Panscape Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 616 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Panscape Corporation and Robert E. Shreve. Case
25-CA-7145
June 10, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On March 15, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Jerry B Stone issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
decision
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 briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order
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, Panscape Corporation,
Muncie, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recom-
mended Order
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERRY B STONE, Administrative Law Judge This pro-
ceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, was heard pursuant to due notice
on October 16 and 17, 1975, at Muncie, Indiana
The original charge was filed on June 12, 1975 The com-
plaint in this matter was issued on July 31, 1975 The issues
concern whether (1) the Respondent has engaged in con-
duct of interrogation and threats in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, and (2) the Respondent discriminatorily
discharged employees Shreve, Jackson, and Burton on
June 6, 1975, because of or a belief in such employees'
union or protected concerted activities, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate
in the proceeding Briefs have been filed by General Coun-
sel and the Respondent and have been considered
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa-
tion of witnesses, I hereby make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER I
Panscape Corporation, the Respondent is and has been
at all times material herein a corporation duly organized
under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
Indiana At all times material herein the Respondent has
maintained its principal office and place of business at
Muncie, Indiana, herein called the facility, and various
other facilities, including a facility at Indianapolis, Indi-
ana, herein called the Fall Creek facility, and is and has
been at all times material herein engaged at said facilities
in the construction industry as a landscaping and earth
moving contractor During a representative 1-year period,
the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, purchased, transferred, and delivered to its
Muncie facility, Fall Creek facility, and other construction
jobsites located in the State of Indiana, goods and materi-
als valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported to
said facilities directly from States other than the State of
Indiana During a representative 1-year period, the Re-
spondent, in the course and conduct of its business opera-
tions, performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in
States other than the State of Indiana
As conceded by Respondent and based upon the fore-
going, it is concluded and found that the Respondent is,
and has been at all times material herein, an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 2
Local Union 1112, Laborers' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, herein sometimes referred to as
the Union, is and has been at all times material herein a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Preliminary Issues, Supervisory Status 3
At all times material herein the following-named persons
occupied positions set opposite their respective names, and
have been and are now agents of the Respondent at its
Muncie and Fall Creek facilities , acting on its behalf, and
are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 ( 11) of the
Act
Kuhrman Hull President
Vanis W Carter Foreman
Steven L Emnck Foreman
Douglass Spence Field Superintendent
The facts herein are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein
Z The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein
3 The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein
224 NLRB No 87
PANSCAPE CORPORATION 617
B The Facts 4
1 Panscape Corporation, sometimes herein referred to
simply as Panscape or as the Respondent, is engaged in the
construction industry as a landscaping and earth moving
contractor Although Panscape may have other collective-
bargaining relationship and agreements, the facts are clear
that Panscape has a collective-bargaining relationship with
Laborers' International Union of North America, State of
Indiana District Council, and has or had the following col-
lective-bargaining agreements with said Union First, Pan-
scape on August 15, 1974, accepted the terms of and be-
came a party to an agreement between the Indiana
Highway Constructors and said Union, effective from Jan-
uary 1, 1974, to December 31, 1975 Second, Panscape on
July 2, 1973, accepted the terms of and became a party to
an agreement between "Employer's Negotiating Commit-
tee, State of Indiana" and said Union, effective from April
1, 1973, to March 31, 1976 Both of the above referred to
agreements have clauses concerning automatic renewal or
notice for cancellation and renegotiation The agreement
between the "Employer's Negotiating Committee" covered
construction labor work excepting for certain exclusions,
among which was "Heavy and Highway" construction
work Third, Panscape clearly is a party to an agreement
between Indiana Utility Contractors Association and Sew-
er Contractors of Indianapolis and said Union, effective as
of April 1, 1975, to March 31, 1976 Local Union 1112,
Laborers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and Local
120 of said International Union, are local unions specifi-
cally referred to in the above agreements with reference to
their jurisdictional areas for the purpose of said contracts
and with reference to rights pertaining to the appointment
to job stewards etc
Panscape, on or about October 26, 1973, signed a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement concerning coverage for its
landscaping employees and landscape work The purport-
ed collective-bargaining agent for such employees was the
Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-
CIO, State of Indiana District Council The purported
agents, who purportedly signed said agreement for said In-
ternational Union, were George McMahan and Robert 0
Curry Both McMahan and Curry are local representatives
of Local 1112 of the Laborers' International Union Said
agreement, according to its terms, was to be effective from
October 26, 1973, to March 31, 1977 Said agreement ex-
cluded from coverage "all work which is now being done
under agreement or contract with the Laborers' Interna-
tional Union of North America, State of Indiana District
Council throughout the State of Indiana, and all landscap-
ing work being done under the predetermined rates set by
the Davis Bacon Act unless those rates are less than this
agreement " 5
4 The facts are largely not in dispute and are based upon a composite of
the credited aspects of the testimony of all the witnesses exhibits and stipu-
lations The testimony of any witness inconsistent with or contradictory of
the facts found is discredited
5 As the General Counsel argues, it is not necessary for the purposes of
this proceeding to determine the validity of the "landscape" agreement The
issues concern whether the Respondent engaged in conduct directed against
employees' union and protected concerted activity Employee activity con-
Kuhrman L Hull, president of Panscape, credibly testi-
fied to the effect that the "landscape" agreement was nego-
tiated to obtain a level of consistency on wage rates for the
"landscape" work as is revealed by the following credited
excerpts from his testimony
Q What labor agreement are you talking about,
Exhibit 79
A Exhibit GC-2 This agreement Mr McMann
(sic) and Mr Curry and myself worked on and
brought into existence to try to equalize the landscape
field, because people in the landscape field were al-
ways working for two dollars an hour There was no
level of consistency on wage rates or anything of this
nature So we came up with an agreement in an effort
to try to organize the landscape group of people so
that we could get an equalization in our bidding of
jobs, and get a wage factor up there that was livable
for these people to exist, and we could keep the people
this way
Also, it would make it competitive bidding factor
rather than bidding with people at two dollars an hour
wage scale if we got this agreement into an Interna-
tional force which we never did get done We would
have had a level consistent, a consistent labor figure
factor to work with
Labor factor is the only factor in landscaping Your
material factor is nil It is all work
2 Panscape's overall operation of demolition, earth-
moving, and landscaping is seasonal in nature The work
season is essentially from March 15 through November 31
yearly Panscape's overall employee complement varies
from approximately 10 to 50 employees in accordance with
the seasonal need
3 Robert E Shreve, David Jackson, and Richard Bur-
ton were employees in Panscape's landscape division at the
time of their discharges on June 6, 1975 6
Robert E Shreve was hired by the Respondent as a gen-
eral laborer in the landscape division in August 1974
Thereafter, excepting when on layoff status, Shreve contin-
ued to work for the Respondent until his discharge on June
6, 1975 His latest prior layoff status was for the period
February 15 to April 1, 1975 David Jackson was hired by
the Respondent on September 17, 1973 His layoff status
thereafter commenced in the winter of 1974 and lasted un-
til April 1, 1975 Richard Burton was hired by the Respon-
dent in October or November of 1974 He thereafter
worked for a week or two on Respondent's sewer crew, and
after that was on layoff status until April 9, 1975, when he
returned to work and commenced working as an employee
in the landscape division
Robert E Shreve, David Jackson, and Richard Burton
were members of Local 1112 of the International Laborers'
Union at the time of the critical events in this proceeding
cerning determination of whether such contract was in effect or to be en-
forced etc is clearly protected union or concerted activity as the case may
be
6 The General Counsel's complaint alleges and the Respondent denies
that such discharges were discriminatory and violative of Section 8(a)(3)
and (I) of the Act
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Whether such employees were current in their dues to said
union is not revealed by the evidence 7
4 Union Representative Curry of Local 1112 appointed
Robert E Shreve to be union steward for Local 1112 for
the Panscape landscape division employees in August
1974 Shreve was such union steward thereafter and until
his discharge on June 6, 1975
5 As indicated previously, Shreve was on layoff status
from February 15 to April 1, 1975 During such period of
time Shreve engaged in union and protected concerted ac-
tivity concerning the question of employee working condi-
tions, contractual rights, and wage rates Thus, around the
middle of February 1975, Shreve secured and examined a
copy of the "Landscape" contract,' believed that all of the
terms of the agreement were not being followed, contacted
Charles Morris, secretary-treasurer of the Indiana District
Council of the Laborers' International Union and inquired
as to whether the "Landscape" agreement was in effect and
being enforced, and was told by such official that said con-
tract was not in effect because it had not been approved by
the Indiana District Council of the Laborers' International
Union Shreve also inquired from said official as to the
question of predetermined wages Shreve was told to con-
tact a Mr Bills of the Indiana Department of Labor
Thereafter Shreve contacted said Mr Bills and inquired as
to the question of predetermined wages 9 Shreve was told
to contact his local union about such question Thereafter
Shreve contacted Local 1112's representative Curry and re-
lated his contacts with Morris and Mr Bills Curry told
Shreve that the agreement was still in effect to the best of
his knowledge, that he would, however, look further into
the matter Shreve asked Curry to try and schedule a meet-
ing with management and employees for around April 1,
1975, when he (Shreve) anticipated recall to work Curry
agreed to do so and told Shreve to try to set up a meeting
also if he saw any of the management in the meantime
Such proposed meeting had not been arranged by April 1,
1975, when Shreve returned to work
6 Shreve returned to work at Panscape on April 1, 1975
On such date Shreve contacted Superintendent Spence and
asked him to set up a meeting for President Hull, the
Union, and the landscape personnel The expressed pur-
pose for such meeting was to go over the contract and to
decide the rules and regulations that would govern the em-
ployees
The facts are clear that the Respondent knew, at least by
April 1, 1975, that Shreve was the Local 1112 job steward
and was interested in the proper administration of the
"landscape" contract 10
On the same date, April 1, 1975, Shreve ascertained from
7 Evidence relating to statements by Respondent 's President Hull to such
employees after their discharges alludes to his having been told that they
were behind in their dues obligations to Local 1112
8 Shreve had only seen a copy of the wage rates before such time
9 Wages set by governmental agencies in certain jobs performed for the
Federal, state county , or city government or instrumentalities or projects
thereof
10 Considering the fact that Shreve was Local 1112 s job steward, that the
employee complement was small, and the nature of Shreve s request for a
meeting, it is clear that the Respondent would be aware of Shreve s status
by April 1, 1975 Hull testified to the effect that Shreve and employees told
him that Shreve was Local 1112 s job steward Hull's testimony did not
however , fix the time of such knowledge
employee Jackson, who had returned to work on the same
day, that his rate of pay was $4 50 instead of $4 75 as pro-
vided in the landscape contract Curry, representative of
Local 1112, came by the jobsite on April 1, 1975, shortly
after Shreve had ascertained from Jackson his rate of pay
Shreve, Jackson, and Curry discussed Jackson's rate of pay
and the correct contract rate Curry then told Shreve and
Jackson that the pay rate would be corrected Shortly
thereafter Superintendent Spence arrived at the jobsite
Curry told Spence that Jackson's pay rate would have to be
corrected Thereafter Jackson's pay rate was corrected by
the Respondent
During the 2-week period April 1-15, 1975, Shreve dis-
cussed his conversations with Morris, Bills, and Curry
(about the validity and enforcement of the landscape con-
tract and about predetermined wage rates) with fellow em-
ployees Burton and Jackson On or about April 15, 1975,
the requested management -union-employee meeting had
not been arranged by Superintendent Spence Around
April 15, 1975, Shreve again contacted Superintendent
Spence at Spence's office and reiterated his request that
Spence arrange with President Hull for a management-
union-employee meeting to discuss the landscape contract
and the rules and regulations that would govern employer-
employee relations Spence told Shreve that he would try to
arrange such meeting
Around April 15, 1975, the Respondent commenced
work on a project known as the Fall Creek Parkway proj-
ect Such project was in Indianapolis , Indiana On the first
or second day of work on such project, Field Representa-
tives Tuttle and Tender of Local 120 of the Laborers' Inter-
national Union came to the Falls Creek Parkway Project
and checked membership cards and rates of pay of the
laborer employees 11
When Local 120's representatives were questioning em-
ployees as to their rates of pay, Shreve told such represen-
tatives that the Panscape employees were being paid on the
Fall Creek Parkway project the rates of pay under the
"Landscape" contract rather than the rates of pay under
the Highway Constructors' agreement
Union Representative Tuttle on this occasion first
checked Shreve's union card and then proceeded to check
whether Burton and Jackson had membership cards 12
Finding that Burton and Jackson did not have union cards,
Tuttle and Tender then proceeded to fill out applications
for union membership cards and to secure Burton and
Jackson's signature thereto Tuttle and Tender engaged in
a conversation with Jackson and Burton about their con-
tractual membership obligations and related matter The
ensuing discussion also covered the question of rates of pay
due under the Highway Constructors' agreement and the
Union's enforcement of such rates Tuttle then returned to
Shreve and asked him if he didn't know the rate of pay the
employees were due, and told Shreve that the employees
were due the rate under the Highway Constructors' agree-
it The collective bargaining agreements between the Respondent and the
Laborers International Union indicate that Local 120 has jurisdiction in
Marion County where Indianapolis and said project were located
12 The facts are based upon a composite of the credited aspects of Tuttle
and Shreve' s testimony , stipulations as to Burton and Jackson s proposed
testimony , and a consideration of the logical consistency of facts
PANSCAPE CORPORATION 619
ment Shreve told Tuttle that he had a pretty good idea
that the rate should be the Highway Constructors' rate but
that they were receiving the rate set by Local 1112's con-
tract, that he wished that there was someway that they
could get out from under such contract, that, however, if
any waves were made about such contract, he could be
subject to being taken to court and sued Tuttle told the
employees that he would guarantee that as long as they
worked in Marion and Shelby counties, the Highway Con-
structors' agreement would be abided by and they would
receive the wage rate under such contract
On the same afternoon that the events described above
occurred, Tuttle called the Respondent's offices What oc-
curred is revealed by the following excerpts from Tuttle's
credited testimony
A On the day of offering Jackson and Burton
membership, that afternoon, on the return to the hall
at approximately three p in I called PanScape's office
I don't know who I talked to I informed them what
the prevailing wage was, the type of work in the State
of Indiana to which they were signatory, and the col-
lective bargaining agreement, and I expected it to be
paid Whoever I talked to said there was no problem
On the same date or the next several days Superinten-
dent Spence reported to Respondent's President Hull that
Shreve had called the business agent of Local 120 to the
Fall Creek jobsite and that the Local 120 agent had threat-
ened to shut down the Fall Creek job because Shreve had
reported to such representative that he, Burton, and Jack-
son were being paid the Landscape rate of $4 75 an hour
instead of the Indianapolis $5 90 an hour rate
Interrogation , Threat of Reprisal, and Events of
Mid-April 1975
7 The facts are clear that a conversation between Fore-
man Emrick and Shreve occurred around mid-April 1975,
during an occasion when Emrick, Shreve, and Leisure were
riding in a truck going to Hartford City 13
During the trip referred to above, Foreman Emrick
asked Shreve what he was trying to do with the Union
Shreve told Emrick in effect that they were just trying to go
over the contract and see whether the Respondent would
abide by the contract or wanted to change it, that they
wanted to see if the Respondent was going to pay showup
time and the benefits and provisions that were in the con-
tract, and that they wanted to see if the Respondent was
going to pay predetermined wages on certain jobs or not
Emrick told Shreve that the only way people ever got
ahead was to have someone fight for them in an organiza-
13 The facts are based upon the credited aspects of the testimony of
Shreve I found Shreve to appear to be a more forthright truthful, and
honest appearing witness than did either Emnck or Leisure Emrick's own
testimony reveals that he did question Shreve about his union intentions
and that the question of testimonial allusion to Shreve's discussion of a
'slow down' was his own conclusion Leisure did not testify in great detail
and did not appear to be a reliable witness at all The testimony as to the
timing of events is insufficient to reveal whether the Emrick Shreve conver
sation occurred before or after Tuttle visited the Falls Creek jobsite around
April 15, 1975, or before or after a union management meeting in late April
or early May 1975, discussed later herein
tion Emrick told Shreve that he was getting in an awful
tight position, that he was going to have to be careful or the
Respondent would try to fire him (Shreve) Shreve told
Emrick that he had been laid off each year and didn't have
anything to lose Emrick told Shreve that he had his job to
lose
Contentions, Conclusions
The General Counsel's complaint alleged in effect, and
he contends, that the Respondent, by Foreman Emrick,
unlawfully interrogated employees concerning their union
activities or desires, and that Respondent, by Foreman
Emrick, threatened employees with discharge in his con-
versation with Shreve
The Respondent contends in effect that Shreve initiated
the conversation about the Union after Foreman Emrick
had noticed that Shreve looked worried and had asked
Shreve to tell him what was wrong The Respondent con-
tends that the allusion to loss of job was with reference to
a question of a statement by Shreve concerning a slow-
down
Essentially, the determination of the credited facts has
resolved the question involved herein It is clear that Em-
rick questioned Shreve as to his union intentions It is also
clear that the facts do not reveal that Shreve had alluded to
a slowdown
Considering all of the foregoing, I am persuaded and
conclude and find that the Respondent, by Emrick, coer-
cively interrogated Shreve as to his union intentions I have
considered the fact that Shreve was the union steward on
the job However, considering the question of the applica-
bility of the Highway Constructors' agreement as com-
pared to the Landscape agreement and the remarks relat-
ing to Shreve's being careful or the Respondent would try
to fire him, it is clear that such interrogation of Shreve as to
his union intentions was coercive and unlawful and viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Further, the remarks in
total effect constituted a threat of discharge by the Re-
spondent if the employee persisted in his union activity
Such conduct is clearly violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act It is so concluded and found
8 As previously requested by Shreve, a meeting was
held on a Monday morning in late April or early May in
the Respondent's offices Present at such meeting were Su-
perintendent Spence and Supervisors Emrick and Carter
Also present at such meeting were Local 1112's Represen-
tative Curry and Respondent's landscape employees, in-
cluding Shreve, Jackson, and Burton There occurred a dis-
cussion of some of the provisions in the "Landscape"
contract and the question of predetermined wages Local
1112's Representative Curry requested that another meet-
ing be arranged so that President Hull could be in atten-
dance Superintendent Spence agreed to set up such a
meeting
Threat of Reprisal-Late April or Early May
9 Apparently 3 or 4 days after the above meeting in late
April or early May 1975, Superintendent Spence told
Shreve at a jobsite that there was to be a meeting at the
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
office Spence asked Shreve if he would go with him to the
meeting Shreve agreed and went to the office with Spence
Instead of a general meeting involving union officials, em-
ployees, and management, only Superintendent Spence,
President Hull, and Shreve were present at the office-Presi-
dent Hull told Shreve that he didn't have time for a meet-
ing because he had to catch a plane in 10 minutes Presi-
dent Hull asked Shreve to step outside, and the two went
outside of the office President Hull apologized for not
being able to meet with the Union and the employees and
go over the contract sooner Hull told Shreve that he (Hull)
made out the paychecks, that he wanted Shreve to cool his
"shit," that he didn't want any union trouble out in the
field Hull ended the meeting by telling Shreve that he
would try to set up a meeting with the Union Superinten-
dent Spence then took Shreve back to work
Considering the foregoing, it is clear and I conclude and
find that the Respondent, by President Hull, engaged in
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in late April
or early May 1975, by threatening an employee with dis-
charge or reprisals if he engaged in union or protected con-
certed activity It is clear that President Hull communicat-
ed to Shreve that Hull controlled his paycheck and job
tenure and thus conveyed a threat of usage of such power
if Shreve did not follow his admonition to cool his "shit"
because Hull did not want any union problems It is clear
that Respondent's conduct by Hull in such respect is viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act It is so concluded and
found
10 In early May, apparently around May 4 to 7, 1975,
Local 120's agent Tuttle visited Respondent's Fall Creek
jobsite and told Respondent's landscape employees that
they would have to pay their dues or be terminated because
of the union-security clause in the Highway Constructors'
agreement The employees told Tuttle that they were not
paying their dues because they were not being paid accord-
ing to the Highway Constructors' agreement
11 In mid-May 1975, Foreman Emrick and Shreve had
another conversation concerning the Union and Shreve's
intentions This conversation occurred while Shreve was
working near Marsh Warehouse in Yorktown, Indiana Es-
sentially, what occurred is that Emrick questioned Shreve
as to his intentions (re union action), Shreve repeated the
objectives he had stated in mid-April 1975, and Emrick
repeated his mid-April warning concerning Shreve's being
fired
Contentions, Conclusions
The Mid-May Job Shutdown
12 On May 13 or 14, 1975, five representatives from
Local 120, one representative from the Teamsters, and one
representative from the Operating Engineers appeared at
Respondent's Fall Creek jobsite around 8 a in
Around 8 a in when Respondent's landscape employees
arrived at the Fall Creek jobsite, Local 120's Business
Manager Anderson told Shreve and the other employees in
effect that the job had been shut down by the Union and
that the employees would not proceed with any work until
he had a chance to talk with President Hull
Shreve 14 left and went to a telephone and telephoned
Respondent's offices, reported what had occurred, and
sought to contact President Hull Shreve was told that
President Hull was unavailable but that he should call back
in 15 minutes Shreve returned to the jobsite and related
what had transpired A short time later, apparently for the
purpose of making a telephone call to Respondent's of-
fices, Anderson and other union officials left the jobsite
Soon thereafter, Anderson and the other union officials
returned and told the employees that they had made an
agreement with the Respondent that the employees would
be paid the $5 90 an hour wage rate,15 and that the employ-
ees could go to work as long as they were signed up in the
Laborers' union
13 During the period of time following the Fall Creek
job shutdown and until June 6, 1975, Shreve had a number
of conversations concerning wage rates with union officials
and with Superintendent Spence The exact dates of occur-
rences of most of these conversations are not established
excepting as occurring during the time period indicated
The sequence of the conversations, however, is established
The first referred to conversation occurred after May 13
or 14, 1975, and involved a conversation between Shreve
and Local 120's Business Manager Anderson At such time
Shreve telephoned Local 120's Business Manager Ander-
son and related that the employees were still not receiving
the $5 90 an hour Indianapolis rate 16 Anderson told
Shreve that the Respondent had agreed to pay such $5 90
an hour rate for laborers on the Fall Creek job and that he
would look into the matter further Anderson also suggest-
ed that Shreve contact officials of Local 1112 The next day
after the referred to Shreve-Anderson conversations,
Shreve, Jackson, and Burton went to Local 1112's union
hall in Muncie, Indiana, and spoke to Local 1112's Repre-
sentatives McMahan and Curry Shreve reported to Mc-
Mahan and Curry what had transpired in his conversation
The General Counsel contends and the Respondent de-
nies that the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by coercive interrogation and
threats of reprisal because of employee union activity For
the same reasons as previously set forth, I conclude and
find that the Respondent, in mid-May 1975, by Foreman
Emrick, engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by questioning Shreve as to his intentions as to
union activities and by threatening Shreve with the possi-
bility of discharge because of his union or protected con-
certed activity Such conduct is clearly violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act
14 As has been indicated, Shreve was the designated union steward for
Local 1112 for Respondent's landscape laborers
15
The rate of pay required by the Highway Constructors' agreement The
facts as to what was said were presented by the witnesses in a jumbled
manner However Shreve s testimony as to a later conversation with Ander-
son included testimony as to what Anderson had said about the $5 90 rate
of pay at this earlier conversation Hull's testimony also reveals an admis-
sion that Business Agent Anderson had spoken to a company official during
this event and that the demand had concerned the $5 90 Indianapolis work
rate for Shreve, Burton, and Jackson and for the hiring of three laborers
from Local 120 for the Fall Creek job
16
Although the precise timing of events is not necessary for a resolution
of the issues herein, a logical consideration of the testimony of the witnesses
and the clearly established facts warrant a timing of the events as set forth
PANSCAPE CORPORATION 621
with Anderson the day before McMahan indicated to
Shreve and the other employees that he did not think that
they would be able to get the higher rate because of the
contract 17 Curry asked Shreve if he had been able to set up
another meeting with President Hull Shreve told Curry
that he had not heard any word about another meeting but
that he would contact Superintendent Spence and also try
to set up a meetmg with Hull himself The next morning
Shreve contacted Superintendent Spence and inquired as
to the status of efforts to secure a meeting with President
Hull Spence told Shreve that he had not heard anything
but that he would keep trying to set up a meeting with
President Hull and the employees 18
Later, on May 27, 1975, Local 1112's Representative
Curry came to a Respondent's jobsite known as the Long-
fellowjob Curry asked Shreve if he had been able to set up
a meeting with President Hull Shreve told Curry that he
had not been able to set up such a meeting but that he was
still trying to get such a meetmg set up During this occa-
sion Superintendent Spence, Foreman Emrick, and em-
ployees Riley Reese, Dave Jackson, and Richard Burton
were at said jobsite with Shreve During this occasion Lo-
cal 1112's agent Curry spoke to employees Burton and
Jackson
During the last few days of May, Shreve again contacted
Superintendent Spence and asked whether Spence had
been able to arrange for President Hull to meet with the
employees Spence again told Shreve that he had been un-
successful but would check into the matter further 19
14 During Shreve, Jackson, and Burton's tenure of em-
ployment in 1975 and until June 6, 1975, no reprimands or
warnings of discipline were issued orally or in writing to
such employees concerning their work
Shreve, Jackson, and Burton were classified as unskilled
laborers and performed unskilled labor work in their land-
scaping duties The facts reveal that on occasion the Re-
spondent would instruct such employees to do some work,
to do some work differently, or in effect to finish details as
to some work Such instructions were also given to other
employees
During the tenure of Shreve, Jackson, and Burton's em-
ployment the Respondent did not have any written records
relating to improper work performance by Shreve, Burton,
or Jackson On June 12, 1975, Shreve filed the unfair labor
practice charges upon which this proceeding is based with
Region 25 of the National Labor Relations Board There-
after the Respondent undertook a compilation of incidents
of alleged improper work performance
Thus, President Hull instructed Superintendent Spence
17 Apparently referring to Local 1112's Landscape contract with the Re-
spondent
is Shreve s testimony was presented in such a manner that it is not clear
whether Shreve contacted Spence two or three times after May 13 or 14 and
before June 6, 1975, as to the status of a proposed meeting with President
Hull A finding of either two or three such contacts by Shreve with Superin-
tendent Spence would not affect the ultimate findings in this case I am
persuaded that Shreve's testimony has only probative value to establish that
two such contacts occurred and as set forth herein
19 The questions propounded to Shreve were long and compounded
However, considering the logical consistency of the facts, I am persuaded
that this last conversation between Shreve and Spence occurred after May
27, 1975
to prepare a compilation of incidents that might reflect on
their job performances Spence, utilizing his records as to
various jobs and his knowledge of the jobs worked on by
Shreve, Burton, and Jackson, checked with his foremen
and compiled a list of alleged incidents of poor job perfor-
mance by Shreve and Jackson based upon what he knew
and what the foremen related Spence also apparently esti-
mated what he considered to be additional costs created by
the alleged poor work performance
With respect to the above compilation, I note that on
June 15, 1975, Jackson was driving down 18th Street in
Muncie and passed Respondent's landscape crew At such
time Foreman Vanis Carter waved at Jackson and signaled
him to stop Jackson stopped his car, and Foreman Carter
and employee Leisure came to Jackson's car Carter asked
Jackson to tell him what he, Shreve, and Burton were "up
to " Jackson told Carter in effect that they were not up to
anything Carter then told Jackson that he, Shreve, and
Burton must be up to something because Spence had to go
see a lawyer the day before Carter told Jackson that
Spence had told him (Carter) that he (Carter) had to have
25 good reasons why the Respondent had fired Shreve,
Burton, and Jackson Carter also told Jackson that he had
told Spence that he could not think of any reason for the
firing of the employees (Shreve, Burton, and Jackson), that
Burton and Jackson had been good workers
The Respondent thereafter submitted a position state-
ment to Region 25 of the NLRB concerning the unfair
labor practice charges Such position statement included
the compilation of alleged improper work performance by
Shreve and Jackson and estimated increased costs Such
position statement set forth that a compilation of improper
work performance by Burton would be submitted later
This, however, was never furnished to the Region
At the hearing of this matter, President Hull and Super-
intendent Spence were questioned as to alleged improper
work performance by Shreve, Burton, and Jackson and
about the position statement and alleged improper work
incidents Employees Leisure and Shreve, Jackson and
Burton also testified as to the question of warnings, in-
structions, and improper work
Without setting forth in detail the alleged improper work
performance incidents, as set forth in the written compila-
tion or in the testimony, it is sufficient to say that the com-
pilation concerned alleged incidents of rock throwing, of
improper clean up, and of improper digging of holes or
filling of holes Shreve credibly testified with respect to a
number of alleged incidents Thus, as to the "rock throw-
ing" incident, Shreve testified to an incident wherein Fore-
man Carter and the employees were engaged in what ap-
pears to be "horseplay " As to certain incidents of digging
of holes or filling of holes, Shreve credibly explained that
the problem was not one of employee failure to perform
work but simply a question of problems that arose in the
normal course of work, that part of the problem arose from
supervision and determination of the work to be done 20
20 The facts are based upon a consideration of a logical consistency of the
evidence the exhibits, and the credited aspects of the testimony of Hull
Emrick, Leisure, Spence, Shreve, Burton, and Jackson, and stipulations as
to testimony of witnesses Testimony of any witness inconsistent with or
Continued
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Much of Hull and Spence's testimony relating to im-
proper work performance by Shreve, Burton, and Jackson,
appeared to be a reliance upon the written compilation in
the position statement rather than an independent recollec-
tion of their own Leisure appeared to be an eager witness
whose testimonial effect was minimized by his answers on
cross-examination
I note that Respondent's position statement and testimo-
ny seemed directed to establishing that the Respondent
had warned the three employees of improper work perfor-
mance prior to June 1975 The overall facts and cross-ex-
amination of Respondent's witnesses overwhelmingly re-
veal that the Respondent had never warned Shreve,
Burton, or Jackson that they would be disciplined for im-
proper work The Respondent also attempted to establish
that Shreve had stated to Foreman Emrick that he would
engage in a slowdown The facts reveal that Emrick's testi-
mony to this point was conclusionary and not what was
actually said The Respondent also presented evidence re-
lating to the comparative financial condition of the Re-
spondent in 1975 and prior years Considering the econom-
ic climate of 1975 and all of the testimony of the witnesses
relating to work performance, to the position statements, to
Spence's remarks to Burton on June 6, 1975, to the effect
that he would be discharged but later recalled, to President
Hull's statements to the Union and Shreve, Jackson, and
Burton on June 9, 1975, revealing the discharges to be
based upon mixed considerations of employee union and
protected activity and poor work performance, I am per-
suaded that Hull and Spence's testimony relating to "work
performance" reasons as the basis for discharges is unre-
liable
In sum, I do not find the evidence persuasive to establish
that Shreve, Burton, and Jackson had engaged in improper
work performance of such a nature that it consitituted a
part of the Respondent's motivation for their discharges
Although Shreve, Burton, and Jackson may have, on oc-
casion, engaged in improper work performance, I am per-
suaded that the Respondent has only considered such work
to have been improperly performed as a rationalization
and as a pretext for its discharges of Shreve, Burton, and
Jackson I find it hard to believe and don't believe that
Respondent would have considered the work of Shreve,
Burton, and Jackson to be poor enough to require disci-
pline without the Respondent's having warned such em-
ployees of potential discipline Rather, the overall facts re-
veal that the Respondent has attempted to present a ration-
contradictory of the facts is discredited It suffices to say that Hull, Emrick
Leisure, and Spence clearly presented themselves as witnesses prone to over-
state or render conclusions rather than to present factual and objective
testimony Emrick thus clearly tried to testify to his conclusion that Shreve
had spoken of Shreve's intent to slowdown " Emrick's own testimony ulti-
mately revealed this to be Emrick's conclusion of what Shreve had meant
Hull and Spence's testimonial reliance upon a compilation written after the
event of Shreve, Burton, and Jackson's discharge was very unimpressive In
short the total fabric of all of the testimony, and Hull and Spence s ultimate
testimony, is consistent with a finding that Burton, Jackson, and Shreve
never received reprimands for their work Thus, the matter of instructions to
complete work, referred to by Leisure, Spence, and Hull when considered
with the failure of the issuance of reprimands, fails to persuade that improp-
er work was the fault of the employees rather than normal problems incur
red in unskilled and flexible work conditions or instructions
alized and pretextuous defense as to the alleged improper
work incidents
Events of June 6 , 1975, The Discharges of Burton,
Shreve, and Jackson 21
15 On the morning of June 6, 1975, Jackson reported to
work after Superintendent Spence had already assigned
tasks to Shreve and Burton Shreve had been assigned ajob
of loading material on a truck for the day's work Burton
had been assigned a task of helping a "Teamster" to un-
load trash from a dump truck Superintendent Spence told
Jackson that he had no work for him and that he should go
back home Jackson asked Spence if it was fair to send a
man home who had the longest seniority and to keep a
man for work who had not been there long Superintendent
Spence asked Jackson if he (Jackson) would prefer that he
send Burton home and let Jackson work Jackson told
Spence in effect that he did not think that this was right,
that Burton needed the hours and money also Spence left
but returned shortly and told Jackson to tell Burton, when
he (Burton) came in, to go home and for Jackson to work
in Burton's place Jackson then left and went home
In the afternoon of June 6, 1975, Respondent's officials
transmitted instructions to Jackson (at his home) and to
Burton and Shreve (at work) to attend a meeting at the
Company's offices around 3 30 p in Burton rode in a truck
with Superintendent Spence from ajobsite to the company
offices for said meeting Just before getting to the office,
Superintendent Spence told Burton that although he was
discharging Burton, Shreve, Jackson, and Pritchard, he
would call Burton in a week to return to work because he
was a good worker At the meeting, around 4 p in, Super-
intendent Spence passed out checks to two "Teamster" em-
ployees (Reese and Leisure) and to Shreve, Burton, Jack-
son, and Pritchard Superintendent Spence told Shreve,
Burton, Pritchard, and Jackson that President Hull had
authorized him to discharge them Jackson asked Spence
why he, Burton, and Shreve were being discharged Super-
intendent Spence told Jackson that the reason for the dis-
charge of the landscape crew (Jackson, Burton, Shreve,
and Pritchard) was because "of the incident this morning
and because of the rock throwing incident on McGalliard "
Jackson, Burton, and Shreve started to leave the office At
this point Superintendent Spence called Burton back and
told him that he would call him back in the next week, that
he should not tell anyone about what he had said
Thereafter, Burton, Shreve, and Jackson went to Local
1112's union hall and related that they had been dis-
charged Union Representative Curry told the three to
meet him at Panscape's office on Monday, June 9, 1975
Thereafter on Monday, June 9, 1975, Local 1112's repre-
sentatives, Curry and McMahan, Respondent's President
Hull, and Burton, Jackson, and Shreve had a meeting con-
cerning the discharges of the three employees
During the meeting Union Representative Curry asked,
in effect, why President Hull had discharged the employ-
zi The facts are not in dispute and are based upon the credited aspects of
the testimony of Shreve Burton and Jackson
PANSCAPE CORPORATION
ees Curry told Hull in effect that he had to have a good
reason before firing the union steward, Shreve President
Hull told Curry that the Union hadn't worked out as he
had planned and hoped, that it probably was his fault be-
cause he had not had the time he had hoped to have to
work with the Union Hull told Curry that he had been
bouncing the ball for 186 men, that he didn't have the time
to put forth in dealing with Shreve and the Union, that if
he needed laborers, he would get them out of the union
hall, and that it would be good experience for Shreve, Bur-
ton, and Jackson The three employees (Shreve, Burton,
and Jackson) told President Hull that they liked their work,
that all they were after was the $5 90 an hour wage rate
President Hull told the union representatives and the em-
ployees that he had a collective-bargaining agreement with
Local 1112 and had been following the agreement, that the
employees had sandbagged Panscape for a higher union
scale President Hull told the Union and the employees
that since he was paying the proper scale, since they were
not performing their work, and that since they were not in
compliance with the local union (concerning payment of
dues) when they were asking for the fringe benefits of an-
other local, they could forget it 22
Union Representative Curry asked Respondent Presi-
dent Hull about the payment of predetermined wages on
the Fall Creek job Hull replied in effect that the failure to
pay such wages on the Fall Creek job had been an over-
sight on the bookkeeper's part Hull stated that he would
have such matter corrected immediately
Shreve asked President Hull whether there would be
payment for predetermined wages on previous jobs Hull
told Shreve that if he (Shreve) had physical proof that there
were predetermined wages on such jobs, he would pay such
wages Hull told Shreve that if he (Shreve) didn't have
physical proof that there had been predetermined wages
that hadn't been paid, Shreve should forget it, that he
(Hull) would tie the matter up in Court for 5 years
Contentions, Conclusions
The General Counsel contends in effect that the Respon-
dent discriminatorily discharged Shreve, Burton, and Jack-
son on June 6, 1975, because they engaged in union and
protected concerted activities The Respondent contends in
effect that it did not discharge Shreve, Burton, and Jackson
because of unlawful discriminatory considerations and that
it discharged such employees because of faulty work and
because of economic considerations The Respondent con-
tends that the union problems in this case are in effect
problems between two unions concerning jurisdictional
claims
Considering the overall facts, it is clear that Shreve, Bur-
ton, and Jackson engaged in union and protected concert-
ed activities concerning their contacts with the Respondent
22 The overall facts, testimony, and exhibits clearly reveal that President
Hulls testimony and statements constituted a rationalized attempt to justify
discriminatorily motivated discharges I attach weight to statements in a
pretrial affidavit which constitute admissions against interest I discredit
Hull's testimony which is contradictory of the facts found and set forth
herein
623
and the Unions about the propriety of the wages and other
conditions accorded them by the Respondent and the rela-
tionship thereto of the collective-bargaining agreements
between the Respondent and the International Laborers'
Union, and Locals 120 and 1112 of such Union The facts
are also clear that the Respondent was aware of Shreve's
active part in such union and protected activities, of Bur-
ton and Jackson's similar activity and interests and close
relationship to Shreve The facts are further clear that the
Respondent was aware that Shreve's and the other employ-
ees' union and protected concerted activity commenced in
April 1975, and was continuing in early June 1975
Respondent's animus toward Shreve's and the other em-
ployees' union and protected concerted activities is re-
vealed by President Hull's remarks to Shreve to cool his
"shit", by Hull and Emrick's threats of reprisal directed to
Shreve, and by Hull's remarks to the Union, Shreve, Bur-
ton, and Jackson to the effect that their discharges were
because of mixed reasons, including considerations of their
union and protected activity
Hull's admissions in a pretrial affidavit to the effect that
he told the Union, Shreve, Burton, and Jackson on June 9,
1975, that the discharges were based upon mixed consider-
ations, including their union and protected concerted ac-
tivity, clearly reveal that Respondent's conduct in dis-
charging Shreve, Burton, and Jackson was discriminatory
in nature and violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
I note that the Respondent contends that the "union"
problems were in effect problems between two unions As-
suming such to be so, such facts would not afford Respon-
dent a defense Employees have a right to engage in union
and protected concerted activity There is no evidence to
warrant a finding that Shreve, Burton, and Jackson's con-
duct was not protected The employees' activity was not
directed toward the ignoring of a collective-bargaining
agreement but toward the question of what constituted the
proper wages, terms, and conditions of employment and as
to what was the applicable collective-bargaining agree-
ment Thus, such employee union and concerted activity is
clearly protected activity
I also note that President Hull's admissions in his pretri-
al affidavit reveal reference to a contention that the dis-
charged employees had not paid their union dues Howev-
er, the overall facts do not reveal any reference to a union
demand for compliance with such provision or that such
failure constituted a part of the consideration for the dis-
charges of such employees Rather, such remarks were in
the nature of a rationalization as to why President Hull
would not reconsider the prior discharges of such employ-
ees Further, the statements as a whole revealed clearly that
the overriding reason for the discharges was the employees'
union and protected concerted activities
Further, the evidence as to whether the employees had
engaged in faulty work and whether the Respondent was
motivated for the employees' discharges because of faulty
work and economic considerations does not stand up un-
der scrutiny The overall facts and testimonial demeanor of
Respondent's witnesses revealed such evidence to be over-
stated and unreliable But, even if such employees had en-
gaged in faulty work and the Respondent had mixed moti-
vation, the consideration of unlawful discriminatory
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reasons for the employees' discharges would reveal the dis-
charges to have been violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act The overall facts not only fail to establish that the
employees had engaged in faulty work, fail to establish that
the Respondent was motivated to discharge the employees
because of faulty work, but also fail to reveal that econom-
ic considerations were present
The economic climate of 1975 would afford a basis for a
general financial decline by the Respondent I note, how-
ever, that the Respondent reinstated Burton and Jackson
to their jobs several months after their discharges but did
not reinstate Shreve, the most active and leader of the
three Further, Spence, on June 6, 1975, told Burton in
effect that his discharge was part of a coverup plan and
that he would be recalled I note that the Respondent, in
the reinstatement letters to Burton and Jackson,23 in a self-
serving manner set forth that the reinstatement did not
constitute evidence that the employees had been discrimi-
natorily discharged Such letter was not part of a procedure
of compromise or settlement I do not, however, construe
such letter or reinstatement as an admission of wrongful
conduct Rather, I am persuaded the reinstatement of Bur-
ton and Jackson weighs against the contention that the
discharges were economically motivated
In sum, the overall facts, the nature of the testimony of
Respondent's witnesses, the exhibits, and the belated addi-
tion of the "economic" defense, the admissions of mixed
lawful and unlawful reasons for the discharges, persuade
me and I conclude and find, that the "faulty work" and
"economic" defense reasons asserted by the Respondent
are pretexts and rationalizations rather than the real rea-
sons for the discharges of Shreve, Burton, and Jackson
In sum, I am persuaded and conclude and find that the
preponderance of the facts reveals that the Respondent
was discriminatorily motivated in the discharges of Shreve,
Burton, and Jackson on June 6, 1975, that Respondent
discharged such employees because of consideration of
such employees' union and protected concerted activities,
and that such conduct was violative of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's op-
erations described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship 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 unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent
23 I find as a fact that the Respondent sent reinstatement letters on Au-
gust 15, 1975, to Burton and Jackson and reinstated such employees on
August 19, 1975 The details of such letters are incorporated by reference
herein
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion to effectuate the policies of the Act
It having been found that the Respondent discharged
Robert E Shreve, David R Jackson, and Richard D Bur-
ton, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, the
recommened Order will provide that Respondent offer
each reinstatement to his former job, and make each whole
for loss of earnings within the meaning and in accord with
the Board's decisions in F W Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB
716 (1962), except as specifically modified by the wording
of such recommended Order 24
Because of the character of the unfair labor practices
herein found, the recommended Order will provide that the
Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner
interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the
entire record in the case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Panscape Corporation, the Respondent, is an employ-
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
2 Local Union 1112, Laborers' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, 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 Robert E Shreve, David R Jackson,
and Richard D Burton, the Respondent discouraged mem-
bership in a labor organization by discriminating in regard
to tenure of employment, thereby engaging in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
4 By the foregoing and by interfering with, restraining,
and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(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 foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended
ORDER25
Respondent, Panscape Corporation, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
24 The parties stipulated that Burton and Jackson returned to work on
August 19, 1975 The regular and customary remedial order of reinstate-
ment for Burton and Jackson will be utilized to insure that such employees
are fully reinstated without loss of any benefits, seniority or otherwise, pre-
viously enjoyed To the extent that Burton and Jackson 's return to work on
August 19, 1975, satisfies the remedial order, the Respondent will be re-
quired in the compliance stage of this proceeding to take only such steps as
mad' be necessary to fully comply with the remedial order
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
PANSCAPE CORPORATION
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment because of their union or
protected concerted activities
(b) Threatening employees with discharge and other re-
prisals because of their union or protected concerted activi-
ties
(c) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activities or beliefs
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by lawful agreements in accord with
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer to Robert E Shreve, David R Jackson, and
Richard D Burton immediate and full reinstatement to
each's former position or, if such position no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
each's seniority, or other rights previously enjoyed, and
make each whole for any loss of pay or other benefits suf-
fered by reason of the discrimination against each in the
manner described above in the section entitled "The Rem-
edy "
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this recommended Order
(c) Post at Respondent's plant at Muncie, Indiana, cop-
ies of the attached notice marked "Appendix " 26 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representatives, shall be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by Respondent for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
26 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading `Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board'
625
posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL offer to Robert E Shreve, David R Jack-
son, and Richard D Burton immediate and full rein-
statement to each's former position or, if such position
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to each's seniority or other rights
previously enjoyed, and make each whole for any loss
of pay or other benefits suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against him
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment
because of their union or protected concerted activi-
ties
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
concerning their union activity or beliefs
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or
other reprisals because of their union or protected
concerted activities
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by lawful
agreements in accordance with Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act
All our employees are free to become or remain, or re-
frain from becoming or remaining members of any labor
organization, except to the extent provided by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act
PANSCAPE CORPORATION