Ronald Moran Cadillac

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 1017 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

RONALD MORAN CADILLAC
Ronald Moran Cadillac and Glenn Litscher. Case
31-CA-3222
April 9, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On January 9, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Allen Sinsheimer, Jr., issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions 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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
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
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Ronald Moran
Cadillac, Torrance, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in said recommended Order, substituting the at-
tached notice for the Administrative Law Judge's
notice.
' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the, clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect. Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL immediately offer to reinstate Glenn
Litscher, Gartward LaCour, and David Cole each
to his former or substantially equivalent job
without any change in seniority or other privileges
he enjoyed before we discharged him and we will
pay to him any money lost as the result of his
discharge with interest at 6 percent.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
1017
nate against employees who take part in protected
concerted activities.
RONALD MORAN
CADILLAC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above-named indi-
viduals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States, of the right to full reinstatement,
upon application after discharge from the Armed
Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Federal Building, Room 12100, 11000
Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90024,
Telephone 213-824-7351.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALLEN SINSHEIMER, JR., Administrative Law Judge: The
above proceeding was heard October 17, 1972, at Los
Angeles, California. The complaint, issued August 29,
1972, and based on a charge filed on July 18, 1972, alleges
violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act by the discharge of
three individuals for engaging in protected concerted
activities with the purpose of collective bargaining. It also
alleges violation of Section 8(a)(1) by threat of discharge of
employees if they joined the Union.
. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs of the
General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a California corporation, engaged at
Torrance, California, in the operation of an automobile
dealership, has an annual gross volume in excess of
$500,000 and annually purchases and receives at its place
of business in Torrance, California, goods valued in excess
of $50,000 from outside the State of California. Respon-
dent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists ,, District Lodge
202 NLRB No. 162
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR . RELATIONS BOARD
No. 94, herein called the Union, is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The" Alleged Discharges Because of Concerted
Activities
1. Preliminary activities and meetings
Glenn Litscher was employed by Respondent as a
transmission mechanic from September 1968 to July 13,
1972; Gartward LaCour was employed as a brake and
front-end mechanic from May 1969 to July 13,1972; and
David Cole was employed as a heavy-duty line mechanic
from November 1969 to July 13, 1972. According to Doral
Longacre, the service manager and an admitted supervisor,
Litscher's work was "very good. He was an excellent
transmission man." Longacre added, "He's as good as I've
seen, yes." Longacre said with respect to LaCour, "Mr.
LaCour was a good brakeman and front end man." He
testified as to Cole, "Mr. Cole's work was fairly good . . . I
would say it was average."
In April 1972, the Union passed out organizing literature
at the.gates of Respondent's service department. Accord-
ing to Litscher, he heard Doral Longacre state in the parts
department "if anybody joins the Union I will fire them
and if the. Union ever gets in I will quit." Litscher said he
thought somebody else was present. Longacre denied
making such statement. The record does not reflect any
detail as to who else was present or how the statement
came about and it does not appear to have been directed to
Litscher. Under these circumstances, I am not finding any
violation therefrom.
About 2 weeks later, a meeting was held in the new car
showroom at which Louis Knoll, general service manager
of Respondent, spoke about the union activity, stating that
the workers were old enough to make up their own minds
and there would be a change in the relationship between
employees and management if the Union came in. Litscher
testified he took the floor and said they needed more
money, that he thought the Union would be a good thing
and was for it and that he asked Knoll if he were familiar
with contracts in the area and Knoll replied he was. The
foregoing was either not denied or in part corroborated by
Knoll.
Litscher testified that about the last week in June he had
a conversation with Longacre who told him the Company
had made application for an increase in the flat rate which
would go from $10 to $11 and it had been decided the
employees would get 25 cents of the dollar raise. Litscher
testified further that, thereafter, he told LaCour and other
employees about this discussion.-
On July 12, Respondent announced there would be a
service department meeting that day at 5:30 p.m. in the
conference room. Shortly after 5 p.m., a number of
employees met in the employees' lunchroom to discuss the
raise. Litscher testified that most of the mechanics were
present, naming Cole, LaCour, Bob Anderson, Paul
DellaTorre, and Vic Kelly. Respondent witnesses Charles
Griffitts, William Nicholson, and Larry Simpson testified
they were present. Litscher testified that the 25-cent raise
would reduce the employees' percentage from 45 percent to
43 percent in his case and from 43 percent to 40 percent on
other employees.'
According to Litscher, he, LaCour, Cole, and several
others spoke and "we agreed that the 25 cents wasn't
enough . . . and that the only thing we could do was let
them [the Respondent] know that . . . it [the raise ] wasn't
acceptable and that they would stick together." On
rebuttal, Litscher further said that Anderson stated they
should go in as a group and no man should go in by
himself or some heads would roll; that Vic Kelly said, "I'm
in. I'm with you"; and that DellaTorre also said, "I'm with
you, too, and we should not go in alone . If anybody gets up
and walks out, we all walk out."
Cole and LaCour corroborated Litscher as to the nature
of the discussion and that a number of employees
indicated dissatisfaction with the increase. Cole testified
that several employees suggested they should discuss it
with the Company and explain they thought they should
get a larger percentage. LaCour testified: "We decided that
25 cents was not enough, that we should stick together and
ask for more."
Litscher further testified that, immediately prior to the
Employer's scheduled meeting, Longacre met them as they
were coming out of the lunchroom and directed them on to
the conference room. Longacre did not recall the incident
and said he didn't learn about the employees' meeting until
10 o'clock the next day, when the dispatcher told him, and
that this was after LaCour, Litscher, and Cole were
terminated. At the 5:30 p.m. company meeting, Respon-
dent announced the raise . Present were Longacre , Knoll,
and Caeser Wackeen, general manager and vice president
of Respondent , from management and most of the service
department employees. Knoll indicated there were some
problems with safety violations and then announced the
change in the flat rate and the raise and stated that 25 cents
was all that could be given because of wage and price
controls. He then opened the floor for questions.
LaCour spoke first. He said that the 5.5-percent raise was
not enough, that his cost-of-living, had gone up more than
20 percent in the past 2 years. Knoll said the shop was in
the red. There was some discussion about whether the flat-
rate increase would hurt business. LaCour said that for the
little the employees were getting, he'd just as soon pass"'up
the flat-rate increase. According to LaCour, Litscher spoke
and said that they had forewarning what was going .to
happen at this meeting, "We had a meeting before we came
up here. We have all decided that 25 cents is not enough.
We decided to stick together and ask for more." LaCour
testified that Knoll responded that the 25 cents was not
negotiable and anybody that didn 't like it was free to go.
LaCour further stated that Cole directed a question
about the profit sharing and asked "if .I decided to leave
could I get my profit-sharing?" Wackeen answered he
could not get it until he was 65 and that it would be up to
the board of directors whether he could get it before then.
Litscher testified that he took the floor and told Knoll
that they had a meeting prior to this and that "we the
employees had discussed this and that we felt it was unfair
The accuracy of these figures is not material herein.
RONALD MORAN CADILLAC 1019
and unacceptable. It wasn't enough." According to
Litscher, Knoll said he wasn't going to discuss it any more.
Litscher also testified that Cole brought up the profit-
sharing plan and said. he wasn't getting a fair share of the
work in his department. Litscher said that no other
employee spoke at this meeting.
Cole testified that he asked Knoll about the retirement
and profit-sharing plan and was referred to Wackeen,
whom he asked if it were true that an employee couldn't
get benefits until he was 65. Wackeen said this was true.
Cole also asked if he would get benefits if he left the State
and Wackeen replied that it would take a special vote of
the board handling the fund. Cole then asked Knoll if
something could be done about the number of men in his
department because there wasn't enough work for three
men. According to Cole, Knoll said something would be
done about it. Thereafter, the meeting ended.
Knoll testified that at the company meeting on July 12,
Litscher said the raise was unacceptable to "him" and
LaCour said the same thing. According to Knoll, the first
time he heard there had been a meeting of the men prior to
the company meeting was when Longacre told him the
next day. Knoll "believed" Longacre was told "by our
tower operator" and that was after Litscher, LaCour, and
Cole were terminated. According to Knoll, LaCour said
the raise was unacceptable because. of "my cost-of-living"
rather than "our cost-of-living," and that the same was true
of Litscher. (Emphasis supplied)
Knoll was asked whether at the meeting of July 12
Litscher prefaced his remarks with a statement that " .. .
all the employees had met." He responded, "Not to my
knowledge."
Wackeen testified that he came to the meeting on July 12
about 5 minutes after it started, that after Knoll was
through talking the subject of pensions and profit sharing
was brought up by Cole and he responded thereto.
Wackeen also said he did not know that the shop
employees had a meeting prior to the company meeting.
He was asked if he had anything to say about the subject of
the increase and responded:
THE WITNESS: I may have-I heard the discussion
going on, and then when I took on the-talking about
the profit-sharing, just before someone mentioned
that-that-I-that they weren't satisfied with one
program, or the raise, and I told them they were three
times seven and do what their conscience, you know-
[Emphasis supplied.]
Wackeen was asked what preceded the reference to three
times seven and testified:
THE WITNESS: Well, the discuss was-sir, was that
they-basically, there wasn't enough take home pay,
that their taxes were too high, and I explained to them
we couldn't guarantee-I mean we couldn 't-taxes
were beyond our control. We did not set the taxes, and
we had done everything that was right, whether-you
know, to insure that they received, you know, an
increase as we received it. [Emphasis supplied.]
He was. asked who had said that their take-home pay
wasn't sufficient. Wackeen answered, "Well I think
basically, LaCour and Cole." Wackeen was asked, "And
they had referred to their take home pay not being
sufficient?" He responded:
THE WITNESS: Yes. They said their-that their taxes
were out of line, and that they are making more but they
weren't taking home more. Therefore, that-It's be-
yond our control, I told them, that we could (not?)
insure more take home pay even though they were
making more money. [Emphasis supplied.]
According to Wackeen, Litscher said at the meeting,
"Well that he was-he says, `I'm not satisfied with the
increase, the cut.' " Wackeen further testified: "That is
basically it, that-the same as-that there wasn't enough
take home, and it was hard living. The living conditions
and the take home-they were-really weren't progressing
as they-you know he felt they should take home more
money." (Emphasis supplied.)
Longacre; who works under Knoll, testified, with respect
to whether he tried to notify the employees prior to the
start of the company meeting, that he didn't recall whether
he did-or did not. Longacre testified that neither Litscher
nor anyone else referred to the prior meeting during the
company meeting on July 12 and that he first learned of
the prior meeting from the dispatcher about 10 to 10:30
a.m. on July 13 after Litscher, LaCour, and Cole had been
terminated. According to Longacre, at the company
meeting of July 12, Litscher "was talking about he wasn't
satisfied with the wages and he said `it's not acceptable to
me.' " Longacre said LaCour then said that he wasn't
satisfied with the wages due to the cost of the increase of
living and that LaCour "said it wasn't acceptable to him
also."
Employees Charles Griffitts, William Nicholson, and
Larry Simpson, called by Respondent, said that they
attended both the company meeting and the prior
employees' meeting. Nicholson testified that Glenn Litsch-
er had told employees of the meeting . Their recollection
was neither detailed nor precise, but they recalled there
was discussion of the increase and that , according to
Nicholson, Litscher and LaCour did most of the talking at
the prior employees' meeting. They also said they had not
given authority to anyone to act for them. According to
Respondent's witness, Service Supervisor Jack Cozy, who
attended the company meeting but not the prior one,
Litscher expressed his dissatisfaction with the proposed
increase. He indicated that he was unhappy and that "he
did not understand why we could not do better ... .
Griffitts testified that Litscher was dissatisfied with the
increase and also LaCour, but he could not recall just what
was said. Nicholson testified that he attended both
meetings, that he was happy with the raise, and that
Litscher said at the company meeting that he was
dissatisfied, but Nicholson couldn't recall just what
Litscher, said and that the same applied to LaCour.
Nicholson said Litscher stated "he" was dissatisfied rather
than that "we" were dissatisfied . Simpson testified that he
attended the, prior meeting but that he did not authorize
anyone to act or speak for him. He was asked what LaCour
said and responded, "Mostly that he was unhappy with the
raise" and that Litscher said basically the same thing. On
cross-examination, he was asked what LaCour and
Litscher said and responded, "They felt like as if we should
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have more money; we should get a bigger percentage." He
thought Litscher said that and LaCour said basically the
same thing.
2. Conclusions as to the meetings of July 12
From the foregoing it appears that there was a prior
employee meeting on July 12 at which the subject of a raise
was discussed and some employees took the position that
they should present their views as a group. I am crediting
Litscher, LaCour, and Cole in this connection both
because of my observation of them and because the
recollections of Respondent witnesses concerning this
meeting were generally indefinite and not; precise. With
respect to the company meeting of July 12, a conflict arises
between the testimony of Litscher, LaCour, and Cole that
Litscher stated that there had been a prior meeting, that
they had decided that 25 cents was not enough, and that
they'd act as a group and ask for more and the testimony
of Knoll,. Wackeen, and Longacre that they knew nothing
about the prior meeting until after the termination on July
13. Other Respondent witnesses, supra, were vague as to
what was said. I am crediting Litscher's,LaCour's,' and
Cole's affirmative recollections that Litscher made such
statements against Longacre and Wackeen's essentially
negative recollections and testimony. In addition, in view
of the prior meeting, it is most likely that Litscher would
assert such a position. I have also noted, supra, references
to plural rather than singular from various witnesses,
including those called by Respondent.
It appears evident from the foregoing testimony and the
circumstances that both Litscher and LaCour were
indicating the need of the employees generally for an
increase exceeding 25 cents per hour, and I so find.
Cole, as set forth, brought up the subject of pensions and
profit sharing following Knoll's statement that the 25 cents
was all they could do and that it wasn't open to argument.
Both Cole's question and his status became inextricably
related to the situation arising from the company meeting
of July 12 where there had been expressed employees'
dissatisfaction with the wage increase.
3. The discharges of Litscher, LaCour, and Cole
About 8 o'clock on July 13, Knoll and Longacre came up
to Litscher who testified Knoll told him, "Glenn pack up
your iron . . . you're through." Litscher said he asked if
Knoll was making an example of him and that Knoll
replied, "No." Litscher then asked why he was being fired.
Knoll replied, according to Litscher, that it was obvious
that Litscher was unhappy and had been unhappy for quite
some time and also he was causing dissension among the
workers in the shop. Litscher asked him for a recommenda-
tion and Knoll said he would be glad to, give a
recommendation, that Litscher was a good mechanic, and
that he liked him as a person, but couldn't afford to have
him around anymore.
Knoll testified that together with Longacre he walked up
to Litscher and said, "Glenn, it's obvious that you are not
2 Litscher testified credibly that, at the meeting in Knoll's office on the
afternoon of July 13, Cole asked Knoll whether he was fired because of his
work and Knoll replied his work was good and "that he was obviously
happy. You haven't been happy here for the last year and a
half," and at that point, Litscher said, "That's right; it had
started about that long ago," and Knoll said, "I really can't
see us going on any more." According to Knoll, he then
said "I can't-we-we have a pay plan that we have to live
with for probably another two years, and if you are not
happy now, you are not going to be any happier in the
future, and I just think it would be best for all concerned if
we just parted company, because it's just not worth the
.aggravation of you coming to work unhappy and me
coming to work because you're unhappy."
Knoll then testified that Litscher answered, "Well, you
only beat me to the punch because I figured I'd only work
another month and a half anyhow." Litscher denied the
latter.
According to Knoll, Litscher returned that afternoon
along with LaCour and Cole. They wanted to talk to him.
He agreed and asked Longacre to join them. Litscher
basically did the talking and again wanted to know the
reason why he had been let go. Knoll repeated what he said
in the morning. According to him, Litscher said he didn't
want to be a mechanic anyhow and that this kind of work
was not cut out for him. Litscher denied making this latter
statement. According to Knoll, Cole wanted to know why
he had been terminated, and Knoll told him to talk to
Longacre as it was his decision. Knoll said LaCour said
nothing in his office. Longacre2 had spoken to LaCour
about 5 minutes after Knoll and Longacre both talked to
Litscher that morning. Then LaCour came and talked to
Knoll shortly thereafter. Knoll said Longacre also dis-
cussed Cole. Longacre indicated he was unhappy with
Cole's performance including his punctuality and his idea
of not working on a job until he was forced to. Knoll then
testified Longacre said, " If we are going to terminate Mr.
Litscher and Mr. LaCour I'd like to terminate Mr. Cole at
the same time." Knoll replied, "Well, that's your decision."
Knoll was asked, "What was the discussion between you
and he about Litscher and LaCour?" Knoll responded,
"That I felt basically that we had a pay plan we had to live
with for approximately two years, and if these two men
were as unhappy as they had indicated they were that they,
could only become more unhappy and-and the situation
would become intolerable."
Knoll said that Litscher and LaCour had indicated their
unhappiness at the service meeting on the evening of July
12. Knoll said that he had instituted changes in LaCour's
workload so that his income had increased during the first
7 months of the year and that he felt if Cole wasn't happy
with that there would be no way he could make him happy.
LaCour had complained about not getting enough work
twice in the past and he had instituted changes'to correct
that.
' LaCour testified that about 8:10 a.m . on July 13
Longacre went up to him and told him "Gart don't start
anything. As of this morning you are no longer employed
at Ronald Moran. I tried to talk them out of it but they
decided to let you go." LaCour asked Longacre why, but
he walked away. LaCour then walked over to Knoll and
unhappy too, and that he sympathized with me ." According to Cole's
credited testimony, Knoll said, "I know that you have been unhappy and
that you feel the same way that Glenn does"
RONALD MORAN CADILLAC 1021
asked him why he was fired and Knoll told him, "It's
evident you're not happy. We've made changes here for
you before and you 're still not happy . We'd rather see you
go." Longacre corroborated LaCour' s version and stated
LaCour was a good worker, was punctual and worked
hard , but wasn't satisfied with the way some things were
being done.
After terminating Litscher and LaCour , Longacre went
to Cole at his work station and told him to pack his tools,
that he was through . According to Cole, he asked why and
Longacre said these were his orders . Longacre testified that
after Litscher and LaCour were terminated he discussed
with Knoll the idea of terminating Cole. Knoll left the
decision to him . He said he didn 't tell Knoll the reasons
but, as set forth supra, Knoll said that Longacre wanted to
terminate Cole because of his lack of punctuality and
because he didn't do jobs he didn 't like until forced to do
so. Longacre couldn't recall when he warned Cole about
his lack of punctuality . He did mention a conversation
earlier in the year in which he asked Cole if he could come
to work on time and Cole said he'd make an effort , which,
according to Longacre , he did . Cole testified he had only
been reprimanded once , as set forth , about his punctuality
and that was about a year and a half before . Longacre said
that Cole's work was "fairly good . .. it was average."
Admittedly Litscher and LaCour were considered to be
very capable workmen and Cole to be at least satisfactory.
The reasons given in essense for the termination of Litscher
and LaCour were that they were unhappy about the wage
increase and that they had indicated dissatisfaction about
other situations which Respondent had endeavored to
correct and that since they were unhappy it was necessary
to terminate them . In Cole's case , it appears that he was
added because of Longacre 's dissatisfaction with him since
Cole also indicated some unhappiness . Although his work
was apparently not as good as Litscher and LaCour, it was
admittedly satisfactory . Respondent has set forth no
substantial grounds for Cole's termination other than an
evident effort or desire to eliminate employees who had
manifested dissatisfaction on July 12. All three who. so
indicated such dissatisfaction at the meeting of July 12
were terminated the next day.
4. Conclusions
As previously found, I have credited Litscher , LaCour,
and Cole that Litscher had stated at the company meeting
of July 12 that he was speaking for the employees . It is also
evident and I find that LaCour 's statements were in
conjunction with those of Litscher , followed from the
employees ' meeting of July 12 and were expressed in plural
terms as ' set forth , supra. Litscher's statements were
sufficient to have made Respondent aware of the prior
meeting. Litscher and LaCour referred , to the plural "we"
and manifested the dissatisfaction of employees in addition
to themselves . Litscher and LaCour were the only two who
brought up the subject of raises at this July 12 meeting, and
Cole was the only other person who brought up any
subject.
From the foregoing t conclude that Respondent had
knowledge of the prior meeting before the terminations. In
any event , Respondent was informed thereof and definitely
.and specifically notified by Litscher that he was speaking
for employees . In addition , both Litscher 's and LaCour's
presentations , as found , were stated in plural terms on
behalf of employees . Accordingly , Litscher and LaCour
were engaged in protected concerted activity . As set forth,
it is virtually admitted that their terminations resulted from
their protests at the July 12 meeting , which I have found to
be protected concerted activity. In any case , it is also clear
that the Respondent 's other asserted grounds for termina-
tion are without substantial evidentiary support and
palpably pretextual . Accordingly , I find that Respondent,
by terminating Litscher and LaCour because of their
protected concerted activities , violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
Cole was the third person who brought up a subject on
July 12, even though a different subject , and was added to
the terminations for like reasons . Hence , whether his action
by itself would have been concerted , it thereby became
protected concerted activity . His termination accordingly
came about because of protected concerted activity, and I
so find . I further find that Respondent by so terminating
Cole because of his protected concerted activity thereby
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.3
B. The Alleged Threat
As previously set forth , supra, Litscher testified concern-
ing an alleged statement by Longacre that if anybody
joined the Union they would be fired . However , it was not
clear to whom this was directed if anyone and who else was
.present and it does not appear to have been directed to
Litscher. Under the circumstances I find no violation.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent set forth in section I, 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.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices , I will recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by discharging Glenn Litscher , Gartward LaCour,
and David Cole. - Therefore , I will recommend that
Respondent offer each immediate and full reinstatement to
his former job, or if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any
seniority or other rights and privileges enjoyed and make
3 See Buddies Supermarkets, Inc., 197 NLRB No. 70 ; Hugh M. Wilson
Corporation , 171 NLRB 1040; and Monark Boat Company, 179 NLRB 872.
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as
a result of his discharge by paying to him a sum of money
equal to that 'which he normally would have earned as
wages from the date of his discharge until the date of
Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
during such period, with backpay and interest thereon to
be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
' 1. Respondent is engaged 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. As found above, Respondent terminated the employ-
ment of. Glenn Litscher, 'Gartward LaCour, and David
Cole because they engaged in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection and Respondent thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices enumerated above are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not otherwise engaged in unfair
labor practices.
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:
ORDER4
Respondent, Ronald Moran Cadillac, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
4 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. i
(a) Discharging its employees for engaging in protected
concerted activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Glenn Litscher, Gartward LaCour, and
David Cole immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or
rights and privileges previously enjoyed and make them
whole for any. loss of pay suffered as a result of their
discharges by Respondent in the manner set forth above
under the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary
to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of
this recommended Order.
(c) Post in conspicuous places at the Company's place of
business at Torrance, California, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31,
after being duly signed by Respondent's- representative
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and be maintained by it for 60' consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
5 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."