Natural Heating Systems

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 1082 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
John Grissom, Mikos Doka-Suna, David Springer,
and Richard Baker, a General Partnership d/b/
a Natural Heating Systems and Chauffeurs,
Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 150.
Case 20-CA-14726
September 30, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) M-.MBI:RS
JENKINS AND PINEI.IO
On June 9, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Leonard N. Cohen issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions, and the General Counsel filed an an-
swering brief to the Respondent's exceptions.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.:3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, John Grissom,
Mikos Doka-Suna, David Springer, and Richard
Baker, A General Partnership d/b/a Natural Heat-
ing Systems, Sacramento, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
I The General Counsel also filed a motion to strike eidence submitted
with the Respondent's eceptions That eidence. Resp Exhs. A D and
data presented in pars 4 and 7e) of the Respondent's exceptions, was not
presented at the hearing, ad, therefore. is outside the record Thus, since
briefs before the Board in this proceeding are limited to evidence in the
record, we grant the General Counsel 's motion by striking the untimely
submitted evidence and disregarding it in our deliberations Beaird-Poulan
Division. Emeron Electric Cotlpanv. 233 NI.RI 736. fin I (19771
2 The Respondent has excepted o certain credibility findings made hy
the Administrative Law Judge It is the Hoard's established policy not to
overrule a administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
hility unless the clear preponderanc of all of he relevalnt evidence coln-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry uall Product~.
Inc, 91 NLRB 544 1195()). enfd 188 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have
carefully examined the record aid find Ino hasis fir resersing his findinlgs
: In accordance with his dssenl in Olymnpi Medi-ual Co(rporautin, 250
NE.RB 146 (1980) Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay
due based on the formula set forlh therein
252 NLRB No. 152
DECISION
STA II MENI OF THI CASt
LEONARD) N. COHEN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me in Sacramento, California, on
January 31, 1980 pursuant to a complaint issued by the
Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor
Relations Board on September 26, 1979.1 and which is
based on a charge filed by Chauffeurs, Teamsters and
Helpers Local Union No. 150 on July 18. The complaint
alleges that Respondent has engaged in certain violations
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended (herein called the Act).
Issues
1. Whether or not Respondent discharged its employee
Michael J. Crosby on or about June 3 in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. Whether Respondent on or about June 4 refused to
give Michael J. Crosby a written job reference or recom-
mendation in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs
which have been carefully considered were filed on
behalf of both the General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record of the case and from my obser-
vation of witnesses and their demeanor, I make the fol-
lowing:
FINI)INGS 01: FACT
1. RSPONI)ENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent. a general partnership with an office and
place of business in West Sacramento, California, is en-
gaged in the installation of solar heating systems, and the
performance of related services for general contractors
engaged in the building and construction industry. Juris-
diction is not in issue. Accordingly, Respondent admits
and I find and conclude that Respondent is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II TIEt I ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOIVED
Respondent admits and I find that at all times material
herein Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union
No. 150, herein called the Union, has been a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. T H X I.IGEI) UNIAIR ABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
1. Background2
Sometime in February 1979, Michael J. Crosby was
hired by Respondent on a contract basis to perform cer-
tain repair work on its truck. On April 6, Crosby was
All dates herein refer to 1979, unless olheru ise indicated
2 The facts set forth in this subsecion are not in dispute
1082
NATURAL HEATING SYSTEMS
hired on a permanent full-time basis as a solar installer:
under the direct supervision of John Grissom, the instal-
lation supervisor and one of Respondent's four general
partners. As was the case with most of Respondent's in-
stallers, Crosby had no previous experience in the indus-
try at the time he was hired.
Within I or 2 weeks of Crosby's hire as an installer,
David Springer, one of the other general partners, rec-
ommended to Grissom that Crosby be discharged. This
recommendation was apparently based on Springer's
belief that Crosby had been selected without Respondent
first taking the opportunity to see if experienced person-
nel were available. 4 Additionally, Springer complained
to Grissom that he did not like the fact that Crosby
needed a haircut. Grissom refused to accede to Spring-
er's recommendation or suggestion and informed Spring-
er that he, Grissom, would resign if Crosby was termi-
nated. Springer did not press his suggestion at that time.
From the outset, Grissom was satisfied with Crosby's
performance and on several occasions complimented his
work. Springer also apparently changed his mind regard-
ing Crosby's performance. Springer testified that he was
impressed about both the fact that Crosby got a haircut
as well as by Crosby's later performance on the job. The
sole exception to Springer's generally favorable later im-
pression was Crosby's habit of approaching him when he
paid visits to the jobsite and offering suggestions regard-
ing certain business considerations, such as a new compa-
ny logo. On those occasions, Springer simply told
Crosby to do his own assigned task and leave the run-
ning of the Company to the partners.
2. Circumstances of Crosby's discharge
a. The General Counsel's evidences
On the afternoon of Thursday, May 31, Crosby met at
his home with Al Goodson, an organizer for the Union.
When Crosby expressed an interest in organizing Re-
spondent's employees, Goodson gave him blank authori-
zation cards and instructed him to obtain the signatures
from more than half of Respondent's employees. Addi-
tionally at this meeting, Crosby himself signed a union
authorization card.
On the following morning, Friday, June 1, Crosby
went to Respondent's shop where he met with Steve
Mobley, another installer, and together they took Re-
spondent's truck and drove out to the Village Home
Housing Tract in Davis, California, where they had just
recently begun work on a project. During the short ride
from Sacramento to Davis, Crosby informed Mobley
that he had talked to the union representative and
thought it would be a good idea to try and get the Union
to represent the employees. Crosby then asked if Mobley
would be interested in signing a card. Mobley took the
authorization card and told Crosby he would think about
it.
3 At the time Crosby ssas hired as an installer. Respondent then em-
ployed three other installers
' This belief was apparently shared h Miko Doka-Suna, one of the
other partners
' Except here noted, the following account is based on Crosby's tes-
timony
When the two got to the jobsite, they met with three
other installers. While all the employees were awaiting
the arrival at the site of some necessary parts and equip-
ment, Crosby informed still another of the installers,
Tom Ryan, that he was trying to organize the employ-
ees.i6 Ryan responded that he did not think it was a good
idea, and the subject was immediately dropped. While
the three remaining installers were present in the imme-
diate area during this conversation, Grissom was seated
in his parked truck some 100 yards off to the side of the
project. After waiting at the jobsite for half an hour or
less, Grissom left his truck and informed the employees
that they would not be working that day and to go on
home.
On Sunday evening, June 3, Crosby, as per his normal
practice, called Grissom at home to inquire as to what
time they would be starting work on the following
morning. Grissom informed Crosby that Respondent
would not be needing him anymore "because of some
work."' Crosby said okay and asked if he could come to
the shop the following week and pick up his tools. Gris-
som answered that he could.
On the following morning, Monday, June 4, Crosby
called the shop and spoke to Springer. According to
Crosby, he asked Springer if he could get a good refer-
ence. Springer answered, "Good reference, hell, not after
the shit you pulled." Crosby asked, "What do you mean?
I don't know why I was fired." Springer answered that
Crosby knew why. When Crosby again asked for further
elaboration, Springer replied, "It was because you tried
to bring the union in this shop. You betrayed the busi-
ness." Crosby then stated that since he owed Respondent
$10 that he had borrowed for gas, the Company could
just forget about paying him the money they owed him
for the time worked on the previous Monday. Crosby
then asked for and was given permission to come to the
shop and pick up his tools.8
A short time later, Crosby went to the shop where he
met with Springer. Crosby told Springer that he could
not understand why he could not get a good reference.
Crosby said that he believed he had been a good em-
ployee and that he thought by bringing in a union it
would cause the Company to pay its employees higher
wages and that the Company could in turn make more
money by bidding higher on jobs. Springer replied that it
was none of Crosby's business and that everyone in the
field had been laid off. Crosby left Springer's office and
retrieved his tools and proceeded to drive out to the
Davis project. When he arrived at the project, he ob-
, Although Ryan testified at the hearing, he was not questioned re-
garding this conversation
' Crosby's quoting of the phrase "because of some work" 'as neither
explained nor clarified a the hearing. Therefore, it appears likely that the
court reporter either misunderstood or left out a word in transcribing this
sentence I hase no independent recollection In this regard and neither
counsel moved to correct the record in this regard.
Croshb,' timecard indicates that he worked 1 hour on Thursday,
MN1a 31 Responldent as able to produce no timecard for Crosby coer-
ing he workweek commencing oin Friday. June I Grissom testified hat
there wsere several dass in a row near the end of Crosby's employment
that the' experienced prohlems ,ith lack of equipment at the Davis pro-
jci. daid hat rmploee on these occasions were sent home in the morn-
ing
1(8X3
I)I;CISIONS OF NATIONA LABOR REI.ATIONS BO()AR
served Mobley and another installer, Ed Murray. work-
ing on a roof.
On the evening of Wednesday, June 6, Crosby called
Grissom at the latter's home. Crosby told Grissom that
he could not understand why he was not getting a good
reference. He then recounted to Grissom the substance
of his June 4 telephone conversation with Springer. Ciris-
som's response was "What else did you expect us to do."
b. Respondent s evidence
The evidence presented by Respondent is neither clear
nor convincing with regard to who made the decision to
terminate Crosby, when the decision was reached and
carried out, and why such action was taken.
Grissom testified that, while he could not recall with
any degree of certainty exactly when Crosby was dis-
charged, he believed that the event took place late in the
week on either a Thursday or Friday. According to
Grissom, he informed Crosby of the termination during a
mid-afternoon conversation between the two at the shop.
Grissom testified that he merely informed Crosby that
the Company could no longer afford to keep him and
several other employees.9
Grissom did not explain when this decision had been
made or whether it had been his decision alone or a
group decision involving at least Springer. It appears
that the latter possibility is the more probable.
Grissom testified that he did recall receiving a phone
call from Crosby after the termination, however, he
placed the time as 1-1/2 to 2 weeks later. Grissom was
admittedly vague and uncertain regarding the context of
the phone call and adopted as true the version of the
conversation set forth in his affidavit of September I.
Grissom's affidavit on this point reads as follows:
About 2 weeks after Crosby's discharge, Crosby
called me and again asked me why he was dis-
charge [sic]. I told him that I had laid him off be-
cause of the financial difficulties that the company
was in.'° In his conversation with me he said that
Springer had said to him that one of the reasons for
letting him [sic] was that he was trying to bring an-
other union in when the company was negotiating
with the Plumbers Union." I responded to the
effect that what else did you expect us to do at the
time.
Grissom denied that he was aware of Crosby's activi-
ties on behalf of the Teamsters at the time Crosby was
9 rissom testified that several other employees were also terminated
on the same day either immediately before or after Crosby's termination.
Resxondent's records introduced at hearing indicate that of the six install-
ers employed during the end of May, three, including Croshb, were ter-
minated by June 5 Although the record is far from clear, it appears that
one of the other two employees mentioned above was terminated on or
about June I and that the second was terminated on or about June 5. ()f
the three remaining employees. one, Ed Murray. was junior to Crosby
i' Earlier in his affidavitl. rissom discussed the reasons fior Crosby's
discharge as fillows
I discharged him on May 24. 1979. There were to rcasonis fir his
discharge (I) financial problems with the business and the need to
cut back employees in order to sustain the husiess and (2) he was
low in priority, the secotnd last Ito be hired
| This topic will be discussed i.
terminated. According to Grissom, it was not until the
day after the termination when driving home in the
evening with Mobley that he was told that Crosby had
approached Mobley regarding signing a union card. 12
While Springer denied having any knowledge of Cros-
by's union activities at the time Crosby was terminated,
he admitted acquiring such knowledge from Grissom
prior to his only post-termination conversation with
Crosby. According to Springer, this conversation took
place within several days of Crosby's termination. On
this occasion, Crosby came into his office and asked him
for a letter of recommendation. Springer, who got admit-
tedly upset at this point in the conversation, informed
Crosby that he had shown very bad faith in the Compa-
ny by attempting to organize with the Union when
Crosby knew that the Respondent was then negotiating
with another union.'" Springer then stated that he would
definitely not give a letter of recommendation and would
not refer Crosby to anyone.'4
3. Circumstances following Crosby's termination 5
Respondent performed basically two distinct types of
installation, domestic solar hot water systems and swim-
ming pool systems. Around the end of March, Respon-
dent hired Tom Ryan, a journeyman plumber, to work
on the domestic hot water systems. Sometime after Ryan
started, he was given the choice of either selecting one
of the existing employees to act as his assistant or going
outside the Company and finding his own assistant. Ryan
chose the latter course, and on May 19 hired Ed Murray
to work exclusively with him.
In addition to the Charging Party, Respondent, during
the last week in May, employed three other installers to
work exclusively on the swimming pool systems. On or
about June 1, Respondent terminated the most junior of
these employees and on or about June 5 terminated the
most senior.
In mid-June, Respondent hired two new installers ap-
parently to perform the work on the swimming pool sys-
tems. Respondent made no attempt to recall or rehire the
three employees who had been terminated just 2 to 3
weeks before. When asked to explain, Springer testified
"just based on the way I operate. Generally, if I lay
someone off, I lay them off for a good reason and don't
go back to rehire them ... ."
The record reveals that Respondent's sales increased
from $6,020 in January to $24,339 in May and to $38,753
i2 Mlobley, who last worked for Respondent on August 3, did not tes-
Iify.
" Evidence was presented that during the month of May Respondent
was talking with representatives of the Plumbers Union regarding execut-
ing a contract. These discussions were apparently the result of some con-
versations regarding potential picketing at another jobsite. Respondent
evenltually dropped its discussions with the Plumbers Union without ex-
ecutfig a contract
4 I its answer. Respondent admitted that Crosby was informed that
he sans lnot given a letter of recommendation because of his activities on
behalf or the Union. The answer further states. "[T]here were other rea-
sots why Respondent could not truthfully provide the requested letter of
recommendatiotn or letter of reference. The said Michael J. Crosby was
discharged because of the poor financial condition of Respondent and be-
cause Respondent was not satisfied with his work habits."
I 'Ihe facts in this subsection are not in dispute
10)84
NATURAL HEA'lING SYSTF MS
in June. 1 6 When questioned as to what if anything
changed from the end of May and the beginning of June
when the terminations were made until mid-June when
new hires were brought on, Grissom offered only the
following information:
Well, we finally were able to at the time we were
having problems with supplying certain hardware,
it was critical to installation to finish the job and at
that time I believe we finally started receiving some
of the backlog in our hardware that we needed to
finish the job. Then we needed some man power to
get the work done.
Q. [By Mr. Jemison] So at the time Crosby was
laid off, he was laid off, are you now saying be-
cause you didn't have the equipment to finish the
job and as opposed to the financial condition of the
company?
A. Well, there were a number of reasons, lack of
materials, financial is one of the key reasons. We
had more employees than we had work for them.
B. Discussion and Conclusions
I am convinced that the credible evidence establishes
that Respondent discharged Crosby on June 3 after it ac-
quired knowledge of his activities on behalf of the Team-
sters. I am further convinced that the credible evidence
establishes that Respondent took this action in retaliation
for Crosby's exercising his Section 7 rights.
Crosby testified in a clear, straightforward fashion and
possessed a keen memory with respect to his ability to
recall with some degree of specificity the material events
and conversations. In contrast to Crosby's detailed and
consistent testimony, the testimony of both Grissom and
Springer was imprecise, confused and, at times, inherent-
ly implausible.
Crosby testified that on Thursday evening, May 31, he
signed a union authorization card, on the following
morning attempted to solicit his fellow employees on
behalf of the Union, and just 2 days later was informed
by telephone that he was terminated. The following day,
Monday, June 4, Crosby requested a written reference
and was informed by Springer that he would not receive
the reference. When Crosby asked why, Springer told
him that he had been disloyal to Respondent and had
been fired for trying to bring in the Teamsters Union
during a time that Respondent was attempting to work
out an arrangement with another union. Springer further
told Crosby that he would not receive a written refer-
ence. Crosby confronted Grissom 2 days later, who upon
being informed of Springer's earlier comments replied,
"What do you expect us to do."
While both Springer and Grissom admitted that
Crosby was informed that he was being denied a good
reference because of his union activity, they contend that
Crosby was actually terminated prior to their learning of
his union activities. 7
iR During this 6-month period, Respondernt's work force of installers
ranged from five in January, three in the months of February and March.
four in April. six in May, and five in June
' Respondent, in it, post-hearing brief. argues that Crosbhy as actual-
ly informed of hi, termination on Thursday. May 1, before he admitted-
Grissom testified that he informed Crosby that his ser-
vices were no longer needed in a conversation in the
afternoon of either Thursday, May 31, or Friday, June 1,
at the shop. That this conversation occurred at the shop
as opposed to a phone conversation was one of the few
facts to which Grissom testified in a positive fashion. It
is undisputed that Crosby did not work on the afternoon
of either May 31 or June 1. Respondent offered no expla-
nation as to how or why Crosby would be present in the
shop on an afternoon of a day in which his work ceased
early in the morning.
Moreover, if Crosby had been terminated in the shop
as Grissom contended, Crosby would have had no need
to come back to the shop the next week as he undispu-
tedly did to pick up his tools.
Accordingly, the credible record evidence establishes
that Crosby was not informed of his termination until the
evening of Sunday, June 3, some 2 days after Grissom
first learned of Crosby's efforts on behalf of the Team-
sters.
In establishing Respondent's unlawful motive in termi-
nating Crosby, one need not rely solely on inferences
which may be fairly drawn from the total circumstances.
According to Crosby's entirely credited testimony,
Springer and, to a lesser degree, Grissom clearly sup-
plied the underlying basis for Respondent's actions. Re-
spondent admittedly resented that Crosby had interfered
with Respondent's negotiations with the Plumbers Union
by attempting to organize the installers on behalf of the
Teamsters. Respondent considered this conduct the
rankest form of disloyalty which it believed fully justi-
fied Crosby's termination.' 1 The discharge of an employ-
ee for the reasons found herein constitutes a clear viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Since both Grissom and, to a lesser degree, Springer
admitted at the hearing that Crosby's work was satisfac-
tory, Respondent's refusal to furnish Crosby with a letter
Iy met with a Teamsters organizer In support of this argument. Respon-
dent points out that no timecard showing an entry fior Crosby for June I
had been found. I totally reject this argument as fanciful speculation un-
supported by any record evidence As to the absence of a timecard sho -
ing Croshb's worktime on the morning of June I. Crosby consinciigly
testified that during his conversation on June 4 he told Springer to firget
about the time since he owed Respondent $10. Springer did olt drny that
portion of the conversation.
It is clear front a careful review orf the entire record that Grissom's
conversation with Mobley in which he learned of Crosby's activities took
place sometime during Friday. June t. Since no one in the crew worked
on Saturday, June 2. the only time that week that Mobley and Grissom
could have shared a ride home following Crosby's discussions about the
Union at the jobsile was on Friday. June I
IH In reaching this conclusion, I reject Respondent's contenion that
Crosby was terminated on June 3 pursuant to a general layoff due to lack
of work Respillldent ffered no documentary evidence to support its po-
sitilon that it as in financial difficulty during the end of May and the
beginning of June In fact, it was not until late in the hearing that (iris-
som een lecntilned the alleged problems Respondent faced with a short-
age of parts arid equipment necessary for the installation sork As set
forth above, the credible evidence establishes that Crosby's terminatiln
was motisated by unlawful considerations and was not part of a general
econtintic layoff This finding does not of course preclude Respondent,
during the compliance stage of these proceedings, from asserting by way
orf an affirmalic defense that Crosby s. ould have beet laid off in any
casc See .iduitir Ilunger Co. and LihertY Enginee,-ring Corp, 221 NlRB
911 (10975; .1 L R B v .Mairo Plaslmti ( orporationt and irlnch 4-nerican
Reedi .Manuficturlg Conpanv, 345 F 2d 170 (2d Cir 19651
i10(85
I)ECISIO)NS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS O()ARD
of reference or recommendation because of his union ac-
tivities constitutes a separate violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (I) of the Act. See Cornell-Dubilier Electric Corpora-
lion, 111 NLRB 277 (1955).
IV. THE I IFFICT'I 01 HE UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICIS
UPON COMMERCIE
Respondent's activities set forth in section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respon-
dent described in section I above, 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 has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent unlawfully termi-
nated Michael Crosby. I will, therefore, recommend that
Respondent offer Crosby his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, a substantially equivalent job without prej-
udice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by a
payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which
he normally would have earned absent the discrimina-
tion, less net earnings during such period with interest
thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in F'
W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Flor-
ida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 9
It will further be recommended that Respondent pre-
serve and make available to the Board, upon request, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary and useful to determine the amounts of
backpay due, and all the rights of reinstatement under
the terms of these recommendations.
Further, it has been found that Respondent unlawfully
refused to furnish Michael Crosby with a letter of refer-
ence or recommendation. Accordingly, to remedy this
independent unfair labor practice, I will, therefore, rec-
ommend that Respondent furnish to Crosby a letter of
reference or recommendation which will indicate that his
service with Respondent as an installer was at all times
satisfactory.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record, I hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. John Grissom, Mikos Doka-Suna, David Springer,
and Richard Baker, A General Partnership d/b/a Natu-
ral Heating Systems, is and has been at all times material
herein an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
9 See, generally, lsio Plumbing & d Ilang (J., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
2. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No.
150 is and has been at all times material herein a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By discharging Michael Crosby on June 3, 1979, be-
cause of his activities on behalf of the Union, Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing to furnish Michael Crosby
with a letter of reference or recommendation because of
his activities on behalf of the Union, Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended:
ORDER2 0
The Respondent, John Grissom, Mikos Doka-Suna,
David Springer, and Richard Baker, a General Partner-
ship d/b/a Natural Heating Systems, Sacramento, Cali-
fornia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging an employee because of his protected
concerted or union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
(b) Refusing to furnish an employee with a letter of
reference or recommendation because of his protected
concerted or union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
(c) In any other like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all
such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer Michael Crosby immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for any loss of earnings in the manner set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Furnish Michael Crosby a letter of reference or
recommendation stating that his service as an installer
while employed by Respondent was at all times satisfac-
tory.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, all payroll, or other records as set
forth in "The Remedy" section of this Decision.
"' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 10246
ofr the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Section 102.48 o the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board
and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections there-
to shall he deemed waived for all purposes.
1086
NA FURAI. HEAIING SYSTEMS
(d) Post at its Sacramento, California, operation copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 1 Copies of
the attached notice on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 20. after being duly signed by an au-
thorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by
Respondent 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 the notices are not
altered, defaced or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
'' In the event that his Order is enforced hb a Judgment of a Unilled
States Court of Appeals, the word i the ollice reading "Posled h
Order of the National Labor Relalions Board" shall read "Posted 'ursu-
ant to a Judgment of the Unilted States Court of Appeals Eitnfrcig an
Order of the National I.abor Relations loa;rd"
APPENDIX
NOIICI TO EMPI OYliES
Positl) ByH ORDI)R OF IHE
NATIONAl. LABOR RIL.AIIONS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to
present evidence and state their positions, the National
Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act. as amended, and has or-
dered us to post this notice.
Wl VVII.. No] discharge our employees because
of their protected concerted or union activity in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
Wt \ W'I I NOI refuse to furnish letters of refer-
ence or recommendations to our employees because
of their protected concerted or union actiity ill
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Wi. Will NOT in any other like or related
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act, or to refrain from any or all such activi-
ties.
Wt. Wlt l furnish Michael Crosby with a letter of
reference or recommendation which will indicate
that his service as an installer with us was at all
times satisfactory.
Wi: wH'I.t. offer Michael Crosby immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges and w wit make him whole for
any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason
of our discrimination against him, with interest.
JOHN GRISSOM, MIKOS DOKA-SINA.,
DAVItD SPRINGI.R ANI) RICHIARI) BAKER, A
GEINIRA. PARINIRSHIP D)/B/A NAILRAI
HEA I ING SSS II.EMS
108IX7