Roof Application Systems, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 6, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 792 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Roof Application Systems, Inc. and Commercial Roof
Coatings, Inc. and Composition Roofers Union,
Damp & Waterproof Workers Union Local No. 11
of Chicago, AFL-CIO. Case 13-CA- 17872
April 6, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO
AND TRUESDALE
Upon a charge filed on July 26, 1978, and amended
on September 7, September 13, and October 3, 1978,
by Composition Roofers Union, Damp & Waterproof
Workers Union Local No. 11 of Chicago, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, and duly served on Roof
Application Systems, Inc., and Commercial Roof
Coatings, Inc., herein collectively called Respondent,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 13, issued
a complaint and three amended complaints on Sep-
tember 18, November 13, and December 26, 1978,
and January 10, 1979, against Respondent, alleging
that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. On September 21, 1978, the Regional Di-
rector for Region 13 issued, in Case 13-RC-14810, a
Report on Challenges and Objections, order consoli-
dating cases, and notice of hearing. Pursuant to that
Order, Cases -CA-17872 and 13-RC-14810 were
consolidated for the purpose of hearing, ruling, and
preparation of a Decision by a duly designated Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. Copies of the unfair labor
practice charges, complaints, and notice of hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge as well as the
Report on Challenges and Objections, order consoli-
dating cases, and notice of hearing were duly served
on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint and amended complaints allege, in substance,
that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of
the Act by interrogating employees about their union
activities, sympathies, and desires, as well as the
union activities, sympathies, and desires of other em-
ployees; threatening employees with discharge, layoff,
loss of benefits, or other reprisals as a result of their
union activities or in the event the Union became the
collective-bargaining agent of its employees; threat-
ening to close all or part of its operations as a result of
the employees' union activities or in the event the
Union became the collective-bargaining agent of its
employees; promising benefits to employees to dis-
suade them from selecting the Union as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative; discharging four em-
ployees because of their union and other protected
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid and protection; and fail-
ing and refusing to recognize the Union and bargain
with it with respect to the effect of the closing of Re-
spondent Roof Application Systems, Inc.
On December 1, 1978, Respondent filed its answer
to the complaint and amended complaint of Novem-
ber 13, 1978, admitting in part and denying in part
the allegations in the complaint and amended com-
plaint of November 13, 1978. On January 16, 1979,
Respondent filed a withdrawal of answer to the corn..
plaint and amended complaint of November 13,
1978. The withdrawal of answer acknowledged ser-
vice upon Respondent of the original complaint, the
amended complaint, the first amendment of amended
complaint of December 26, 1978, and the second
amendment of amended complaint of January 10,
1979. It further acknowledged that answers were not
filed to said first amendment or second amendment
and waived the right to file answers to said amend-
ments. In addition, Respondent waived its right to a
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge and
agreed that, upon withdrawal of the answers, counsel
to the General Counsel would file a motion to trans-
ter proceedings to the National Labor Relations
Board and a Motion for Summary Judgment, with all
of the allegations in the complaint and amendments
to be deemed admitted to be true. On January 18,
1979, the Regional Director for Region 13 issued an
order postponing hearing indefinitely and an order
severing cases 13-CA-17872 and 13-RC-14810. Case
13-RC-14810 has been retained by the Regional Di-
rector pending disposition of the instant case.
On February 5, 1979, counsel for the General
Counsel filed with the Board a motion to transfer pro-
ceedings to the National Labor Relations Board and
a Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 9,
1979, an order transferring proceedings to the Board
and a Notice To Show Cause were entered. Respon-
dent was granted until February 23, 1979, to show
cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent
thereafter failed to respond to the Notice To Show
Cause.
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.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
241 NLRB No. 123
792
ROOF APPLICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides as follows:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer thereto.
The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or
explain each of the facts alleged in the com-
plaint, unless the respondent is without knowl-
edge, im which case the respondent shall so state,
such statement operating as a denial. All allega-
tions in the complaint, if no answer is filed, or
any allegation in the complaint not specifically
denied or explained in an answer filed, unless the
respondent shall state in the answer that he is
without knowledge, shall be deemed to be admit-
ted to be true and shall be so found by the
Board, unless good cause to the contrary is
shown.
The complaint served on Respondent stated that,
unless the answer was filed within 10 days from the
service thereof, "all of the allegations in the Com-
plaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and
may be so found by the Board." Although Respon-
dent filed a timely answer to the complaint, it subse-
quently withdrew its answer on January 16, 1979.'
The withdrawal of an answer necessarily has the
same effect as a respondent's failure to file an an-
swer. 2
Since Respondent has withdrawn its answer, the
allegations of the complaint are deemed to be admit-
ted to be true and are so found to be true in accord-
ance with the Board's Rules and Regulations. Ac-
cordingly, we grant the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent Roof Application Systems, Inc., an Il-
linois corporation with its office and place of business
at 1084 Industrial Drive, Bensenville, Illinois, is en-
gaged in the business of commercial roof mainte-
nance. During the past calendar or fiscal year, a rep-
resentative period, Respondent Roof Application
Systems, Inc., purchased and received materials val-
ued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers located within
the State of Illinois who purchased and received said
I Attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the allegation of which
stands uncontroverted by the failure to respond to the Notice To Show
Cause, is a copy of the Withdrawal of Answer of Respondent.
2 Bashore Meat Products, Inc., 218 NLRB 528 (1975): Newark Pipeline
Company, 202 NLRB 234 (1973).
materials directly from points located outside the
State of Illinois. Respondent Commercial Roof Coat-
ings, Inc., is engaged in the business of purchasing
and selling roofing materials and commercial roof
maintenance. Based upon its purchases so far and an-
ticipated purchases, Respondent Commercial Roof
Coatings, Inc., will annually purchase goods valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points located in
States of the United States other than the State of
Illinois.
Respondent Roof Application Systems, Inc., and
Respondent Commercial Roof Coatings, Inc., are,
and at all times material herein have been, affiliated
businesses with common officers, owners, directors.
control, employees, labor relations policies, and loca-
tion.
In view of the above, we find that Respondent
Roof Application Systems, Inc., is, and at all times
material has been, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
and that Respondent Commercial Roof Coatings,
Inc., is, and at all times material has been, an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
We further find, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent Roof Application Systems, Inc., and Re-
spondent Commercial Roof Coatings, Inc., together
constitute a single and/or joint employer and an inte-
grated business enterprise; that Respondent is, and
has been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act; and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Composition Roofers Union, Damp & Waterproof
Workers Union Local No. 11 of Chicago, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The 8(a)(5) Violations
1. The unit
The following employees of Respondent constitute
a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time journeymen and apprentices em-
ployed by Respondent at its Bensenville, Illinois,
location, but excluding office clerical employees,
guards, all other employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
793
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Union's representative status
For the reasons set forth below, we find that the
Union has been the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in said unit since on or about
July 5, 1978, when it was so designated by a majority
of such employees and when it requested Respondent
to bargain with it. An election by secret ballot was
held in the appropriate unit on August 18, 1978, un-
der the direction and supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for Region 13. Objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election were filed by the Union on
August 24, 1978. The basis for the objections in-
cluded, inter alia, allegations of violations by Respon-
dent of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act herein dis-
cussed and found to be violations of said Section. The
commission of such unfair labor practices by Respon-
dent, beginning on or about July 3, 1978, has made it
impossible for there to be a free and uncoerced elec-
toral choice within the appropriate unit. Pursuant to
our authority,3 we therefore find that by refusing to
recognize and bargain with the Union since July 5,
1978, while coterminously engaging in conduct which
undermined the Union's majority status and pre-
vented the holding of a fair election, Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
3. The additional refusal to bargain
On or about October 15, 1978, Respondent effected
a partial closing of its operations when Respondent
Roof Application Systems, Inc., ceased doing busi-
ness as an operating entity. Respondent refused and
continues to refuse to bargain with the Union over
the effects of its partial closing.
Accordingly, we find that by the conduct described
above Respondent has failed and refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive represent-
ative of the employees in the appropriate unit and
that by such failure and refusal Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
B. The 8(a)(3) Violations
On or about July 17, 1978, Respondent discharged
its employee Kenneth Gosseck. On or about July 21,
1978, Respondent discharged its employee Ronald
Fel.on. On or about September 12, 1978, Respondent
discharged its employees John Wollbrinck and Rob-
ert Gosseck. Respondent discharged and at all times
since Respondent has failed and refused to reinstate
3 N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 (1969); Trading Port,
Inc., 219 NLRB 298 (1975).
said employees for the reason that they had engaged
in union activities or other protected concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid and protection. Accordingly, we find that
by discharging Kenneth Gosseck, Ronald Felton,
John Wollbrinck and Robert Gosseck, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
C. The Independent 8(a)(1) Violations
Commencing on or about July 3, 1978, and con-
tinuing through various dates thereafter, Respondent,
through its officers and supervisors, interrogated em-
ployees concerning their union membership and the
union membership of other employees; threatened
employees with reprisals, including layoff, loss of
benefits, and a shutdown of operations if the employ-
ees joined the Union or if the Union became the col-
lective-bargaining agent of its employees; and prom-
ised benefits to employees to dissuade them from
selecting the Union as their collective-bargaining rep-
resentative. We find, accordingly, that by the afore-
said conduct, Respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act and that by
such conduct Respondent engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent failed and refused
to bargain with the Union over the effects of its par-
tial closing on bargaining-unit employees in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order
Respondent, so as to effectuate the purposes of the
794
ROOF APPLICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
Act, to bargain with the Union concerning the effects
of the closing on all bargaining-unit employees. Un-
der the circumstances, however, a bargaining order
alone is an insufficient remedy, since Respondent's
unlawful failure to bargain over the effects of the clos-
ing at the time of closing denied the employees an
opportunity to bargain at a time when Respondent
might have been still in need of their services and
there would have been some measure of balanced
bargaining power. To insure an appropriate atmo-
sphere for meaningful bargaining, we must restore
some measure of economic strength to the Union. We
shall, therefore, accompany our order to bargain over
the effects of the partial closing with a limited back-
pay requirement designed to make the employees
whole for losses suffered as the result of Respondent's
failure to bargain. This will also recreate, to some
degree, a situation in which the parties' bargaining
position is not devoid of economic consequences for
Respondent.
Accordingly, we shall order Respondent to bargain
with the Union, upon request, concerning the effects
of Respondent's partial closing of operations on the
unit employees who were laid off or discharged as a
result of the partial closing and to pay such employ-
ees amounts at the rate of their normal wages when
last in Respondent's employ for a period to com-
mence 5 days after the date of this Decision and Or-
der, such period to continue until the occurrence of
the earliest of the following conditions: (1) the date
Respondent bargains to agreement with the Union on
those subjects pertaining to the effects of the partial
closing on bargaining-unit employees: (2) a bona fide
impasse in bargaining; (3) failure by the Union to
request bargaining within 5 days of this Decision and
Order, or to commence negotiations within 5 days of
Respondent's notice of its desire to bargain with the
Union; or (4) the subsequent failure of the Union to
bargain in good faith. In no event shall the sum paid
to any of the affected employees pursuant to this por-
tion of the remedy4 exceed the amount each would
have earned as wages from October 15, 1978, the date
on which Respondent partially closed its operation,
to the time be secured equivalent employment else-
where, or the date on which Respondent shall have
offered to bargain, whichever occurs first; provided,
however, that in no event shall the sum be less than
the affected employees would have earned for a 2-
week period at the rate of their normal wages when
last in Respondent's employ?.
Those employees discharged in violation of Sec. 8(aX3) of the Act pnor
to the partial closing shall he entitled to an additional remedy for that viola-
tion.
I See Transmarine Navigation Corporation and its Subsidiary International
Terminals, Inc., 170 NLRB 389 (1968): see also Interstate Gopher News,
d/b/a Gulf and Southern VNes. 235 NLRB 851 (1978).
Effectuation of the policies of the Act requires, in
addition, that Respondent be required, in consulta-
tion with the Union, to establish a preferential hiring
list, following a nondiscriminatory system such as se-
niority, which includes the names of Kenneth Gos-
seck, Ronald Felton, John Wollbrinck, Robert Gos-
seck, and all employees in the appropriate unit laid
off or discharged as a result of Respondent's partial
closing of operations on October 15, 1978, and, if
such operations are ever resumed in the Bensenville,
Illinois, area, to offer reinstatement to these former
employees. If Respondent decides to resume the dis-
continued operations at its facility located at 1084
Industrial Drive, Bensenville, Illinois, it shall offer to
said employees reinstatement to their former posi-
tions or, if such positions no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions.6
Having found that Respondent discharged its em-
ployees Kenneth Gosseck, Ronald Felton, John Woll-
brinck, and Robert Gosseck because of these employ-
ees' union or other protected concerted activities and
at all times since has failed and refused to reinstate
them or offer them reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, we shall order that
Respondent make them whole for all losses in earn-
ings suffered because of the unlawful discrimination
practied against them. Since Respondent partially
closed its operations on October 15, 1978, thereby
eliminating the jobs of these employees, and there
being no allegations that such elimination of jobs is
for other than legitimate economic reasons, backpay
shall be based on the earnings which these employees
normally would have received from the respective
dates of their discharge to October 15, 1978, the date
of Respondent's partial closing of its operations, less
any interim earnings plus interest. Such sums shall be
computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 7 This limitation
on the backpay period is based upon the principle
that a backpay period will be tolled when an employ-
ees' former or a substantially equivalent job is un-
available due to some reason unconnected with the
discrimination. 8 Backpay for these employees shall be
in addition to any other remedy to which they are
entitled pursuant to this Decision and Order.
In addition to requiring Respondent to post copies
of the notice, we shall order it to mail copies of the
W. R. Grace Co,. Construction Products Dilision. 230 NLRB 617
(1977).
See. generally. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Rogers Furniture Sales. Inc., 213 NLRB 834 (1974): see, generally. Mas-
tro Plastics Corporation and French-American Reeds Manufacturing Co., 136
NLRB 1342, 1346 (1962)., enfd. 354 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied 384
U.S. 972 (1966); ifidwest Hanger Co and liberty Engineering Corp.. 221
NLRB 911. 917 (1975).
795
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice to the discharged employees at their last
known address.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Roof Application Systems, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Commercial Roof Coatings, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Roof Application Systems, Inc., and Commer-
cial Roof Coatings, Inc., constitute a single and/or
joint employer and an integrated business enterprise
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Composition Roofers Union, Damp & Water-
proof Workers Union Local No. 11 of Chicago,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
5. All full-time journeymen and apprentices em-
ployed by Respondent at its Bensenville, Illinois, fa-
cility, excluding all office clerical employees, guards,
all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
6. Since on or about July 5, 1978, the above-named
labor organization has been and now is the exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid ap-
propriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, and
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to
recognize and bargain with the Union on that date.
7. By failing and refusing to bargain collectively
concerning the effects of the partial closing of its op-
erations on or about October 15, 1978, and at all
times thereafter, with the above-named labor organi-
zation, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
all employees in the appropriate unit, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
8. By discharging its employees Kenneth Gosseck,
Ronald Felton, John Woolbrinck, and Robert Gos-
seck because of their union or other protected con-
certed activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
9. By the acts described in section III, above, Re-
spondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced,
and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Roof
Application Systems, Inc., and Commercial Roof
Coatings, Inc., Bensenville, Illinois, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize the Composi-
tion Roofers Union, Damp & Waterproof Workers
Union Local No. 11 of Chicago, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
employees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time journeymen and apprentices em-
ployed by Respondent at its Bensenville, Illinois,
facility excluding all office clerical employees,
guards, all other employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively
with the Composition Roofers Union, Damp & Wa-
lerproof Workers Union Local No. 11 of Chicago,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of all employees of the aforesaid appropri-
ate unit concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, including
the effects of the partial closing of Respondent's op-
eration on such employees.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning their union
membership, activities, sympathies, or desires.
(d) Threatening employees with reprisals, includ-
ing layoff, discharge, or loss of benefits, because of
their union activities or if the Union becomes the col-
lective-bargaining representative of its employees.
(e) Threatening to close all or part of its operations
because of employees' union activities or if the Union
becomes the collective-bargaining representative of
its employees.
(f) Making promises of economic benefit to its em-
ployees to dissuade them from selecting the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative.
(g) Discharging or in any other manner discrimi-
nating against employees because of their union or
other protected concerted activities.
(h) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
796
ROOF APPLICATION SYSTEMS. INC.
(a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collec-
tively and in good faith with the Composition Roof-
ers Union, Damp & Waterproof Workers Union Lo-
cal No. 11 of Chicago, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the aforesaid ap-
propriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, including the effects of the partial closing of
Respondent's operations upon its employees.
(b) Make whole Kenneth Gosseck, Ronald Felton,
John Wollbrinck, and Robert Gosseck for any loss of
pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them, plus interest, in the manner and for the period
set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Pay to all employees in the aforesaid appropri-
ate unit who were laid off or discharged as a result of
Respondent's partial closing of its operations on Oc-
tober 15. 1978, their normal wages for the period and
in the manner set forth in the section above entitled
"The Remedy."
(d) Establish in consultation with the Union a
preferential hiring list, following a nondiscriminatory
system, such as seniority, which includes the names of
Kenneth Gosseck, Ronald Felton, John Wollbrinck,
Robert Gosseck, and all employees in the appropriate
unit laid off or discharged as a result of Respondent's
partial closing of operations on October 15, 1978,
and, if such operations are ever resumed anywhere in
the Bensenville, Illinois, area, offer reinstatement to
these employees. If Respondent decides to resume the
discontinued operations at its facility located at 1084
Industrial Drive, Bensenville, Illinois, it shall offer to
reinstate these employees to their former positions or,
if such positions no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions.
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Post at its Bensenville, Illinois, facility, or any
other facility to which it has subsequently moved,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix"9
and mail copies of said notice to Kenneth Gosseck,
Ronald Felton, John Wollbrinck, Robert Gosseck,
and all employees laid off or discharged by Respon-
dent on or about October 15, 1978, to their last
known addresses. Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after
being duly signed by Respondent's representative,
9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps 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 NOT fail and refuse to recognize the
Composition Roofers Union, Damp & Water-
proof Workers Union Local No. 11 of Chicag,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all of our employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate unit:
All full-time journeymen and apprentices em-
ployed by us at our Bensenville, Illinois, facil-
ity, excluding all office clerical employees,
guards, all other employees, and supervisors as
defined by the Act.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain with
the Composition Roofers Union, Damp & Wa-
terproof Workers Union Local No. 11 of Chi-
cago, AFL-CIO, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, including the effect on our employ-
ees of the partial closing of our operations.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concern-
ing their union membership, activities, or sympa-
thies.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with repri-
sals, including layoff, discharge, or loss of bene-
fits, because of their union activities or if the
Union becomes the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative for our employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close all or part of
our operations because of employees' union ac-
tivities or if the Union becomes the collective-
bargaining representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT make promises of economic
benefit to our employees to dissuade them from
selecting the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative.
WE WILL NOT discharge or in any other man-
ner discriminate against employees because of
their union and other protected concerted activi-
ties.
797
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILl. NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL.L recognize and, upon request, bargain
collectively and in good faith with the Composi-
tion Roofers Union, Damp & Waterproof Union
Local No. 11 of Chicago, AFL-CIO, as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit,
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, in-
cluding the effects on our employees of our par-
tial closing of operations.
WE WILL make whole Kenneth Gosseck, Ron-
ald Felton, John Wollbrinck, and Robert Gos-
seck for any loss of pay, with interest, suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them in the
manner and for the period required by the Deci-
sion and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL pay, with interest, to all employees,
including Kenneth Gosseck, Ronald Felton,
John Wollbrinck, and Robert Gosseck, in the
aforesaid appropriate unit who were laid off or
discharged as a result of our partial closing of
operations on October 15, 1978, their normal
wages for the period required by the Decision
and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL, in consultation with the Union, es-
tablish a preferential hiring list, following a non-
discriminatory system, such as seniority, which
includes the names of Kenneth Gosseck, Ronald
Felton, John Wollbrinck, Robert Gosseck, and
all employees laid off or discharged as a result of
our partial closing of operations on October 15,
1978. If such operations are ever resumed any-
where in the Bensenville, Illinois, area, we will
offer reinstatement to these employees. If we de-
cide to resume the discontinued operations at
our facility located at 1084 Industrial Drive,
Bensenville, Illinois, we will offer these employ-
ees reinstatement to their former positions or, if
such positions no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions.
ROOF APPLICATION SYSTEMS, INC. COMMER-
CIAL ROOF COATINGS, IN(C.
798