building involved,
and Eigner and Scheller engaged in union activity on the
premises; (4) Respondent, through Louis Salz, demonstrat-
ed an antiunion animus and, subsequent to the discharges,
coercively interrogated employees about their union
sentiments-8
As already indicated, in addition to the timing and union
animus, the reasons given the employees for their termina-
tions are incredible. In Eigner's case, he admittedly refused
an assignment to the nightshift when Salz asked him to
take it, but this happened a month before he was fired and
he made it clear to Salz at the time that his decision was
firm. In the meantime, however, he was not discharged,
and his foreman told him to forget the matter because he
had heard no more about it. When Salz later terminated
him, Eigner begged to be permitted to change his mind and
to take the night assignment, but Salz falsely stated that he
had hired a man in his place and could not break his word
to that person. No one had been hired to replace Eigner
and no one actually replaced him, but in fact Respondent
ran an advertisement for a mechanic on November 22,
1971, 3 days after his discharge. Because of these
considerations, I find that Respondent had a reason other
than the one it gave the employee to excuse his termination
and that it discharged this satisfactory employee, who was
the most active in the Union, because of his union
activities. By such conduct Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Respondent's asserted reason for Scheller's termination
is also pretextual. Although Respondent claims he was
strike. It is possible that Respondent did more maintenance work on
Linden's equipment during the strike since that is a good time to overhaul
idle equipment. This we don't know of course, but Respondent's failure to
produce witnesses and records to support its claim of economic justification
supports an inference that the testimony and records would be unfavorable
to it.
8 Wiese Plow Welding Co., Inc., 123 NLRB 616; American Grinding &
Machine Co., 150 NLRB 1357. See also N.LR.B. v. Joseph Antell, Inc., 358
F.2d 880 (C.A. 1).
LABS TRUCK REPAIR COMPANY 1133
"laid off" because of business conditions, I have found that
the testimony of Alderman, its only witness on that issue,
bears only on Linden Motor Freight's economic problems
during the dock strike and not on Respondent's and that
even in that area he was vague , uncertain , and unpersua-
sive. He offered very little specific detail or records
concerning Linden Motor Freight's need to retrench and
none with respect to Respondent's.
It has been found in Eigner 's case that after he was fired
Respondent advertised for a mechanic , and it also appears
that Scheller was replaced by Rezabala. These facts, as well
as the failure to give Scheller any reasonable notice of a
dismissal which could have been foreseen if it were really
based on economics and the fact that he worked overtime
before his discharge and his replacement and other
employees continued to do so thereafter, clearly indicate
that there was no economic need for Respondent to
terminate him and him alone.
Finally, during Scheller 's meeting with Satz on Decem-
ber 2, at Satz' request, Satz spoke against a union and
wondered aloud how Scheller might vote if he were
reinstated . His concern with Scheller's union sentiments
during an interview which touched on reemployment and
the lack of any reference to business conditions is strong
evidence that Scheller's termination was motivated by
something other than legitimate economic need.
On the basis of the above considerations, I find and
conclude that Respondent discharged Scheller because of
his union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act.
2. Independent violations of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act
a. Interrogation
About a week after Scheller and Eigner were terminated,
Sandy and Louis Satz called employees individually into a
conference room and questioned them about the union
activity. Respondent gave the employees no explanation
for its inquiries nor were they accompanied by any
assurances against reprisal . I find and conclude that
Respondent's interrogation of Spears, Powers, and Laude-
man, as found above, served no legitimate purpose and was
coercive, particularly in the circumstances under which it
was conducted and without regard to the recent illegal
dismissals of Eigner and Scheller. These circumstances, in
addition to the lack of explanation of the purpose of the
interrogation and the failure to indicate to the employees
that an honest answer would not jeopardize their jobs,
include the place of interrogation and employer expres-
sions of union animus in connection with it. Moreover, in
at least one case, Powers', Respondent coupled its
interrogation with its announcement of the elimination of
the regular Christmas bonus. The, probable effect of
Respondent's interrogation under these circumstances was
to inhibit union activity, and, as such, it violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.9
9 N L R B v Historic Smahvdle Inn , 414 F 2d 1358 , 1359-1362 (C A 3)
10 1694NLRB 1153
11 158 NLRB 1237, 1242
b. Withdrawal of the regular Christmas bonus
It is admitted that during the years prior to 1971,
Respondent followed a practice of paying its employees a
Christmas bonus and that sometime during the middle of
December 1971, Respondent advised employees that the
bonus would not be paid that year. Respondent called no
witnesses on this issue , but the testimony of employees
shows that the announcement was made at or about the
time employees were being coercively interrogated about
their union sentiments and, in some cases, made in
connection with expressions of disfavor with the employ-
ees' union activities . Sauer testified that Satz told him that
he felt that the men were stabbing him in the back by
trying to bring in a union, and Powers, who was coercively
interrogated at the same time , was told that Respondent
did not want a union . The only reason given the employees
for Respondent's action was that it was connected with
pending charges of unfair labor practices and done on the
advice of counsel . No clear explanation , however, was
given as to what Respondent eventually planned to do
about the bonus.
Respondent, relying on Uarco, Inc., 10 argues that since it
explained to the employees that the bonus was being
postponed because counsel had so advised , its announce-
ment was not coercive because it did not attempt to shift
the onus of the postponement to the Union . In Uarco, the
Board found that the employer had made it clear to
employees that whether or not they were represented by a
union , it planned to continue its established practice of
adjusting wage rates at a certain time and that the sole
purpose of its announcement postponing a wage adjust-
ment was to avoid the appearance that it sought to
interfere with its employees' free choice in any election that
might be directed by the Board . In this case , I have found
that Respondent did not make its plans clear and also
coupled its announcement with coercive interrogation or
antiunion sentiments . In such a context , the employees
could reasonably believe that the Respondent was blaming
the Union for their losses.
In McCormick Longmeadow Stone Co., Inc.," the Board
described an employer's duty with regard to the granting or
withholding of employee benefits during a representation
proceeding as requiring him to decide the question
precisely as if the union were not in the picture. If the
employer's course of action is altered by reason of the
union's presence then he violates the Act, and counsel's
advice does not turn his action into an expression of
neutrality. I conclude that Uarco is in some significant
measure distinguishable and that , in any case , McCormick
and cases like it control . Respondent , therefore , violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by announcing the
withholding of its regular Christmas bonus.12
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of the Respondent set forth
above , in section III, occurring in connection with its
12 McCormick Longmeadow Stone Co, Inc, supra See also The Gates
Rubber Company , 182 NLRB 95, Great Plains Steel Corp, 183 NLRB No
96
1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operations described in section I, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act,
it will be recommended that the Board issue the recom-
mended Order set forth below requiring Respondent to
cease and desist from said unfair labor practices and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent violated the Act by
discharging William Scheller and Charles Eigner, I will
recommend that Respondent offer them immediate and
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if they are not
available, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges and
make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, by
payment to them of a sum of money equal to what each of
them would normally have earned as wages from the date
of discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less net earnings during such period, with
backpay and interest thereon to be computed in the
manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I
shall also recommend that the employees be made whole
for loss of the bonuses withheld from them because of their
union activities with interest thereon.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization as defined in
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging William Scheller and Charles Eigner
because they had engaged in union activities, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. By withholding its 1971 Christmas bonus because of
the employees' union activities, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. By coercively interrogating its employees about their
union sympathies and activities, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 13
ORDER
Respondent, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging employees, refusing to reinstate them, or
otherwise discriminating against them because they engage
in union or other protected concerted activities.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees about their union
sympathies or activities.
(c) Withholding bonuses or any other benefits from
employees because of their union activities.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act:
2. Take the following Affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Immediately pay all employees the 1971 Christmas
bonuses withheld from them as provided in "The Remedy"
section of this Decision.
(b) Offer William Scheller and Charles Eigner immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if not
available, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges
and make them whole for any loss of earnings, in the
manner set forth in "The Remedy" section of this
Decision.
(c) Notify the above-named employees, if presently
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 Froces.
(d) Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents all payroll and other records necessary to compute
the backpay and reinstatement rights, as set forth in "The
Remedy" section of this Decision.
(e) Post at its Linden, New Jersey, place of business,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 14
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 22, shall, after being duly signed by
Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.15
13 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 , 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
14 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 be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
15 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read-
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
LABS TRUCK REPAIR COMPANY 1135
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in District 15,
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
by discharging or refusing to reinstate employees, or in
any manner discriminating in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL offer William Scheller and Charles Eigner
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if they are not available, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to seniority or other rights
and privileges and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
WE WILL NOT withhold bonuses or any other benefits
from employees because they engage in union activities
and we will pay the 1971 Christmas bonus.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their
union activities, or in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the above-named or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
CHARLES SALZ, LEO SAI.Z
AND SAM SALZ, A Co-
PARTNERSHIP D/B/A LABS
TRUCK REPAIR COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
Note: WE WILL notify each of the above-named employ-
lees, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States, of his 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.
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 compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Federal Building , Sixteenth Floor, 970 Broad Street,
Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-2100.