276 N.L.R.B. 1314 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

Leslie Oldsmobile, Inc., Leslie Volkswagon, Inc., And Dupage Leslie Oldsmobile, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 30, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 1314 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Leslie Oldsmobile, Inc., Leslie Volkswagen , Inc., and Dupage Leslie Oldsmobile, Inc. and Automobile Mechanics Local No . 701, International Asso- ciation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 13-CA-23572 30 September 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS DENNIS, JOHANSEN, AND BABSON On 28 March 1985 Administrative Law Judge Burton S. Kolko issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed briefs in support of the judge's decision. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions 1 and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Leslie Olds- mobile, Inc., Leslie Volkswagen, Inc., and Dupage Leslie Oldsmobile, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. 1 Member Babson agrees with his colleagues that the Respondent vio- lated Sec 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by failing to recall laid-off employees Keafer, McAnns, and Sharp. In so doing, he concludes that the Respond- ent has not rebutted the General Counsel's prima facie case of union animus based on the Respondent's entire course of conduct, particularly the timing of the layoffs and Ralph Rosengarden's remark to Keafer that the VW business was going to be nonunion. Sheryl Sternberg, Esq., of Chicago , Illinois, for the Gener- al Counsel. Donald F. .Peters Jr., Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, for the Respondent. William A. Widmer III, Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, for the Charging Party. DECISION BURTON S. KOLKO, Administrative Law Judge. Auto- mobile Mechanics Local No. 701, International Associa- tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (Union or Charging Party) filed a charge on August 29, 1983, against Leslie Oldsmobile, Inc., Leslie Volkswagen, Inc. and Dupage Leslie Oldsmobile, Inc. (Respondent Oldsmobile, Respondent VW, and Respondent Dupage), and collectively as Respondents. On October 12, 1983, a complaint issued alleging that Respondent VW is an alter ego or successor of, and a single employer to, Respond- ent Oldsmobile and Respondent Dupage. In addition, the complaint alleges that Respondents have failed and re- fused to recognize or bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act; and have discriminated in regard to hire or tenure or terms of conditions of employment of their employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. An amended complaint issued on November 8, 1983, alleged further that Respondent unilaterally changed the wages, hours, and working conditions of employees by refusing to comply with the collective-bar- gaining agreement; and, through Ralph Rosengarden, promised employees that they would be paid above union scale in order to dissuade them from joining, sup- porting, or assisting the Union. Respondents' answers deny the commission of any unfair labor practices. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,' and after careful consider- ation of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and Respondent, 2 I find that Respond- ent VW is not a disguised continuance, as the General Counsel alleges, but is, however, an alter ego, and/or single employer of Respondent Oldsmobile's and Re- spondent Dupage. Accordingly, I find that Respondent VW has an obligation to recognize the Union as the col- lective-bargaining agent of its employees and to apply the terms and conditions of employment specified in Re- spondent Oldsmobile and Respondent Dupage's contracts (whose terms are identical) to its unit employees. By fail- ing to do so, Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Background In 1962 Joseph and Ralph Rosengarden, as equal owners, established Respondent Oldsmobile in Wheaton, Illinois, for the purpose of selling and servicing new Oldsmobiles, used cars, and parts. Although initially a nonunion employer, Respondent Oldsmobile granted rec- ognition to the Union as the collective-bargaining agent for its mechanics, bodymen, painters, apprentices, and semiskilled workers in approximately 1963, and has con- tinued to do so since that time.3 In 1965, after doing business for several years at the Wheaton, Illinois loca- tion, Respondent Oldsmobile moved to its present loca- tion, 395 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, a building then and now owned by the Joseph Rosengarden family trust and the Ralph Rosengarden family trust. Between 1967 and 1971 the family trusts acquired two parcels of land adjacent to the 395 building, one of which became the site for Leslie Car Wash, and the other for the 405 build- 1 This case was heard before me on February 15, 16, and 17, 1984, in Chicago, Illinois 2 Briefs were filed on April 2, 6, and 9. a At the time of the hearing the most current agreement was one that was in effect from August 20, 1981, to June 30, 1984 276 NLRB No. 148 LESLIE OLDSMOBILE ing.4 In 1975 the 405 building, originally built to provide Respondent Oldsmobile with additional office space, became the home for Respondent Dupage,5 a Fiat sales and service dealership. In 1976 Respondent Dupage rec- ognized the Union as the collective-bargaining agent for its mechanics, bodymen, painters, apprentices, and semi- skilled workers. The contract which covered these em- ployees was identical to the contract that covered Re- spondent Oldsmobile's employees.6 Respondent Dupage conducted business at the 405 address until March 1983. B. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices At some unspecified time in 1982, Ralph Rosengarden, then co-owner of Respondents Oldsmobile and Dupage, as well as management representative responsible for for- mulating employee relations and overall manager' of both Respondent Oldsmobile and Respondent Dupage, realized that Fiat was going to pull out of the U.S. Market. Accordingly , Rosengarden began contacting automobile manufacturers to secure a new franchise with which to replace the Fiat business . In January or Febru- ary 1983 a decision was made to replace the Fiat dealer- ship with a Volkswagen franchise . Rosengarden received a letter from Volkswagen about February 16 informing him that his application to become an authorized Volks- wagen dealer had been approved . On March 2, 1983, the corporation name was changed from Dupage Leslie Im- ports to Leslie Volkswagen , Inc. Approximately 2 months later, in May 1983, Respondent Volkswagen opened for business, selling and servicing Volkswagens at Respondent Dupage's previous address, 405 Roosevelt Road. Respondent Oldsmobile continued to do business at the 395 building throughout the changeover. At no time during the changeover did Respondent VW bargain with the Union. Prior to the changeover , Respondent Dupage em- ployed several mechanics , three of whom were John Keafer , Donald McAmis, and Gregory Sharp. Accord- ing to testimony given by Keafer , Rosengarden informed him prior to March 9, 1983, that he wanted him to attend VW training so that he could work in Volks- wagens after the change in dealerships . At that time Ro- sengarden informed him that the VW business was going to be nonunion . Keafer, who was laid off on March 9, did, in fact, attend the Volkswagen school and success- 4 405 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois. In 1975 a smaller, unnum- bered building was built for the purpose of connecting the two (395 and 405) buildings. To avoid misunderstandings , no member of management shall employ and/or supervise any member of his or her immediate family. The immediate family is defined as a parent, brother, sister, spouse, child, grandparent or corresponding in laws. (This policy does not affect any situations existing when this policy was estab- lished.) 5 The original Rosengarden family business, called Motor King, opened in 1922 as a noncorporate entity. At a later, unspecified date Motor King was incorporated and was subsequently renamed the Rosen- garden Coporation. Between 1972 and 1975 the Rosengarden Corpora- tion remained dormant. In 1975 the name of the corporation was changed to Dupage Leslie Imports 6 At the time of the hearing the most recent contract had been effec- tive from August 30, 1981, to June 30, 1984. T He was responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of both corporations. 1315 fully completed several courses. On April 18, Keafer re- turned to work, not for Respondent VW as planned, but for Respondent Oldsmobile. Keafer later questioned Ro- sengarden about the VW job that he felt he had been promised and Rosengarden informed him that he wanted Keafer to stay with Oldsmobile. Keafer remained at Oldsmobile until some time in May when, in response to working conditions, he quit. On March 11 union representatives visited the facility and met with Rosengarden. Representative Feehan testi- fied that Rosengarden in response to questions about the rumored change in dealership and its effect on employ- ees, informed him that he was not sure whether he was going to get a Volkswagen dealership but that Rosengar- den and the Union had never had any troubles in the past, that he did not see any in the future, and that things would be all right. Shortly after their meeting, Gregory Sharp and all other employees of Respondent Dupage were given ter- mination letters, effective that day. Rosengarden in- formed Sharp that Sharp was to report to Respondent Oldsmobile for work on Monday, March 14. Sharp was required as a condition of employment to fill out a new application for the position and was informed that he would not be able to carry over his seniority. Sharp re- ported to Respondent Oldsmobile for work on March 14 as directed and has continued to work there since that time. Analysis and Conclusions A. The Alter Ego and Single Employer Allegations The complaint alleges and the General Counsel and Charging Party argue that Respondent VW is a dis- guised continuance of Respondent Dupage, created in an attempt to avoid the collective-bargaining agreement and relationship between the Union and Respondent Dupage, therefore constituting an alter ego to Respondent Dupage. Based on the facts set forth above, it is clear that Re- spondent Dupage ceased operations and Respondent VW subsequently commenced operations for economic rea- sons unrelated to the Union. Consequently, without addi- tional evidence to prove otherwise, it must be found that Respondent VW is not a disguised continuance of Re- spondent Dupage. Absent a disguised continuance, the Board has generally found alter ego status only where the two enterprises in question have "substantially" iden- tical ownership, management, business purpose, oper- ations, equipment, customers, and supervision. 8 Respond- ents claim that Leslie Oldsmobile, Dupage Leslie Im- ports, and Leslie Volkswagen are/have been distinctly separate business entities. I find similarities that exist which prove otherwise. In regard to corporate structure, it is clear that the di- rectors, the officers, and the stockholders are essentially the same in each corporation; Joseph and Ralph Rosen- garden serve as directors for Respondent Oldsmobile and I See Advance Electric, 268 NLRB 1001 (1984); Chippewa Motor Freight, 261 NLRB 455 (1982); and Crawford Door Sales, 226 NLRB 1144 (1976). 1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent VW and are the principle shareholders for both corporations, each owning 50 percent of the stock. Similarly, Joseph and Ralph Rosengarden were directors of9 and equal (50 percent) shareholders in Respondent Dupage. Joseph and Ralph Rosengarden and William Hinckley are officers of both Respondent Oldsmobile and Respondent VW; Joseph Rosengarden's wife, Edith Rosengarden, is an officer of Respondent Oldsmobile, and Ralph Rosengarden's daughter, Cathye Rosengarden is an officer of Respondent VW. The only officers of Re- spondent Dupage were Joseph and Ralph Rosengarden. In addition to the substantially identical corporate structure of the three corporations, similarities exist in regard to supervision, management, and operations. Ralph Rosengarden is now and has been at all times overall manager, responsible for the daily operation of each corporation. In his capacity as overall manager he is responsible for establishing so-called legal relations policies and employee relations policies relating to wage rates, fringe benefits, and personnel policies. Policies for- mulated by Ralph Rosengarden are embodied in two personnel manuals, identical save for the color of the covers and the name of the corporation, which were dis- tributed to employees of Respondent Oldsmobile and Re- spondent VW. Ralph Rosengarden took an active role in developing labor relations policies by executing the collective-bar- gaining agreements covering the terms and conditions of employment for unit employees of Respondent Oldsmo- bile and Respondent Dupage. Those agreements were, as previously stated, identical in all regards. In addition, Respondents Oldsmobile, Dupage, and Leslie use the same certified public accounting firm, John R. Waters, for all of their personal and business ac- counting, and the same corporate counsel, Max Ritten- berg. Furthermore, Respondent Oldsmobile and Re- spondent VW share the same comptroller, Maria Chu, and the same bookkeeper, Michelle Poglitch. Ralph Rosengarden usually signs all payroll checks; however, if he is out-of-town, one of several authorized people will perform that function. The people authorized to sign checks and financial documents for Respondents Oldsmobile, Dupage, and VW are as follows: Ralph Ro- sengarden, Joseph Rosengarden, Caroline Kiang, William Hinckley, and Cathye Rosengarden. In short, the same five people are authorized to sign checks for all three of the Respondents. Work performed on the administrative level is done out of a single administrative office that contains paper- work and records for all three Respondents, and to which all of the Respondents have access. The adminis- trative staff perform various clerical functions, including recordkeeping, for all of the Respondents, despite the fact that they are listed on Respondent Oldsmobile's pay- roll, are paid with Respondent Oldsmobile's checks, and are listed, for purposes of the Federal 941 quarterly income tax forms, with both Respondent Oldsmobile and Respondent VW. Two copying machines exist" that are 9 Ruth Fields was also a director of Respondent Dupage. 10 One is located in the administrative office, the other in Respondent Oldsmobile's sales office. owned by Respondent Oldsmobile and which are used additionally by Respondent Dupage and Respondent VW. Respondent Oldsmobile and Respondent VW share a single phone number that is answered by one recep- tionist, and which is listed on stationery and business cards bearing the name Leslie Oldsmobile Volkswagen, Inc." Respondents have also, if not permanently, at least temporarily engaged in the sharing of and interchanging of personnel beyond the clerical level, as is evidenced by the tax forms filed by the Respondents and Respondents' testimony during the hearing. (G.C. Exhs. 19-21.) In addition, it is clear that Respondents' employees share certain facilities, equipment, and supplies, notably, a single parking lot, changing area, and washroom. Em- ployees of all three Respondents have access to and use of the new- and used-car cleanup area and equipment contained therein.12 Respondents' technicians similarly all have access to the toolroom and regularly make use of certain shared equipment including, inter alia, brake lathes and the hydraulic press. Respondents' technicians also have access to and use of electric testing equipment and the wheel balances.13 Often internal mechanical or body work was per- formed by one business for the other, with most of the work on used cars being done by Respondent VW's me- chanics regardless of whether Respondent VW or Re- spondent Oldsmobile allegedly owned them. Additional evidence of the integrated nature of the Re- spondents lies within insurance policies that the business maintains. It is clear that all of the nonunion employees, regardless of which Respondent employs them, are cov- ered by a single group health and life insurance policy. Furthermore, Respondent Oldsmobile and Respondent VW share specific insurance policies that provide blanket coverage for the entire facility, including a fire insurance policy, all risk coverage, garage liability insurance, and automobile dealers' physical damage insurance. Of significance in demonstrating the absence of arm's- length transaction between Respondents is Respondents' leasing practices. Although Respondents allegedly main- tained separate and distinct leases for each business facili- ty, such leases were apparently oral-not written-save for Respondent VW's recent lease that was prepared by Max Rittenberg on February 10, 1983-6 days before Rosengarden received the letter from VW authorizing the franchise-and which remained unsigned at the time of the hearing.14 " i This is sometimes hyphenated to read Leslie Oldsmobile-Volks- wagen, Inc 12 Respondent Oldsmobile is essentially responsible for purchasing gen- eral and maintenance supplies including shampoos, undercoating remover and solvent used in the cleanup area. 13 The first is a portable piece of equipment adaptable to use anywhere in the facility, the latter is located in the Oldsmobile shop. 14 Respondent made reference to, but failed to provide any tangible evidence of, a prior written lease between Respondent Oldsmobile and the family trusts covering the entire facility. Similarly Respondent failed to produce any tangible evidence which would tend to prove the exist- ence of any subsequent leasing arrangement save for the one mentioned. LESLIE OLDSMOBILE Here, it can not be disputed that Respondents had identical ownership by members of the Rosengarden family. Joseph and Ralph Rosengarden were and are equal shareholders in each of the businesses discussed herein. An examination of the corporate structure of Re- spondents reveals that they are substantially identical. Corporate directors, with one exception, and corporate officers, again with only one exception, are all members of the Rosengarden family. Ralph Rosengarden has at all times been the overall manager of all of the Respondents, responsible for day-to-day supervision, policy making, and operational decisionmaking. All of the Respondents are engaged in the business of selling and servicing new and used automobiles, and share the same premises, office personnel, certain equipment and supplies, the same certified public accounting firm, and the same cor- porate counsel. Insurance policies, including a fire insur- ance policy, all risk coverage, garage liability insurance, and automobile dealers physical damage insurance, pro- vide blanket coverage for the entire facility. Unclear from the evidence presented, however, is whether or not Respondents' customers were substantial- ly identical. It is clear that Respondent had the opportu- nity and furthermore the obligation pursuant to a valid subpoena duces tecum to present documents relating, inter alia, to the identity of Respondents' customers. Re- spondents' conscious failure to provide documentary proof of which they are the sole custodians creates an adverse inference that such evidence is not favorable to Respondents' case.15 In like vein, Respondents' conten- tions that the businesses maintain separate leases, pay separate gas and electric bills, share administrative ex- penses and reimburse one another for work done by one Respondent for another, must also fall to the wayside since, again, Respondent has failed to provide documents which could possibly support its claims. In light of the above, I conclude that Respondent VW is and has been the alter ego of Respondent Dupage since the termination of Respondent Dupage's franchise agreement. Having found that Respondent VW is the alter ego of Respondent Dupage, I find it obvious that the two con- stitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act.16 As originally stated in Sakrete of Northern Califor- nia, 137 NLRB 1220 (1962), affd. 332 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 961 (1965), the Board looks to four principal factors in determining whether two or more entities are sufficiently integrated so that they may be treated as a single enterprise. These factors are: (1) common management, (2) centralized control of labor re- lations, (3) interrelation of operations, and (4) common ownership.17 While none of these factors individually is Seafarers Atlantic District (American Barge Lines), 244 NLRB 641 (1979); Northern States Beef 234 NLRB 921 (1978) Is See All Kind Quilting, Inc, 266 NLRB 1186 (1983) 11 See also Electrical Workers Local 1264 IBEW v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, 280 U.S. 255 (1965), Bryar Construction Co, 240 NLRB 102 (1979); and Truck & Door Services, 272 NLRB 592 (1984), see NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Industries, 691 F.2d 1117, 1121-24 (3d Cir. 1982), for the distinction between "single employer" and "joint employer" status 1317 has been held to be controlling, emphasis has been placed on the first three factors, particularly centralized control of labor relations. In the instant case it is clear that all of the Respond- ents are interrelated businesses. The facts discussed above show that members of the same family own all three businesses and have virtually identical corporate management. Ralph Rosengarden is admittedly the over- all manager of Respondents, responsible for formulating and implementing personnel and labor relations policies. Given the common management, centralized control of labor relations, interrelation of operations and common ownership, I conclude that Respondent VW and Re- spondent Oldsmobile are a single enterprise along with Respondent Dupage and Respondent Oldsmobile. B. The 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) Allegations Having found Respondent VW to be the alter ego of Respondent Dupage and concurrently having found Re- spondent VW, Respondent Dupage, and Respondent Oldsmobile to be a single enterprise, it is well established that Respondent VW is bound by the collective-bargain- ing agreement entered into between the Union and Re- spondent Dupage and was obligated to bargain with the Union as the representative of its employees. By not doing so, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Further, since the Union was and is the collec- tive-bargaining representative of Respondent VW's em- ployees, Respondent VW's unilateral changes in wage rates and fringe benefits for its employees violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Finally, whether or not Respondent Dupage's layoff of employees Deafer, Sharp, and McAmis violated the Act"" it is clear that Respondent VW violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act when it began operations on March 11, 1983, by failing to offer employment to the laid-off em- ployees. Although both Sharp and Deafer were offered and subsequently accepted positions with Respondent Oldsmobile, that employment resulted in a loss of seniori- ty to both employees. Had Respondent VW abided by the collective-bargaining agreement, neither employee would have been subject to such loss. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent VW and its alter ego Respondent Dupage, together with Respondent Oldsmobile, consti- tute a single employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and its Local 701, constitute a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. At all times material Respondent VW has been and is now bound by the collective -bargaining agreement with the Union. 18 It is irrelevant for our purposes that McAmis' layoff technically oc- curred outside the 10(b) period Since Respondent's obligation to offer employment to the laid-off employees commenced no later than May 1983 when it actually began operations, McAmis' seniority, to the extent that it exists, would preclude Respondent from replacing McAmis by hiring a new employee. 1318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. By refusing to honor the terms and conditions of the collective -bargaining agreement , by unilaterally changing wage rates and fringe benefits, and by failing to recog- nize and bargain with the Union, Respondent VW violat- ed Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 5. By refusing to recall laid -off employees Keafer, McAmis, and Sharp, Respondent VW violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that Respondent violated the Act by committing the above-named unfair labor practices, it is clear that Respondent must be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having also found that Respondent VW is the alter ego of Respondent Dupage, that Respondent VW and Respondent Dupage, together with Respondent Oldsmo- bile, constitute a single employer, and that Respondent VW continued to operate Respondent Dupage's business but failed and refused to recognize the Union as the col- lective-bargaining representative of its employees or to apply the terms of the collective -bargaining agreement between the Union and Respondent Dupage, I will order Respondent VW to recognize the Union as the represent- ative of its employees and to honor and apply the terms of that agreement to its employees. In addition , I will order Respondent to restore the status quo ante by offering employees Keafer, McAmis, and Sharp immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs and, if those jobs no longer exist , to substan- tially equivalent positions without prejudice to their se- niority and other rights and privileges , and to make those employees whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of Respondent 's refusal to recall , with backpay computed as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as set forth in Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). The fact that Respondent Oldsmobile em- ployed Keafer and Sharp subsequent to the termination of Respondent Dupage's business operations does not per se satisfy Respondent VW's separate and distinct obliga- tion to employ said employees from its conception. Re- spondent Oldsmobile, when it hired Keafer and Sharp without transferring their seniority, was acting much like any other employer would act in hiring new employees. Thus any earnings Keafer and Sharp incurred during their employ at Respondent Oldsmobile will be treated as interim earnings and be deducted in the usual manner set forth above, subject to the actual disposition in the compliance stage of this proceeding. McAmis, like Keafer and Sharp , was employed by Re- spondent Dupage and was covered by the collective-bar- gaining agreement in effect at the time between Re- spondent Dupage and the Union . Since McAmis' em- ployment with Respondent Dupage was not terminated prior to the changeover , Respondent VW, as the alter ego of Respondent Dupage, had an obligation under the terms and conditions of the agreement to consider McAmis' status as an employee in making any decisions regarding its employment force. Thus McAmis' seniority, to the extent that it exists , would preclude Respondent VW from replacing McAmis with a new employee. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed'9 ORDER The Respondent , Leslie Oldsmobile , Inc., Leslie Volkswagen , Inc., and Dupage Leslie Oldsmobile, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with IAM, Local 701 as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of their employees. (b) Refusing to honor the terms and conditions of their collective-bargaining agreement with and withdrawing recognition from the Union , and unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment of employees. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) On request, recognize and bargain collectively with lAM, Local 701 as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive of employees employed at Respondent VW. (b) Comply with the terms and conditions of the col- lective-bargaining agreements between Respondent Dupage and the Union to which Respondent is bound, retroactively to March 11, 1983. (c) Offer employees Keafer, McAmis, and Sharp im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist , to substantially equivalent po- sitions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges , and to make those employees whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of Respond- ent's refusal to recall with backpay computed as pre- scribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as set forth in Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).(d) Post at its Glen Ellyn, Illinois plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."20 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by the Respondent's au- thorized representative , shall be posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con- secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. iB If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules , be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses. z a If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board " LESLIE OLDSMOBILE (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec- tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect- ed concerted activities. WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with Automobile Mechanics Local No. 701, International As- sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL- CIO as the exclusive representative of our employees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time employees em- ployed by Leslie Dupage, Inc. and its alter ego 1319 Leslie Volkswagen , Inc., but excluding clerical em- ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT repudiate the collective-bargaining process by withdrawing recognition from the above- named as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of our unit employees, and WE WILL NOT refuse to follow the collective-bargaining agreements applicable to our unit employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, on request, bargain with the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of all the employ- ees in the appropriate unit concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment. WE WILL comply with the terms and conditions of the collective-bargaining agreement applicable to our unit employees retroactively to March 11, 1983. WE WILL offer John Keafer, Donald McAmis, and Gregory Sharp immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan- tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their se- niority or any other rights or privileges previously en- joyed and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from their dis- charge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest. LESLIE OLDSMOBILE, INC., LESLIE VOLKS- WAGEN, INC., AND DUPAGE LESLIE OLDS- MOBILE, INC.