Lyon & Ryan Ford, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 5, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

IYON & RYAN FORD. IN('
Lyon & Ryan Ford. Inc. and Automobile Mechanics
Local 701, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 13 ('A
18104
October 5. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN FANNING ANDI) MIF.MBI RS JNKINS
ANI) Mt'RPHIY
On July 17. 1979. Administrative Law Judge J.
Pargen Robertson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter. Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief. and the General Counsel tiled
a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional l.abor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and
conclusions2 of the Administrative l.aw Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Lyon & Ryan Ford. Inc.,
Antioch, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order.
i Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibihty unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard DO Wall Products. Inc. 91 N.RB 544
1950. enfd 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully eamined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 Member Murphy agrees with the Administrative Law Judge's conclu-
sions that any unconditional offer to return to work made by the discharged
unfair labor practice strikers would have been futile. Accordingly. she would
find that Respondent's backpay liability runs from the date of the termina-
tion of the strike. See the dissenting opinion of Members Penello and Mur-
phy in Abhlities and Goodwill, Inc. 241 NLRB 27 (1979)1.
DECISION
SIATEMENT OF()i I C(AS
J. PAR(;I:N ROBER'SON, Administrative l.aw Judge: This
case was heard in Chicago. Illinois. on April 11. 1979. The
complaint, which issued on November 15. 1978. and was
amended at the hearing, is predicated on a charge filed on
October 10. 1978.
The complaint, as amended, alleges that the Respondent,
Lon & Ryan Ford. Inc.. violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act
hb interrogating its emplo)ees concerning the Union, Auto-
mobile Mechanics Local 701. International Association of'
Machinists and Aerospace Workers. AFL CIO: Section
8(a)(5) b withdrawing recognition of the nion as exclu-
sive bargaining representative of certain employees and
Section 8(a)(3) by discharging six employees that engaged
in an unfair labor practice strike.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate. to
introduce relevant evidence. to examine and cross-examine
)witnesses, and to file brieks. Briefs. which have been care-
full\ considered. were filed on behalf' of' General Counsel.
(Cbarging Part>. and Respondent. Upon the entire record
and rom my tobservation of the w itnesses and their demiea-
nor. I make the iollowing:
IINI)IN(S AN) (O'(N( I SI)NS
t. ( )MMI-R('I
Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. AR O)R(iANIZAIs ION
Automobile Mechanics Local 701. International Associ-
ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFI (10, is,
and at all times material herein has been, a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. 1111 IIl)l:N.(L
On August 22. 1978. at the second of two meetings be-
tween Union Business Representative Donald Carlson and
employees of Respondent. 101 of those employees signed
union authorization cards and applications for Union mem-
bership. The authorization cards specified:
1. the undersigned, . . . hereby authorize the Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers (AM) to act as my collective bargaining agent with
the company tbr wages, hours and working conditions.
On August 24, Union Representatives Carlson and Ed
Vaughn went to Respondent's facility and met with Re-
spondent President Larry Ryan. After introducing them-
selves. Carlson and Vaughn were asked into Ryan's office
where only the three of them were present. Carlson told
Ryan they had signed up a majority of his employees that
Eleven cards were received into evidence with testimony that all eleven
were signed at the August 22 meeting. However. one of General Counsel's
witnesses testified that one of the alleged signers, Mark Mantsch. was not at
the August 22 meeting. in view of that testimony I shall not count Mantsch's
card for purposes of determining the majority issue. Sunset. Nursng Homes,
Inc-, d,h'i North Miami Convalesrenl Home, 224 NLRB 1271 11976)
Respondent contends that the evidence demonstrates the application and
a;ulhorilztion cards were signed after August 22 However, cards were signed
on the date reflected thereon, August 22. The testimony of Donald Carlson
and Anthon Ily nous in addition to the cards, reflect they were all signed on
August 22
246 NLRB No. 2
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
came under their jurisdiction, namely mechanics, semi-
skilled and apprentices, bodymen, and painters, and they
were there to negotiate a contract. Carlson handed Ryan a
letter saying the original copy of the letter was in the mail
to Ryan. The letter, which was dated August 22, 1978, de-
manded recognition of the Union as bargaining representa-
tive of the before-mentioned employees and asserted that
the Union represented a majority of those employees. Carl-
son explained that his Union traditionally sought to repre-
sent only those employees "who turn wrenches, not any-
body else." Ryan asked who Carlson was talking about.
Carlson asked if Ryan wanted to see the employees' cards
and applications. Ryan indicated he did and Carlson
handed Ryan the 11 signed authorization cards and the 11
signed membership applications. Ryan went through the
cards one-by-one. Carlson gave Ryan a copy of the recently
expired master contract for the Chicago area along with a
voting information sheet which listed the changes that
would be included in the new master contract. Carlson ex-
plained that the new contract had not been printed. At that
point Carlson briefly went over the master contract and
explained several of the provisions. When they reached the
welfare and pension program, Ryan asked what was the
current cost. When Carlson replied $30 per week per man
for both health and welfare and pension, Ryan turned and
punched out some numbers on his adding machine. Ryan
then asked about coverage if an employee was hurt on a
company picnic. Carlson said an employee may be covered
by workmen's compensation in that situation but if not, the
insurance would pick up the cost. They then went over the
wage scale. Carlson testified that the Company had already
gone over to their contractual rate on booked hours of
$9.35 for the first 40 booked hours and $10.35 for hours
thereafter. Therefore, under those wages Carlson pointed
out, they were not far apart on wages. At that point the
meeting concluded with Carlson asking for another meet-
ing.2
On August 28, 1978, Carlson and Vaughn again met with
Ryan. On that occasion Patrick Ryan, general manager and
Larry's son, was also present. Again the parties discussed
the master contract. Larry Ryan asked what could be done
if he overpaid an employee for vacation. Carlson replied it
could be taken back if done within a reasonable time. The
discussion developed that Ryan may be providing better
vacation benefits than the contract and Carlson said he
would take the good with the bad and go with a straight
"701 contract." The parties then got into job classifications
2 Larry Ryan admitted meeting with Carlson and Vaughn, but denied
checking the authorization and application cards. He admitted receiving a
copy of the expired contract and voting information sheet during Carlson's
and Vaughn's visits to his office but denied discussing the terms of those
documents. I was not impressed with the demeanor of Ryan or of his son,
Patrick Ryan, who testified regarding the second and third visits Carlson and
Vaughn made to Ryan's office. I found Carlson and Vaughn to be more open
and cooperative on cross and their testimony appeared more logical under
the circumstances. Also there were noticable conflicts between Larry and
Patrick Ryan, the most notable involving the authorization and application
cards. Patrick Ryan identified the cards as being in Carlson's possession
during their second meeting until Carlson placed them on Larry Ryan's desk.
Larry Ryan admitted Carlson placed some cards on his desk but he was
positive they were not the authorization and application cards. Therefore I
have discredited the testimony of Larry and Patrick Ryan to the extent it
conflicts with the testimony of Carlson and Vaughn.
of specific employees on an employee by employee basis.
The employees were all classified as mechanics, apprentices
or semiskilled except employees Gary Wilke and Mark
Mantsch. Larry Ryan explained that Wilke was a detailer
and that he cleaned up and readied used cars. He explained
Mark Mantsch was hired as a washboy, but had been doing
mechanical work under one of the mechanics. Subse-
quently, Carlson went through each application card and
read out five employees he identified as journeymen and
four others as either semiskilled or apprentices. Carlson
separated the mechanics into one pile and the semiskilled
and apprentices into another. He made a third pile includ-
ing Mark Mantsch and Gary Wilke, saying "we had a prob-
lem what they're going to be and if they would be in the
unit." After this the parties discussed the balance required
between mechanics and semiskilled and apprentices and
Carlson gave employees examples of what the situation was
at some of the other dealers. As the meeting closed Carlson
requested another meeting stating that it looks like we have
got at least two that have not been settled. Carlson asked
and was permitted to go into the shop and talk to some of
the employees at the close of the meeting.
Another meeting was arranged for September 1, 1978.
When Carlson and Vaughn arrived Larry Ryan said he
wanted a Federal election. Carlson replied he was disap-
pointed with that decision; he thought everything was
going along fine with the "exclusion" of two people. Carl-
son said he did not have time or need for an election. He
told Ryan, "You have seen all the applications, the cards,
we have discussed the contract, classifications and I am dis-
appointed . . . we are going to Cincinnati for one week we
would be back on the 11th and if we don't have a signed
contract by the 12th there will be a work stoppage." Ryan
asked to make a phone call. After a few minutes Ryan
returned and acknowledged the Union could strike but, he
said, they would not.
Subsequently, on September 1., Carlson and Vaughn met
some of the employees. Carlson told the employees what
had happened in their meeting that day, that "the employer
made a complete reversal after it looked so good and . . .
wanted an election, a Federal election ... as of the 12th if
we don't have a contract be prepared to go on the street."
On September 12, II of Respondent's employees struck
and picketed Respondent's premises. During October 1978,
Respondent sent employees Ronald Blood, Patrick Culli-
nan, Anthony Hynous, Michael Stern, Edward Wagner,
and Lawrence Wiegman the following letter:
This letter is to inform you that eflective ----- we
have hired an individual who will replace you on our
work force. Accordingly it will not be our intention to
recall you to work at the conclusion of our labor dis-
pute, in as much as the new employee will be taking
your place.
Additionally, General Counsel alleges that by interrogat-
ing employees Anthony Hynous and Michael Stern on or
about September 1, Respondent, by Patrick Ryan, violated
Section 8(a)(1). Hynous testified that shortly after an Au-
gust 28 union meeting, he had a conversation with Patrick
Ryan at his work station. Ryan asked "what our circum-
stances with the union were." Hynous replied that they had
2
LYON & RYAN FORD. INC.
approached the Union basically for better benefits. Ryan
asked if more money would do, and Hynous replied they
would have to evaluate that. Ryan commented that he
guessed he had some talking to do. Stern had a conversa-
tion with Patrick Ryan in Ryan's office around August 29.
Ryan asked what Stern thought of the Union. Stern replied
it sounds good and the Union was something they wanted.
Ryan asked if money would make the difference and Stern
replied he really did not know.'
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The credited evidence reveals that on August 24. 1978.
the Union demanded recognition as exclusive bargaining
representative of Respondent's "mechanics. bodymen,
painters, semi-skilled and apprentices." Respondent, in op-
position to General Counsel and the Union, contends that
the appropriate unit would include not only mechanics.
bodymen, painters, semiskilled and apprentices, but also
partsmen, porters, service writers. undercoaters, new and
used car get-ready men, preparation and detail men, jani-
tors, and utility laborers.
In examining the questions before me, I need not con-
sider whether the unit sought by Respondent is appropriate
or more appropriate than the unit sought by the Union. My
consideration is limited to consideration of whether the unit
which the Union seeks is an appropriate bargaining unit. I
have determined that it is an appropriate unit.
The evidence is not in dispute that the unit the Union
sought is the same basic unit covered by the master or stan-
dard agreement between the Union and various employers
in the Chicago area. The Union is party to over 300 agree-
ments and all but two cover the same bargaining unit
sought here. The two exceptions involve units inherited by
the Union from another labor organization where the other
labor organization negotiated different units. It is the prac-
tice in the Chicago area for the additional classifications not
sought by Respondent to be included in a unit traditionally
represented by another union's local.
The cases do indicate that the Board, especially when
considering the question in representation case proceedings,
has an established practice of finding all employees of an
automotive service department to be a single appropriate
unit (e.g.. Graneto Datsun, A Granelo Company, 203 NLRB
550 (1973)). However, the Board has long endeavored to
give the parties "the broadest permissible latitude to mutu-
ally define the context in which collective bargaining should
take place." Its stated policy is "to encourage the practice
and procedure of collective bargaining. Such a policy de-
mands that questions preliminary to the establishment of
the bargaining relationship be expediously resolved" (Otis
Hospital Inc., 219 NLRB 164 (1975)).4 In pursuit of that
stated policy the Board has consistently refused to insist on
imposing a more comprehensive unit where the parties have
agreed to a smaller unit provided that the smaller unit is not
repugnant to the requirements of the Act. Under those cir-
3I was impressed with the demeanor of both Anthony Hynous and Mi-
chael Stern. Both appeared candid and cooperative on direct and cross-
examination. Although Patrick Ryan denied the testimony of interrogations.
I discredit his denial and credit the versions of Hynous and Stern
4Harvey Russell, 145 NLRB 1486 (1964).
cumstances the Board has not interfered with the orderly
and prompt collective bargaining process by permitting one
party to belatedly renege on its agreement by appealing to
the Board to assert its preference for a more comprehensive
unit.' Where the parties have agreed to units such as the
one sought here, the Board has approved their agreement.'
Respondent's president, Larry Ryan, asked the Union if
they represented the parts people. the chasers, the parts
chasers, the car washers and the hikers. Ryan was told that
the Union did not represent those employees. Rather than
questioning the Union's representatives further on the unit
issue Ryan then asked for proof of majority status. Ryan
was shown the authorization and application for union
membership cards signed by I I of his employees. Subse-
quently, in that first meeting of August 24, the parties went
through the proposed contract. Ryan did not pose any dis-
agreement or further questions regarding the unit.
In their second meeting. on August 28, the parties went
over the unit employees on an employee-by-employee basis
and, with the exception of two employees which the Re-
spondent sought to exclude from the unit, reached agree-
ment on the inclusion of nine mechanics, apprentices, and
semiskilled employees.
Under the circumstances it is apparent and I find, that
the parties were in agreement as to the unit.' A ruling to the
contrary would contravene the Board's policy of promoting
expeditious negotiations. Therefore, I find the unit includ-
ing mechanics, bodymen, painters, semiskilled and appren-
tices to be an appropriate unit.
A. The Majoritv Issues
According to the testimony of Anthony Hynous, which I
credit, Respondent employed approximately 12 employees
in the appropriate unit at the time of the Union's demand
for recognition in August 1978. Those 12 employees in-
cluded Ron Blood, mechanic; Pat Cullinan, mechanic H.
Dufern, body man; Anthony Hynous, mechanic; Mark
Mansch, apprentice; John Kalat, mechanic; William Men-
nonoh, Jr., mechanic; H. Miehlnickel, semiskilled; Michael
Stern, semiskilled; Larr, Wiegman, semiskilled; Ed Wagner,
semiskilled; and Wall), Garver, regular part-time mechanic.8
I find that the following employees signed cards authoriz-
ing the Union as their exclusive bargaining representative
on August 22, 1978: Ron Blood, Pat Cullinan, Anthony
Otis Hospital, Inc., supra; Harvey Russell, supra.
6Dick Bullis, Inc. d/bla Dick Bullis Chevrolet, 176 NLRB 158 (1969).
' Although specific words evidencing agreement may be lacking, subse-
quent conduct, including silence. may, as here, constitute an admission Wig-
more on Evidence, sec. 292, 1071. 1072; Jones on Evidence, Fifth Edition. sec.
388; McCormick, Handbook on the Law of Evidence, sec. 247.
s In determining the job classification of the 12 specified employees I have
considered Jt. Exh. 7, which is the list of employees submitted to the Re-
gional Office by Respondent on October 6. 1978. when it petitioned in 13
RM 1262. Although Respondent argues Jt. Exh. 7 should not be considered
to prove job classifications I find that in that regard it constitutes an admis-
sion and I shall consider it. In addition to those employees identified by
Hynous as being unit employees in August, Jt Exh. 7 list D Har. body shop
man; and M Herrmann, semiskilled (classifications which fall within the unit
description). J. Exh. 7 list the following employees in job classifications
which do not fall within those included in the unit: C. Jagielo, get ready
man; 1V Craig, service writer: E Frazier, part chaser; M. Grot, partsman:
E. Hogan, service writer; G. Koziol, partsman: and G. Wilke, get ready man.
3
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hynous, John Kalat, William Mennonoh, Jr. (Mennenoh),
H. Miehlnickel (Muehlnickel), Michael Stern, Larry (Law-
rence) Wiegman, Ed Wagner, and Garo Wilke.9 Of those 10
card signers the evidence reflects that at least 9 were em-
ployed in the bargaining unit on August 22. 1978. There-
fore I find that the Union represented a majority of the
employees in the unit at material times on and after August
22, 1978.10
B. The Demand and Recognition Issue
As indicated above I credit the testimony of witnesses
Carlson and Vaughn that pursuant to their demand for rec-
ognition made to Larry Ryan on August 24. 1978, Ryan
asked to see the authorization and application for union
membership cards of his employees. I find that Ryan care-
fully examined the cards, both authorization and member-
ship application, of employees Ron Blood, Pat Cullinan.
Anthony Hynous. Mark Mantsch." John Kalat. William
Mennonoh, Jr., H. Miehlnickel, Michael Stern. Larry Wieg-
man. Ed Wagner, and Gary Wilke.
Respondent contends that despite the above-mentioned
evidence it acted legally when it withdrew recognition cit-
ing as authority Linder Lumber Division, Summer & Co. v.
N.L.R.B., 419 U.S. 301 (1974). However, the Board, whose
ruling the Supreme Court affirmed in Linden Lumber, has
distinguished that holding from situations similar to the one
in this case. In Jerr-Dan Corp.,'2 the Board stated that Lin-
den Lumber involved a situation where an employer was
found not to violate Section 8(a)(5) solely by refusing to
accept evidence proffered by the union of majority status.
However, where as in Jerr-Dan, an employer acknowledged
the union's majority of basis of evidence other than a Board
election, a subsequent withdrawal of recognition violates
Section 8(a)(5).
Once voluntary recognition has been granted to a
majority union, the Union becomes exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees, and
withdrawal or reneging from the commitment to recog-
nize before a reasonable time for bargaining has
elapsed violates the employer's bargaining obligation.
Evidence that an employer has commenced bargaining
or has taken other affirmative action consistent with its
recognition of the Union aids in resolving the eviden-
tiary question as to whether recognition was granted.
However, once the fact of recognition is established.
such additional evidence is not required, for the bar-
gaining obligation arises upon voluntary recognition
and continues until there has been a reasonable oppor-
tunity for bargaining to succeed. [Brown & Connol',
Inc., 237 NLRB 271, 275 (1978), quoted with approval
by the Board in Jerr-Dan Corp., supra.]
The facts indicate and I find that Respondent recognized
the Union as majority representative of its mechanics.' 3
The card of Mark Mantsch is not considered, see n. I, supra.
'°A majority exist whether the unit is 12 or 14 as reflected by Jt. Exh. 7.
" Although Mark Mantsch's card was not counted for purposes of deter-
mining majority, I find that an authorization card and an application for
membership card, which purport to bear Mantsch's signature were presented
to and examined by Larry Ryan on August 24. 1978.
12 237 NLRB 302 (1978).
I) See fn. 7, supra.
semiskilled, apprentices, bodymen, and painters upon Larry
Ryan checking the employees' authorization and applica-
tion for membership cards on August 24. Other evidence
which lends support to this finding include Ryan's accept-
ance and examination of the proposed contract, Ryan's
meeting with the Union on three separate occasion, both
Larry and Patrick Ryan discussing and negotiating with the
Union over the terms of the proposed contract, and Re-
spondent authorizing Carlson and Vaughn to go into the
service department during working hours to meet with
some of the employees following their August 28 meeting
with the Ryans. In that respect I credit evidence that fol-
lowing the Union's request for another meeting at the end
of their August 24 meeting. Larry Ryan indicated he was
available and agreeable to meet again at his office on Au-
gust 28. Ryan also agreed to and did meet with the Union
on September I. 1978. Following the August 28 meeting
Carlson and Vaughn asked the Ryans if they could go out
into the shop and see the employees and they were permit-
ted to do so.
Therefore, I find that from August 24 until September 1.
1978, Respondent recognized the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees. The Union did in fact rep-
resent a majority of those employees before and during that
period. On September I. Respondent withdrew recognition
by demanding that it wanted a Federal election. By its ac-
tion in withdrawing recognition Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) of the Act.
C. The Unfair Labor Practice Strike Issue
Upon Respondent withdrawing recognition on Septem-
ber I, Business Representative Carlson responded that he
was very disappointed in that decision, that he thought
everything was going along fine and they did not have time
or see a need for a Federal election. Carlson told Larry and
Patrick Ryan that they had seen all the applications and the
cards and had discussed the contract and job classifications.
Carlson said that he was going to Cincinnati for I week,
returning on September 1 I. and that if they did not have a
signed contract by September 12 the employees would
strike.
Subsequently Carlson and Vaughn met with two of the
unit employees and told them of their September I meeting
with Respondent. Carlson told the employees that Respon-
dent had made a complete reversal after it looked so good.
and now wanted an election. Carlson told the employees
that as of the 12th they should be prepared to strike if they
did not have a contract.
Although Carlson reacted to Respondent's changed posi-
tion by demanding a contract, it is clear that his reaction
and the ultimate employees' action on September 12, re-
sulted directly from Respondent withdrawing recognition
of the Union. On September 12. 11 of Respondent's em-
ployees went on strike and established a picket line at Re-
spondent's premises.' I am convinced on the basis of the
record as a whole that that strike was caused and prolonged
by Respondent's unlawful withdrawal of recognition and
was an unfair labor practice strike.
4Albion (orporanion d/b/a Brooks, Inc., 228 NLRB 1365, 1367. fn. 12
(1977); Pope Maintenance Corporation, 228 NLRB 326, 342 (1977).
4
LYON & RYAN FORD. IN(C.
D. The Alleged Discharges
General Counsel alleges that between October 3 and 30,
1978, Respondent discharged six of its employees because
they engaged in the unfair labor practice strike. The evi-
dence is uncontested that Respondent mailed the following
letter to those employees because of their involvement in
the strike which started on September 12, 1978:'5
This letter is to inform you that effective-
_16 we have hired an individual who will replace
you on our work force. Accordingly it will not be our
intention to recall you to work at the conclusion of our
labor dispute, in as much as the new employee will be
taking your place.
In each case Respondent's letter reflected that the effec-
tive date was on or before the date of the letter, thereby
informing the employee that he had already been replaced.
I find in agreement with General Counsel that Respon-
dent's letter constitutes notice of discharge of each of the
named employees. By its indication that the employee will
not be recalled Respondent informed the employee that any
request for reinstatement would be futile. In view of my
above findings, and the record as a whole, I find that Re-
spondent's actions in discharging the six employees previ-
ously named, because of their involvement in the unfair
labor practice strike, violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act."
E. The Alleged Interrogations
In the total context of this case the credited testimony of
Michael Stern and Anthony Hynous reflects clear viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(l) in their late August or early Septem-
ber conversations with Patrick Ryan. Stern's conversation
was in Ryan's office. Ryan asked Stern what he thought of
the Union. Stern replied it sounds good and the Union is
something we want. Ryan asked if money would make the
difference and Stern replied he really did not know. Hynous
was asked "what our circumstances with the union were."
Hynous replied they had approached the Union basically
for better benefits. Ryan asked if more money would do
and Hynous replied they would have to evaluate that. Ryan
commented that he guessed he had some talking to do. I
find that Ryan's comments constitute interrogations in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) as alleged by General Counsel.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6). and (7) of the Act.
15 The employee. date of the respective letter. and its effective date are as
follows:
Ronald Blood October 4. 1978-effective October 4. 1978.
Patrick J. Cullinan-October 30. 1978-effective October 30, 1978.
Anthony Hynous October 30. 1978 effective October 30. 1978.
Michael Stern-October 30, 1978-effective October 30, 1978.
Edward Wagner October 3. 1978-effective September 18. 1978.
Lawrence Wiegman October 3. 1978-effective October 2. 1978.
16 Respondent inserted the respective effective date in this space.
' Federal Mogul Corporation, 212 NL.RB 950 (1974).
2. Automobile Mechanics Local 701. International Asso-
ciation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By interrogating its employees about their union ac-
tivities on or about August 29 and September 1, 1978, Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
4. All mechanics. bodymen. painters, apprentices and
semiskilled workers employed at Respondent's facility cur-
rently located at 104. Route 173, Antioch. Illinois, but ex-
cluding partsmen, porters. service writers, undercoaters,
new and used car get ready men, prep and detail men, jani-
tors, utility laborers. office clerical employees. salesmen.
professional employees, guards. and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
5. Since August 22. 1978, the above-named labor organi-
zation has been and now is the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
6. By ceasing and refusing to continue to recognize and
bargain collectively with the above-named labor organiza-
tion as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the
employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit since Sep-
tember I. 1978. Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. Respondent, by engaging in the above-mentioned un-
fair labor practices, caused and prolonged a concerted work
stoppage and strike by various employees in the above-de-
scribed unit, commencing on or about September 12. 1978.
at Respondent's Antioch, Illinois. facility.
8. Respondent by terminating and thereafter refusing to
reinstate its employees named below on the dates opposite
their respective names, because of their involvement in the
above-mentioned strike, has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act:
Edward Wagner
Michael Stern
Patrick Cullinan
Lawrence Wiegman
Ronald Blood
Anthony Hynous
October 3. 1978
October 30. 1978
October 30, 1978
October 3. 1978
October 4, 1978
October 30, 1978
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE RI-MFIDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1). (3), and (5) of
the Act. I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative actions de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. My recommend-
ed Order will require Respondent to offer Edward Wagner.
Lawrence Wiegman. Michael Stern, Ronald Blood. Patrick
5
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cullinan, and Anthony Hynous reinstatement to their for-
mer jobs, terminating, if necessary, any replacements, and
make whole each of the named employees for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered by reason of the Respon-
dent's discrimination against them,' and that it post appro-
priate notices. Loss of backpay shall be computed and in-
terest thereon shall be added in the manner prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Flor-
ida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).'9
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following:
ORDER20
The Respondent, Lyon & Ryan Ford, Inc., Antioch, Illi-
nois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act, by interrogating its employees about their union activi-
ties.
(b) Terminating its employees and refusing to reinstate
them because of their protected concerted activities or their
union activities.
(c) Refusing to recognize or bargain collectively with
Automobile Mechanics Local 701, International Associ-
ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the unit described below:
All mechanics, bodymen, painters, apprentices and
semiskilled workers employed at Respondent's facility
currently located at 104, Route 173, Antioch, Illinois,
but excluding partsmen, porters, service writers, under-
coaters, new and used car get ready men, prep and
detail men, janitors, utility laborers, office clerical em-
ployees, salesmen, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed
to be necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor
organization as the exclusive representative of all employ-
" In accordance with the rule announced in Abilities and Goodwill, Inc..
241 NLRB 27 (1979), 1 find Respondent's liability for loss of earnings runs
from the date of its discharge letter to each of the alleged discriminatees as
follows:
Ronald Blood October 4, 1978
Patrick Cullinan October 30, 1978
Anthony Hynous October 30, 1978
Michael Stern October 30, 1978
Edward Wagner October 3. 1978
Lawrence Wiegman October 3, 1978
"See, generally, Isis Plumbing Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
ees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment.
(b) Offer Edward Wagner, Lawrence Wiegman, Michael
Stern, Ronald Blood, Patrick Cullinan, and Anthony
Hynous immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equiv-
alent position, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, discharging, if necessary, any replace-
ments hired on or after September 12, 1978, strike.
(c) Make the above-named employees whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Order.
(e) Post at its Antioch, Illinois, facility, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."2' Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13,
after being duly signed by its authorized representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
21 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning
their activities on behalf of Automobile Mechanics Lo-
cal 701, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or-
ganization.
WE WILL NOT discharge, refuse to reinstate or other-
wise discriminate against our employees because they
engage in protected concerted activity or activity on
behalf of a labor organization.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concern-
ing rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with Automobile Mechanics
Local 701, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below.
6
LYON & RYAN FORD. INC.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to
Edward Wagner, Lawrence Wiegman, Michael Stern,
Ronald Blood, Patrick Cullinan, and Anthony Hynous
to their former jobs, discharging, if necessary, any re-
placements hired after they went on strike on or about
September 12, 1978, or, if their former jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, without preju-
dice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
WE Wll I. make whole Edward Wagner, Lawrence
Wiegman, Michael Stern, Ronald Blood. Patrick Culli-
nan, and Anthony Hynous for any loss of pay or other
compensation they may have suffered by reason of our
discrimination against them, with interest.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-
named Union, as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the bargaining unit described below, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an understand-
ing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All mechanics, bodymen, painters, apprentices and
semiskilled workers employed at the Employer's fa-
cility currently located at 104, Route 173, Antioch,
Illinois. but excluding partsmen, porters, service
writers, undercoaters, new and used car get ready
men, prep and detail men, janitors. utility laborers,
office clerical employees, salesmen, professional em-
plovees. guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
LYN & RYAN FORD, INC.
7