Northwest Oil Equipment, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 1, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 534 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Northwest Oil Equipment , Inc. and International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Shipbuilders,
Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers , AFL-CIO,
Local 647. Case 18-CA-2509
November 1, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On June 18, 1968, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the following additions:
1. The Trial Examiner concluded, and we agree,
that the Respondent's termination of John Sundseth
violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1). Our dissenting
colleague, however, believes that the termination was
lawful. The apparent basis of his argument is that
Sundseth's discharge was for cause, namely, his
refusal to see Koeplin. But the record clearly shows
that this refusal was not the reason for Sundseth's
discharge; indeed, the Respondent does not even so
argue. Rather, it contends that its reason for termina-
ting Sundseth "in accordance with" his original
October 13 notice to quit was that it never had
"definite" knowledge he had changed his plans and
wished to continue working; and that, accordingly, it
was "reasonable to assume" that Sundseth "still
planned to quit."
These assertions are without merit. As the Trial
Examiner found, and as the record plainly shows, the
Respondent in fact knew Sundseth had changed his
mind about leaving, neither its business plans nor its
company policies justified the termination; and the
true reason the Respondent terminated Sundseth was
to nd itself of a known union supporter before he
could cast a vote-possibly decisive-in an imminent
representation election.
2. As stated, we conclude that the termination of
Sundseth was discriminatonly motivated. It follows
that the nine employees who walked out in protest
were engaged in protected, concerted activity, and
were thus unfair labor practice strikers. But even
assuming, arguendo, that the walkout on October 27
was an economic strike, on October 28 it was
converted into an unfair labor practice strike; for on
that date the Respondent terminated the nine strikers
because they had walked out. Baldwin County
Electric Membership Corp., 145 NLRB 1316, 1318
(1964); N.L.R B. v. Comfort, Inc, 365 F.2d 867,
873-875 (C.A. 8, 1966).
3. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's conclu-
sion that the Respondent's liability for the strikers'
backpay commenced on October 30, when it rejected
their applications for reinstatement. We are persuaded
by our examination of the record that these applica-
tions for reinstatement were clearly unconditional.
The Respondent's unsupported assertion to the con-
trary is without merit.
4. The Trial Examiner recommended that certain
issues bearing on the amount of the strikers' backpay
be determined at the compliance stage of this
proceeding. We agree, and note that the record is
incomplete as to whether the Respondent made any
valid offer of reinstatement after October 30; if so, on
what date it was made, and to whom; and whether
any such offer was improperly rejected, so as to toll
backpay liability.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and orders that the Respondent,
Northwest Oil Equipment, Inc., Moorhead, Minne-
sota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. In paragraph 1(c), substitute the words "to
induce" for "in inducing."
2. In paragraph 1(f), substitute the words "inter-
fering with, restraining, or coercing" for "interfere,
restrain, or coerce."
3. Reletter the present paragraphs 2(d) and (e) to
read 2(e) and (f), respectively, and insert the follow-
ing as paragraph 2(d):
(d) Notify the above-named employees, if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of
their right to full reinstatement, upon application, in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
173 NLRB No. 86
NORTHWEST OIL EQUIPMENT 535
4. Substitute the attached notice for that recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner.
CHAIRMAN Mc CULLOCH, concurring in part and dis-
senting in part:
I agree with the majority's decision except in its
adoption of the Trial Examiner's finding that Re-
spondent discriminatorily discharged employee Sund-
seth. I would not find that the termination of
Sundseth was unlawful.
The barebone facts of Sundseth's termination
which the Trial Examiner assumed were correct for
the purposes of his Decision are these:
About October 13, 1967, Sundseth notified
Storsved, Respondent's agent, that he intended to
quit at the end of 2 weeks. If Sundseth went through
with this decision, he would not be eligible to vote in
the representation election scheduled to be conducted
in November. Sundseth was a Union adherent. The
election was expected to be close. Several fellow
employees who were also Union adherents remon-
strated with him about his quitting because they felt
they needed his vote if the Union were to win the
election. About October 24, Sundseth notified
Storsved that he had changed his mind, and would
"stay around for a while." Storsved then informed
Sundseth that his 2 weeks would be up on October
27, and that Sundseth should see President Koeplin
about his decision to continue at work so that there
would be no misunderstanding. Sundseth refused to
meet with Koeplin and was terminated on October
27, in accordance with his original quit notice.
Upon being notified that Sundseth had changed his
mind about quitting on October 27, Respondent
could reasonably require that Sundseth communicate
his decision directly to President Koeplin, particularly
since the shop was a small one and had relatively few
employees. Presumably Koeplin would have ques-
tioned Sundseth about how long he intended to
remain, whether indefinitely, for a stated period, or
only so long as necessary to enable him to vote in the
election. If it was the latter, probably Respondent
could have refused to accept the withdrawal of the
quit notice. In any event, Respondent had the right to
know Sundseth's intentions so as to make its own
plans as to whether and when to secure a replacement
for Sundseth. There is no question but that Sundseth
refused to submit to an interview with Koeplin and
the reason he gave for this refusal is not valid
justification.' An employee has no right to insist
upon employment on terms prescribed solely by
him.' There is no evidence that Respondent was
guilty of disparate treatment of Sundseth. Under the
' Sundseth testified that when Storsved told him to go into the
office to see Koeplm , Sundseth replied that he did not want to see
Koeplin because several other employees who had been in to see him
had been offered better jobs in order to convince them to vote against
the Union.
2
C G Conn, Ltd v N.L R.B., 108 F 2d 390 , 397 (C. A. 7).
circumstances, I would find that Respondent refused
to accept Sundseth's attempted withdrawal of his quit
notice for cause and not for discriminatory reasons.
Hence, I would dismiss this allegation of the com-
plaint.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
This notice is posted by order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which all sides had the chance to
give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
found that we, Northwest Oil Equipment, Inc.,
violated the National Labor Relations Act. The Board
therefore ordered us to post this notice.
The Act gives all employees these rights
To engage in self-organization,
To form, join or help unions;
To bargain collectively through a representative
of their own choosing;
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection; and
To refrain from any or all of these things.
Accordingly, we give you these assurances.
I AS TO YOUR RIGHTS AS EMPLOYEES
WE WILL NOT do anything which interferes with
the rights listed above.
WE WILL NOT ask you any questions about the
union activities, or union leadership, of any of our
employees.
WE WILL NOT spy on your union meetings or
union activities.
WE WILL NOT promise you wage increases, or
other benefits, in an attempt to discourage you
from supporting any union.
WE WILL NOT fire you or take away any current
job benefits-or threaten to do either of these
things-because you join or support any union;
NOR WILL WE do these things because you law-
fully protest the layoff of fellow employees;
NOR because you act together for your mutual
aid and protection in other lawful ways.
II. AS TO THE EMPLOYEES WE FIRED AND
REFUSED TO REINSTATE
The National Labor Relations Board found that
we fired John Sundseth because he supported a
union . The Board ruled that our firing him for this
reason violated the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL therefore offer to give him back his job
with full seniority, and all other rights and priv-
ileges.
WE WILL also make up any pay he lost, with 6
percent interest.
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The National Labor Relations Board also found
that we fired (and later refused to reinstate) nine
employees because they went on strike to protest
Sundseth's unlawful discharge. The Board ruled
that our firing them (and refusing to reinstate
them) for this reason violated the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL, therefore, offer to give back their jobs,
with full seniority and all other rights and priv-
ileges, to the nine strikers who were fired. They
are,
Carl Aamold Julian Gaikowski
Dean Arneson Steven Grosz
Erling Bjorndahl Arthur Kempenich
William Burke Delbert Lee
Theodore Solien
WE WILL also make up any pay they lost, with 6
percent interest.
If any person named above is presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States, WE WILL
notify him that he will be reemployed if he applies
after his discharge.
NORTHWEST OIL
EQUIPMENT INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 316 Federal Building, 110 South 4th Street,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 , Telephone
612-334-2611.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PHIL SAUNDERS, Trial Examiner The unfair labor prac-
tice charge on which the complaint of January 30, 1968, is
based, was filed by International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-
CIO, Local 647, herein called the Union, on November 2,
1967, against Northwest Oil Equipment, Inc., herein called the
Respondent or the Company. The issues litigated were whether
or not the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended The Company de-
nied the unfair labor practice allegations. A hearing was held
before me and all parties were represented, and were given full
opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to
introduce evidence, and to argue orally. The Company filed a
brief and I have given it due consideration.
Upon the entire record and from my observation and
demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is and has been at all times material herein a
Minnesota corporation having its principal place of business at
Moorhead, Minnesota, where it is engaged in the manufacture,
sale and service of fuel oil tanks and equipment. During
calendar year 1967, Respondent sold in excess of $50,000
worth of its manufactured products and its services to
customers located outside the State of Minnesota By virtue of
its operations described above, Respondent 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, and I so
find.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is, and has been at all tunes material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The amended complaint alleges that on or about October
23, 1967-all dates are 1967 unless specifically stated other-
wise-the Company threatened its employees with discharge
for having protested in concert a layoff notice given to Erling
Bjorndahl, that on October 19, the Respondent engaged in
surveillance of its employees attending a meeting of the
Union,' that the Company promised wage increases if em-
ployees rejected the Union, that the Respondent threatened
employees with loss of existing benefits if they selected the
Union, and it is also alleged that the Respondent interrogated
employees as to the identity of their union leaders. It is further
alleged that on October 27, the Respondent discriminatorily
discharged employee John Sundseth in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, and that on October 27, the Company
discharged nine other employees2 because they ceased work
concertedly and went out on strike in support of and activities
on behalf of the Union.
It appears that the Union commenced its organizing
campaign some time in the late summer or early fall of 1967.
On September 29, the Company was notified the Union
represented a majority of production and maintenance em-
ployees, and requested recognition. The Company was of the
opinion the Union did not represent a majority and on
October 2, the Union then filed a petition for an election
(18-RC-7308) in the unit mentioned above and consisting of
23 employees. On October 23, the parties entered into a
consent election agreement and the election was scheduled for
November 7. This election was held, but the General Counsel
produced testimony through the Union's international repre-
sentative, Thomas Conway, to the effect that the final results
of the election are still pending as the Company challenged the
votes of those employees it discharged on October 27, as
aforestated, and these ballots were impounded by the Board's
Regional Office and have not been counted. There were 12
unchallenged ballots and they were counted.
The credited evidence in this record shows that on or about
October 23, Respondent Supervisor Milton Johnson, known as
Al Johnson,' raised the subjects of company benefits-
I The Company admits this allegation , and therefore, the General
Counsel did not produce any evidence in relation thereto
CCarl Aamold Steven Grosz
Dean Arneson Arthur Kempenich
Erling Brorndahl Delbert Lee
William Burke Theodore Solien
Julian Gaikowski
3 Respondent's Foreman Milton or Al Johnson and Respondent's
president, Marvin Koeplin , are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act, and the Company so admits
NORTHWEST OIL EQUIPMENT 537
insurance, retirement, coffee breaks, profit sharing and
bonuses, in a discussion with employee Joe Robison and then
told Robison the employees could lose all of these benefits if
the Union came in. Johnson further informed Robison that
employees could also get a "cut in pay" if the Union came in,
and if the employees forgot about the Union they could get 11
cents an hour increase in wages. Robison then informed
Johnson that he would talk to the other employees about it
In October, Supervisor Johnson inquired of Theodore Solien
if he knew who the instigators of the Union were, and then
mentioned the names of Joe Robison and Delbert Lee as the
employees who he thought were the leaders 4 In early
October, the Respondent's president, Marvin Koeplm, in-
formed Carl Aamold the wages paid by the Company were
comparable to the wages at the nearby Fargo Foundry, and on
this basis it was possible that truckdriver Joe Robison would
have to take a cut in his wages. Koeplin then took out a piece
of paper and wrote $2.35 on it-the hourly rate Aamold was
then getting-and wrote 50 cents under it Aamold testified he
assumed this meant an increase in his pay, but Koeplin told
him he could not do anything about it as he might get into
trouble. Koeplin then picked up his telephone and called
Supervisor Johnson and asked Johnson, "Do you think Carl
[Aamold] would make a good leadman'" Shortly after this
conversation, Koeplin again sought out Aamold and presented
another piece of paper to him with the figures of $2.35 and 50
cents written under it and also figures representing a bonus and
profit-sharing amounts. On cross-examination, Aamold agreed
that company hospital and insurance benefits paid to each
employee amounted to the equivalent of 18 cents an hour,
agreed that the company bonus amounted to 19 cents an hour
per employee, and also the company profit-sharing payments
to each employee amounted to 35 cents an hour, and in
consideration of the above this would make his hourly rate
above $3 an hour. Aamold then testified, " But I did not take it
to be that at the time " Regardless of whatever intent Koeplin
may have had or whatever might have prompted these figures,
it is hardly a warrant for overlooking the coercive elements in
this conversation under the circumstances then existing.5
In early October, Supervisor Johnson told Steven Grosz that
he would have received a 25-cent raise in pay had not the
Union entered into the picture, but that his hands were now
tied and he could do nothing about it. Johnson then stated,
"Well, Steve-stick with us." At about the same time,
Supervisor Johnson told employee Dean Arneson about the
pay scale the Company had contemplated and would have
been in effect, but now they were unable to do anything about
it with the advent of the Union. Johnson then went on and
mentioned some of the benefits the employees could lose. He
told Arneson, "It was a Thanksgiving turkey, he said it wasn't
very much, like the Thanksgiving turkey and Christmas party
and bonuses, but he said it is a little bit, he said we could lose
them if the Union came in. He didn't say we would, but he
said we could."
Sometime during the week of October 23, Koeplin had a
conversation with William Burke about statements Burke had
made around the plant to the effect that some employees had
not received blanket wage increases. Koeplin then mentioned
the profit-sharing plan and stated some changes would be made
so employees could qualify without first serving 3 years, and
also told Burke the Company had drawn up plans to equalize
Respondent's wages with the wages being paid at the Fargo
Foundry, but these plans had to be cancelled because of the
Union coming into the picture. At the conclusion of their
conversation, Burke asked Koeplin why he was so "dead set"
against the Union coming in, and Koephn then replied he did
not want anybody telling him how to run his business. Koeplin
admitted a talk with Burke on or about October 23, but only
remembered that it dealt with an explanation of the profit-
sharing plan, and could not recall any discussion about wages
or blanket wage increases.
The foregoing instances that have been credibly attributed
to the Respondent include unlawful interrogation as to the
identity of the union leaders among the plant employees, on
numerous occasions threatening loss of existing benefits and
wages, and in several instances promising employees wage
increases As aforestated, the Company admitted in its
amended answer that on or about October 19, Supervisor
Johnson engaged in surveillance of employees who were in
attendance at a union meeting.6 This conduct on the part of
the Respondent clearly constitutes violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
I will turn now to the allegation that the Company
threatened its employees with discharge for their having
protested in concert a notice of layoff issued to Bjorndahl on
October 21. This record shows that Bjomdahl had been
employed by the Company on three separate periods starting
in 1964. His last period of employment ran from July until
October 27, and during this time Bjorndahl was also attending
school and reported for work at the plant in the afternoons.
His main job was cutting, welding, and building small basement
oil tanks. On October 19, the first union meeting for company
employees was held at the nearby Labor Temple in Fargo,
North Dakota, and Bjorndahl attended this meeting, and was
given a union button which he then wore continually
thereafter on his work clothes or cap, as did the other
employees of the Respondent who attended this meeting, and
who are directly involved in this proceeding.
On October 21, Supervisor Johnson told Bjorndahl the
Company had a backlog, and no future orders were forth-
coming on the type of small oil tanks he was building, and
informed Bjorndahl that next week he would be laid off.
Bjorndahl then told fellow union employees Robison, Lee, and
Aamold about his notice of layoff from Johnson, and that
evening a discussion followed among these employees at
Delbert Lee's home as to their future course of action.
Bjorndahl testified the employees felt his layoff would be
unfair due to the pending election coming up on November 7,
that the Company was attempting to eliminate them "one by
one," and it was then decided they would all "stick together."
As a result of their discussion and considerations, it was finally
decided to protest Bjorndahl's notice of layoff on Monday
4 Solien also testified that Supervisor Johnson had asked him why
employee Gene Corwin had quit on about October 6, as the Company
had given him a raise in wages Sohen replied that Corwin had informed
him that he had to sign a statement that his raise was not a "bribe" in
efforts to get Corwin to reject the Union. Johnson then showed Solien
the statement or paper Corwin had signed
5 Koeplin admits a conversation with Aamold in early October, but
recalls that the ensuing conversation dealt with men loafing on the job
and a rumor around the plant that he had been talking about the Union
with Aamold and Hovland , and that he took this opportunity to deny
the rumor Koeplin remembered that when Aamold informed him that
he might go to California in order to make $3 an hour, he then told
Aamold he was already getting $3 07 an hour
6 Supervisor Johnson did not deny any of the statements attributed
to him by witnesses for the General Counsel
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
morning. On the morning of October 23, the union adherents-
approximately 12 employees wearing union buttons, gathered
at the plant and spoke to Supervisor Johnson. Joe Robison was
the spokesman for these employees who had joined the Union,
and he asked Johnson not to do any "firing" or "hiring" until
after the election Johnson told them he would accept these
terms and also promised to keep Bjorndahl on until the union
matter or election was settled, and the employees then went to
work. A short while later, on the same day, Robison and
supervisor Johnson talked together, and Johnson then told
Robison the employees could have been fired for their conduct
in meeting with him earlier that morning and "sticking up" for
Bjorndahl. Robison then passed this message on to Steven
Grosz, Delbert Lee, and several other union adherents who had
been in the group meeting with Johnson earlier that morning.7
The Company admits the meeting with union adherents on the
morning of October 23, and that Robison was their group
spokesman, but Johnson testified the meeting took place
shortly after 7 a.m , that this was their reporting time for work
and they had not punched in by 7 a.m , and later in the
morning he then informed Robison that the employees who
were in the group could be discharged for their failure to
report for work 8
I find that on October 23, the Respondent unlawfully
threatened its employees with discharge for their having
protested in concert the notice of layoff given to Bjorndahl.
The evidence and circumstances surrounding these events
amply supports this conclusion. Johnson and Koeplin admit
the Monday morning meeting with union adherents, that
Robison was the spokesman for the dissatisfied group who had
all recently signified their interest in the Union, and that all
employees in the group were wearing union buttons at the
time in question Johnson's immediate agreement with the
group to keep Bjorndahl on until after the election and then
shortly thereafter telling Group Spokesman Robison the
employees could have been discharged, especially clarifies the
Respondent's intention to specifically retaliate against the
employees concerted and protected protest It was most
obvious to the Company that Robison was not acting alone in
seeking redress for Bjorndahl, and it was also clear that the
meeting on Monday morning of union adherents with Johnson
was for the object of initiating and preparing for group action.
In fact, Koeplin admitted he instructed Johnson to "scare"
these employees so they would stay on the job and to tell
them they could be discharged for refusing to work. Koeplm
further admitted he then directed Johnson to inform Spokes-
man Robison of the above and for Robison "to spread the
word among the employees."
The events and circumstances involved in this incident
clearly show group action, and it is well settled by the Board
and the courts that employees in situations of this kind, who
spontaneously refuse to work to protest grievances concerning
wages, hours, working conditions, or tenure of jobs and
employment, are engaged in conduct for "mutual aid and
protection" within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. In
accordance with the above, the Respondent further engaged in
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so find 9
John Sundseth started work for the Company at its
Moorhead shop in late 1966 Prior thereto he was engaged in
the operation of his own farm located at Halstad, Minnesota,
until March 1966, when he started work for a creamery and
stayed there until sometime in July 1966. While working for
the Company, Sundseth continued to live in Halstad which
meant he had to drive about 70 miles round trip each day.
Sundseth worked in the service department at Respondent's
Moorhead plant, and this job included the installation of bulk
oil and gasoline plants in and around the Moorhead area.
Sundseth testified that on or about October 13, he
informed Floyd Storsved that he wanted some time off from
his job to work on his apartment house in Halstad and to go
deer hunting.' 0 Sundseth stated that Storsved told him he
could have time off, but then asked him if he would come
back to work Sundseth replied that he would return after deer
season, but his leaving depended on the installation of the
bulk plant at Elbow Lake, Minnesota, and that if it was
impossible to finish this job for lack of materials-he would
then start taking time off on November 1.1 1 Sundseth went on
to testify that soon thereafter he was informed by Storsved
that he was not eligible to vote in the upcoming union election
in November because he had quit his employment. In reply,
Sundseth then told Storsved he had not quit and his name was
on the eligibility list. Storsved informed Sundseth to go into
the office and see Koeplin about it, but Sundseth replied he
did not want to see Koeplin because several of the other
employees had been in to see him and Koeplin had offered
them better jobs in efforts to convince employees to vote
against the Union.
Delbert Lee and others testified that at the union meeting
on October 19, the subject of Sundseth's eligibility came up
for discussion as Sundseth had reported at this meeting his
7 The above facts as to the incidents involving Bjorndahl, are
established through the credited testimony of Robison, Biorndahl, Lee,
Solien, and Grosz
8 There is some testimony in this record on whether or not the
Company had sufficient steel of the right kind to continue making small
basement tanks at the time in question , and on whether or not
additional orders for steel were placed, and also testimony on the
normal periods of the year when such tanks were made and at what
time in the fall such production was generally stopped However, the
General Counsel stated that this incident was not alleged as 8(a)(3)
conduct Therefore, testimony bearing on possible discriminatory
motivation need not be considered here
9 At the hearing the Company moved for the written statement of
Biorndahl for purposes of cross-examination under the Jencks rule The
General Counsel refused on the grounds that Bjorndahl gave no signed
statement nor did he ever adopt or approve one, and I denied the
Respondent's motion to produce. The evidence merely shows that
Biorndahl was interviewed by the General Counsel in preparation for
trial, that he took notes in so doing , that Biorndahl never read the
notes , and that he signed nothing The most that can be said is that on a
few occasions the notes were read back to Bjorndahl There is ample law
to establish that the General Counsel need not produce notes made
while interviewing a witness when the same are not signed or
authenticated by the witness , nor need Board agents produce an oral
statement of a witness reduced to writing but not signed or seen by the
witness See Paul Biazevich , 136 NLRB 13, and Amencan Steel, 123
NLRB 1363 To hold otherwise would practically eliminate meaningful
investigation procedures of the Board, and would eventually restrict all
trial preparations to merely verbal "bull sessions " with all prospective
witnesses without regard to the hopeless and utter confusion which
would result therefrom this is not the rule nor is it the law
10 This record shows that Floyd Storsved has some degree of status
or authority in the service department , and Johnson and Koeplin are
always immediately accessible to him . In all matters relevant to this
proceeding , and at all times material herein , Storsved was acting as the
Respondent 's agent and clearly within his scope of authority Admitted-
ly, Koeplm also had full knowledge of all pertinent communications
between Storsved and Sundseth
11 Work at the Elbow Lake installation did not start until October
19 or 20 , and Sundseth worked on this project until his termination on
October 27
NORTHWEST OIL EQUIPMENT 539
conversation with Storsved to the effect that he was not
eligible to vote. Lee stated an eligibility list was then circulated
and Sundseth's name was on the list. Joe Robison testified that
on or about October 16, Delbert Lee asked him if he knew
Sundseth was quitting, and in reply he then asked Lee whether
Sundseth was quitting or was asking for time off. Robison
stated that at this time they knew the vote at the election
would be very close and every vote important. During the
week of October 23, Robison was working with Sundseth on
the bulk station at Elbow Lake, and Robison testified that in
their conversations at the job Sundseth told him he was going
to sell his farm and was also going to do some hunting and
fishing, and from such conversations Robison had the under-
standing Sundseth was either going to take time off, quit, or
retire after the job at Elbow Lake was completed. Robison
admitted hearing remarks or rumors from other employees
around the shop to the effect that Sundseth had informed
them he was quitting. Robison told Sundseth he should "stick
around" until after the election. On cross-examination Robi-
son stated he had never heard of an employee taking a 2 or 3
weeks leave of absence after only 10 months on the job, and
around October 25, Sundseth had commented on hardships of
driving back and forth from Halstad, Minnesota to Moorhead
and, therefore, had lined up a job at a garage in Halstad where
he lived. Robison also related Sundseth had informed him
about his conversation with Storsved, and wherein Sundseth
told Storsved he was not quitting his job as he had "changed
his mind." Robison testified that at the union meeting on
October 19, there was considerable discussion on whether or
not Sundseth had asked for time off or had given a notice to
quit, and stated Sundseth then informed the 10 or 11
employees at this meeting that he had not quit, but had asked
for time off. Robison further testified that at the meeting
Sundseth was also told by the Union's international representa-
tive, Thomas Conway, "You had better change your tactics."
Theodore Solien related in his testimony that prior to October
27, Sundseth informed him that he had no vacation coming
because he had only worked for the Company 9 months so he
was going to take a leave of absence.
The Company produced testimony through M. S. Parries to
the effect that around the middle of October, Sundseth in-
formed Parries and others he had sold his 320-acre farm for $300
an acre, and replied affirmatively when asked by Parries if he
would retire. 12 Frank Slaby, also a witness for the Company,
stated that on or about October 10, Sundseth made the remark
that he planned on taking a garage job in Halstad, and further
testified that around the middle of October, Storsved told him
Sundseth had given a 2 weeks' notice to quit. Slaby and other
witnesses stated this was common "shop talk" among the
employees in the plant. Christopher Sundseth only involved
as a witness, gave testimony to the effect that in late April,
Sundseth told him he was going to quit his job to go deer
hunting, and was not going to work during the winter months.
Floyd Storsved testified that on October 13, Sundseth
informed him that he was giving a 2 weeks' notice of quitting
because he was selling his farm and had an apartment building
12 This record shows that Sundseth did sell his farm to Harris
Henderson , and the deed for same is dated November 22, 1967.
Henderson testified that prior to the execution of the deed, he and
Sundseth had several discussions in 1967 about the transaction , and "at
some point" a price was agreed upon . Sundseth places the date of
November 6, when he and Henderson first reached a verbal understand-
ing as to the terms and conditions of the sale
to repair Storsved stated it was then agreed between them that
Sundseth would continue to work for 2 weeks or until the
Elbow Lake installation job was completed-if this work was
finished before the 2 weeks period Sundseth would then leave,
but if not he would still leave-according to Storsved. Foreman
Storsved related he then informed Koeplin that Sundseth had
given a 2 weeks' notice of quitting. Storsved went on to state
that on or about October 24, he had picked up rumors that
Sundseth had apparently decided to stay on his job so he
discussed this with Koeplin. Storsved testified he then also
inquired of Sundseth if there was any truth in the rumor he
was staying on, and Sundseth replied, "Well, I think I will stay
around a while." Storsved then informed Sundseth that
Friday, October 27, would be his last day as the 2 weeks
period would be up, and Sundseth should see Koeplin about it
so there would be no misunderstanding, but Sundseth stated,
"I don't think I would care to see anybody." Storsved further
testified that Sundseth never asked for time off to go hunting,
that the fall is a very busy time for the Company, and
admitted that on October 24, he told Koeplin that Sundseth
was not going to quit. Koeplin testified that on October 13,
Storsved told him Sundseth would be leaving the Company in
2 weeks, and also stated that on October 24, he was informed
by Storsved that Sundseth was going to stay on and was not
quitting his job. Koeplin then told Storsved to have Sundseth
see him, but Sundseth refused to do so. Koeplin maintains the
Company has no policy permitting an extended leave of
absence, and the same are only granted for a day or so for
strictly emergency purposes, and that Storsved could not make
any such arrangements with employees. John Maier gave
testimony on a conversation with Sundseth, and it was to the
effect that Sundseth made a remark about selling his farm and
retiring Milton Johnson testified for the Company that during
the week of October 16, he had also heard "shop talk" to the
effect Sundseth was quitting. Finally, the Respondent pro-
duced testimony through Thomas Becker and which testimony
supposedly had some bearing on the announced future plans of
Sundseth.
On October 23, 1967, a meeting regarding the representa-
tion election was held in the Moorhead offices of G. L.
Dosland, Attorney at Law, representing the Company. Present
were Dosland, Thomas Conway of the Union, Koeplin and
Marlowe Parries, officers of the Respondent, and a Board agent
from the Region. A consent election agreement was executed
and the representatives also discussed who would be eligible to
vote in the election. The Union noted that Sundseth's name
was not on the proposed eligibility list and maintained that it
should be on the list. Dosland replied that Sundseth's name
was not on the list because he had given notice on October 13
that he was quitting in 2 weeks, on October 27, and would not
be working for the Company on the date of the election in
November. Conway stated that Sundseth had never given
notice of quitting, but had only asked Storsved on October 13,
for time off to go--hunting. Dosland then told Conway that
Sundseth had given notice of quitting and inquired what kind
of hunting Sundseth intended to do at that time of year.
Conway stated he thought it was deer hunting. Dosland
testified that at this stage in the meeting it was decided to put
Sundseth's name on the list, but if he was not employed at the
time of the election, he could not vote and the parties all
agreed on this arrangement.
By letter dated October 26, the Company enclosed his final
paycheck and thereby notified Sundseth that in accordance
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with his 2 weeks' notice on October 13, his employment was
terminated. On October 27, the letter and check were put in
an envelope and placed in Storsved's desk in the service shop
during that afternoon. Shortly before 3 p.m. on October 27,
Sundseth returned from the Elbow Lake job and went to the
desk of Storsved at the plant as usually done, and removed the
envelope and read the letter. Immediately thereafter, he
showed the letter to employees Delbert Lee and William Burke
and the three of them then showed the letter around to several
of the other employees in the service and tank departments.
About 10 of the union employees then gathered together in
the tank shop work area to discuss the letter to Sundseth At
approximately 3.10 p.m., Sundseth and the nine other alleged
discriminatees punched out and left the plant and proceeded
to the Fargo Labor Temple. Before leaving the plant the umon
employees attempted to find some officer of the Company-
Koephn, Parries or Johnson-to discuss Sundseth's termination
with, but none of the officers were at the plant. 13
The Respondent's secretary at the plant, Florence Sell,
observed these employees congregating in the work areas of
the plant before they left, and testified that they were in the
process of leaving at the time Johnson and Koeplin returned
from their coffee break. Koeplin stated that he saw the
employees walking toward their cars as he drove up to the
plant at about 3:10 p.m. on October 27.
On October 28, all of the union adherents who walked out
the prior afternoon, except Sundseth, received a letter from
the Company in effect stating the Respondent considered they
had quit their employment with the Company on the previous
day by punching out at the time they did, and accordingly
their final paychecks were enclosed. On October 30, the
employees who walked out came to the plant and asked
Supervisor Johnson if he was going to put them back to work,
and Johnson then told them they had punched out and left,
and so they no longer worked for the Company. Immediately
thereafter, these employees commenced picketing at the
Respondent's plant.
The Company maintains that Sundseth voluntarily termina-
ted his employment on October 27, pursuant to his notice of
quitting on October 13, and the Company had the right to rely
on such notice. The Respondent points to numerous conversa-
tions wherein Sundseth had further conveyed his message of
quitting and retiring, as aforestated. One of the initial
discussions of whether or not Sundseth had quit or merely
asked for a leave absence, took place at the union meeting on
October 19. At this meeting, with about 12 employees in
attendance, international representative for the Union, Thomas
Conway, specifically asked Sundseth whether he had quit or
had asked for time off. Sundseth replied he had never told
anyone he was quitting, but has asked Storsved for a 2 weeks'
leave of absence to go deer hunting. 14 This concern and
apparent confusion on the status of Sundseth at the meeting,
resulted in an immediate request or suggestion by Conway that
Sundseth document his exact position in a letter-
Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. On October 28, the day after
Sundseth was discharged, several of the employees who had
walked out in protest, held another meeting at Delbert Lee's
13 Koeplin and Johnson have a regular coffee break at this time each
afternoon , and Parries was doing some work or repairs elsewhere.
14 The Company points out that the 1967 Minnesota deer season
did not start until November 18, and argues that by leaving on
November 1, and taking 2 weeks off-Sundseth would not be able to
hunt deer in Minnesota during this period
home and a discussion followed on the above-mentioned letter.
Conway was contacted by telephone and the letter was read to
him and Conway made comments about it, and certain lines in
the letter were then stricken out.
In light of the above, and in consideration of the admitted
"shop talk" and various statements by Sundseth about
hunting, getting a job at Halstad, selling his farm, and such
other remarks, all tied in to possible retirement, it is apparent
that the Company could easily interpret Sundseth's statement
on October 13 to Storsved, as a 2 weeks' notice to quit. This
also becomes quite apparent with the extensive discussion on
his status during the union meeting on October 19, and the
request by Conway to write down his exact position on paper.
The Respondent argues that Sundseth did tell Storsved he was
quitting and in its brief states the following
The record shows that there was great concern at that
meeting by Conway and the rest of the employees present,
who totaled approximately twelve employees including
Sundseth, about the anticipated affirmative votes for the
Union in the coming election and the anticipated negative
votes and about the eligibility of Sundseth. The persons
present believed that the vote would be very close and so it
became very important to them that Sundseth, who was a
known and admitted Union supporter, be eligible to vote in
the election. Accordingly, Sundseth at the urging of
Conway and some of the other employees present agreed to
remain in the employ of the Company until after the
election and further agreed that if the employer inquired
about his notice of quitting that he would deny any such
notice was ever given. The understanding was that Sundseth
would state that he had merely told Storsved on October
13, that he wanted time off to go hunting and to fix up an
apartment building he owned in Halstad. The other employ-
ees at that meeting agreed that each of them would deny
that they had ever heard Sundseth say to themselves or to
anyone that he had given notice of quitting or had turned in
his time. All agreed that they would maintain that the only
thing they had ever heard Sundseth say about leaving was
that he was going to take a leave of absence around the first
of November to go hunting and to work on his apartment.
Sundseth also agreed that not only would he remain in the
employ of the Company until after the election, but also
that he might stay on indefinitely if the Union won the
election. Finally, all employees at this meeting agreed to
stick together by joint action in the event Sundseth was
unable to convince the Company that he had not given
notice of quitting. (See testimony of William Burke.) These
facts are confirmed by the testimony of one of the General
Counsel's own witnesses, Joe Robison, and by the mys-
terious letter prepared by Sundseth and identified and
received as Employer's Exhibit 1. This letter was prepared
by Sundseth at the request of Conway apparently for
sending to the Board in support of the charge that Sundseth
had been unlawfully discharged. The letter makes clear that
the Union and the employees present at the Union meeting
of October 19 well knew that Sundseth had given notice of
quitting.
Even granting the Respondent's contention that Sundseth
initially informed Storsved he was quitting, and also granting
that subsequently umon adherents and leaders persuaded or
induced him to change his mind or plans-these factors must
all be evaluated in light of the total evidence, circumstances,
and events. Certainly, as I will point out, Sundseth had the
NORTHWEST OIL EQUIPMENT 541
privilege to change his mind and if the Company had
knowledge of this fact prior to October 27, then all the
additional circumstances become highly important in ascertain-
ment of the true motivation for his discharge. This record
clearly shows that on October 23 and 24, the Company knew
that Sundseth would continue his employment. Certain aspects
to this effect were specifically brought out in the representa-
tion meeting before Conway and company supervisors in the
office of Attorney Dosland on October 23, and on October 24,
Sundseth informed Storsved that he was not quitting, and
Storsved then admittedly passed this message on to Koeplin.
These events reduce the Respondent's contention to the fact
that Sundseth did not report to Koeplin when he was asked to
do so by Storsved in order to avoid any misunderstanding
In the final analysis here, the Company had reason to
believe the union election in early November would be
extremely close,15 and on the basis of facts already
mentioned, the Company also had specific knowledge that
Sundseth was a supporter for the Union In addition to these
factors, it is admitted that Sundseth was a good worker, that
the fall season of the year is an extremely busy time for the
Company, that the Company hired a new employee, Arthur
Kempenich, in October,i 6 that the job at Elbow Lake was not
fully completed by October 27-one tank had yet to be
installed, and it is further admitted that 3 days before his
termination Sundseth informed the Company he was not
quitting. Based on the above, coupled with the antiunion
animus demonstrated by the unlawful threats, interrogations,
and promises made to employees, as aforementioned herein, I
find that John Sundseth was discharged on October 27, 1967,
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Had union
considerations not been the motivating and prevailing force,
there is no question that Koeplin would have sought out
Sundseth between October 24 and October 27, as he frequent-
ly visited the work areas in the plant and the Company needed
his services. There is also no credited evidence to show that
even if Sundseth changed his mind from quitting to staying
on-this in any way altered company plans or was inconvenient
in making work schedules. Likewise, there is no showing that
even if Sundseth gave a definite notice to quit on October 13,
that this pronouncement then became such an iron clad verbal
agreement that it could not be revoked or changed before its
effective date. The Company offered no testimony to show
any general or specific policy in this regard, and the statement
to Sundseth by Storsved on October 24 that he should see
Koephn to avoid any misunderstanding by his staying on, is
clearly in repudiation of any existing or binding company
policy in respect to irrevocable notices of quitting From the
indications in this record, all such matters were treated on a
very informal basis. It is further noted that Storsved made a
call to the Elbow Lake jobsite on the morning of October 27,
and talked to Morken about the overtime for employees on
this job. Had the Company entertained any desire to avoid the
possible misunderstanding about Sundseth staying on-this
would have been an excellent opportunity for clarifications
On the afternoon of October 27, the employees who had
joined the Union and who were wearing union buttons,
concertedly went out on strike to protest the unlawful
discharge of Sundseth, and these employees were then also
terminated, as aforementioned herein. This record shows that
at the meeting on October 19, the employees had agreed to
jointly take action in event of any such difficulties, and this
joint or group dedication was initially established and demon-
strated during the incident involving Erling Bjorndahl. When
Sundseth received his termination letter, he showed it to a few
other employees in the plant and it was then passed around. A
discussion among the union adherents followed, and the
employees involved herein then decided to walk out in order
to "back up" Sundseth. As this record plainly shows, the
Company treated the action of the union adherents in walking
off their jobs and refusing to abandon their protected
activity-as a termination of their status as employees. Thus,
when the strikers returned to the plant on October 30 and
asked for their jobs back, Supervisor Johnson told them they
had punched out and "they no longer worked for the
Company." It is clear from the foregoing that the Company's
response to the walkout was nothing less than to discharge the
participants.
The Respondent argues and points to decisions holding that
an employer does not violate the Act when he discharges
strikers protesting the termination of a fellow employee, when
they do not have a good-faith belief that their fellow employee
was unlawfully discharged In its brief the Company states-as
follows "Where the nine protestors not only knew the
employee on whose behalf they pretended to protest had
voluntarily terminated his employment, but also where they
participated in an elaborate scheme to deny such fact and
suppress evidence to the contrary, it demonstrates gross
disloyalty to the employer and such lack of good faith as to
make their concerted activity fall outside the area of legitimate
concerted activities and outside the protection of the Act."
The facts in this record will not support this contention.
During the union meeting on October 19, Sundseth made it
known to all in attendance that he was not quitting his job,
and there is no credited evidence that an "elaborate scheme"
was ever made to suppress the alleged notice to quit.
Undoubtedly, up to October 19, there existed considerable
confusion and consternation as to the exact status of Sund-
seth, but the controlling event and statements that followed
made it very clear-both to fellow union employees and the
Company-that he was staying on. Relating the happenings at
the time Sundseth received his discharge letter, Delbert Lee
credibly stated- "I believe John Sundseth and I went over in
the tank shop and Bill Burke happened to be in there, and he
showed him this letter there, and we started to discussing if we
were going to let this take place So I went back to the tank
shop and he [Sundseth] was starting to go around to some of
the guys and the word was already getting around to what
took place, and so we all decided to walk out and back him up,
he would do the same for us, he was wearing a button just like
the rest of us." Theodore Sohen testified that when Sundseth
read his termination letter he told Solien "it was a dirty deal."
Solien stated the "group" then decided that if the Company
was going to fire Sundseth it would be someone else the next
time, so they decided "to stick by John, by either talking with
the management, or walking out in protest." There can be no
successful argument to the effect that the union adherents
demonstrated gross disloyalty or such a lack of good faith as to
15 At least 10 or 11 employees out of 23 on the eligibility list in the
unit were wearing union buttons
16 At one stage of his testimony , Koeplin suggested that Kempenich
was hired as a replacement on the city desk job, but later on stated he
told Storsved that Kempenich would make a good replacement for
Sundseth. In any event, the Company hired Kempenich prior to
October 13 , to replace Gerald England on the city desk
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
place their activities outside the protection of the Act. In the
final analysis, the Union employees obviously believed that the
Company had acted unlawfully in discharging Sundseth and as
a result they induced group action for all employees support-
ing the Union, and since the Company knew that a group of
their employees had walked out together-the Respondent had
specific and direct knowledge that these employees were acting
in concert
The unfair labor practice which took place in the discrimi-
natory discharge of Sundseth clearly interfered with the union
activities of the employees. It is again pointed out that by
October 27, Sundseth's name had been added to the list of the
eligible voters in the November election and the Company had
also agreed that he could vote if he was still working. The
credited testimony, as set forth prior herein, also shows that
on October 23, Supervisor Johnson had agreed not to do any
hiring or firing until the union matter was settled It therefore
appears clear to me that the walkout and strike resulted not
only from the unlawful discharge of Sundseth, but also
because of previous complaints or grievances by employees
that the Company was discriminatorily attempting to ter-
inmate them on an individual basis There most definitely is a
sufficient causal relation between the above incidents and the
walkout, to fully warrant my finding that this was an unfair
labor practice strike As an issue fully litigated, this finding is
appropriate and essential in establishing the lawful benefits and
right of the strikers The discharge of such strikers is, of
course, violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and I so
find.17
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent described above have a
close , intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and
commerce 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 the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices violative of the Act, I shall recommend
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Company offer John
Sundseth immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to senior-
ity 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 payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he would have earned as wages
from the date of the discrimination against hun to the date of
offer of reinstatement less interim earnings , and in the manner
set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with
interest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
I have found that the strike which took place on October
27, 1967, was caused by unfair labor practices of Respondent.
As unfair labor practice strikers, Respondent's stnkmg employ-
ees were, upon their unconditional application for reinstate-
ment on October 30, 1967, entitled to reinstatement, and
Respondent's failure to reinstate any of them was a violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I shall recommend that
Respondent offer such employees as it has not reinstated
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, dismissing , if necessary, any
employees hired since October 27, 1967, and make such
employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered
by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them. This
shall be done by payment to each of them of a sum of money
he normally would have earned from October 30, 1967, to the
date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement less his net
earnings in accordance with the Woolworth and Isis Plumbing
formula.
It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve
and make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and
other records to facilitate the computation of the backpay
due.
It will be further recommended, in view of the nature of the
unfair labor practices the Respondent has engaged in that it
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.' 8
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the
following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent's operations occur in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of John Sundseth, thereby discouraging member-
ship in a labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. The strike was an unfair labor practice strike, and
further the Respondent's discharge of the strikers was an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
5. By the aforesaid conduct, the Respondent independent-
ly violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in its unlawful promises,
surveillances, threats, and inteirogations
17 There is some testimony in this record bearing on subsequent
offers by the Company to have the strikers return to their jobs On
November 14, Koeplin told Joe Robison to contact the strikers and to
inform them that their jobs were still available Robison reported to
Koeplin that "it was nothing or all," and the Respondent 's offer of
reinstatement did not include Sundseth and Bjorndahl It appears that
all of the strikers except two or three of them took other jobs. Lee and
Grosz returned to their work at the Company in January 1968 All can
be definitely ascertained during the compliance negotiations or proceed-
ings.
18 The General Counsel stated that the representation case
(18-RC -7308 ) is only "obliquely " involved in this proceeding, and
then further explained that the testimony given by Conway on the
voting, ballots , challenges and impoundment of ballots cast by those on
strike, was merely offered to show the current status of the entire case
and this was the only reason for such testimony The representation
case was not consolidated with the instant complaint nor is an RC
remedy in any way requested In view of the above , I do not pass on the
rights of the strikers to cast their ballots or make any recommendations
in relation thereto Furthermore, the specific factors and circumstances
on which the Respondent based its challenges are not clearly defined in
this proceeding , as the General Counsel had only a very limited
objective in offering such testimony
NORTHWEST OIL EQUIPMENT 543
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended
that the Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Illegally interrogating employees as to their union
activities or leadership.
(b) Unlawfully engaging in surveillance of its employees'
union activities or meetings
(c) Promising wage increases or other benefits in inducing
employees to refrain from supporting the Union
(d) Threatening loss of benefits or wages and discharges for
engaging in union and protected concerted activities.
(e) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against its
employees because they engage in lawful strike activity.
(f) In any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join or assist any labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or to
refrain from all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to John Sundseth immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and
make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him.
(b) Offer those strikers who unconditionally applied for
reinstatement on October 30, 1967, immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss they
may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination
against them, all in accord with and in the manner set forth
above.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
National Labor Relations Board or its agents, for information
and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary for the determination of the amount of
backpay due under these recommendations.
(d) Post at its Moorhead, Minnesota, plant copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' 9 [Board's Ap-
pendix substituted for Trial Examiner's ] Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 18, shall,
after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representa-
tive, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted, and maintained
by it for a period of 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Recom-
mended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith .20
19 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the
words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In
the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the
words "a Decision and Order "
20 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board , this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional
Director for Region 18, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."