Saginaw Aggregates, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 553 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

SAGINAW AGGREGATES, INC.
Saginaw Aggregates , Inc. and Local 324, International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO. Case 7-
CA-8246
June 24, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND KENNEDY
On April 7, 1971, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nach-
man issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There-
after, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer'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 powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below.'
1 Respondent's exceptions are directed solely to the amoung of backpay
liability of Respondent to the three discrimmatees, and therefore raise mat-
ters which are more appropriate to the compliance stage of this proceeding
: In the fourth sentence of the third paragraph of "The Remedy" section
of his Decision, the Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to toll the backpay
as of the time the three discriminatees are placed on a preferential hiring list
at Respondent's crusher plant. Darlington Manufacturing Company, 139
NLRB 241, 255, fn. 44. Accordingly, we hereby correct the error by sub-
stituting the following sentence for the entire aforementioned sentence: "It
will further be recommended that Respondent be required to make whole
James Sykes, Merl Wark, and Stephen Vatt, for any loss of pay they suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them, by paying to each of them a
sum of money equal to the amount they would have earned, respectively,
from September 12, 1970, to the date Respondent offers them reinstatement
as above set forth, until they obtain other substantially equivalent employ-
ment, or until they are placed on a preferential hiring list for jobs at the
crusher plant, less their respective net earnings during that period, in accord-
ance with the Board's formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as set forth in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716."
The following paragraph shall be substituted for the eighth paragraph of
the notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision:
We WILL make up to Merl Wark, James Sykes, and Stephen Vatt the
pay they lost from September 12, 1970, to the date we offer them
reinstatement, or to the date they severally secure equivalent employ-
ment with another employer, or until they are placed on a preferential
hiring list for jobs at the crusher plant, whichever shall first occur, less
their respective net earnings during that period, with interest at the rate
of 6 percent per annum.
191 NLRB No. 104
ORDER
553
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner as modified herein, and hereby or-
ders that Respondent, Saginaw Aggregates, Inc., Burt,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order, as so modified.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding,
tried before me at Saginaw, Michigan, on February 4, 1971,
with the General Counsel and Respondent represented by
their respective counsel, involves a complaint' pursuant to
Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (herein the Act), which alleges that Saginaw Aggre-
gates, Inc. (herein Respondent or Company), in the course of
an organizational campaign by Local 324, International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (herein the Union
or Local 324), interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act, terminated a portion of its operations known as
the sand plant, and discharged or laid off three employees, all
because of their assistance to and support of the Union. For
reasons hereafter stated I find the allegations of the complaint
sustained by the evidence.
At the trial all parties were permitted to introduce relevant
evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue
orally on the record, and to submit briefs. Oral argument was
waived. Briefs submitted by the General Counsel and Re-
spondent, respectively, have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, I make the'follow-
ing:
I FINDINGS OF FACT2
A. The Facts
Respondent operates several plants in the Saginaw, Michi-
gan, area, but only two are involved in this proceeding; a
so-called crusher plant and a sand plant. The sand plant is
leased by Respondent on a royalty basis, from one Merl
Wark, who also works for Respondent at the sand plant. In
the latter part of August, Union Agent Houghtaling visited
the crusher and sand plants and established what Houghtal-
Issued November 30, on a charge filed and served October 5. These and
all dates hereafter referred to are 1970, unless otherwise indicated.
2 Although Respondent's answer denied both the labor organization and
commerce allegations of the complaint, these denials present no real issue
for decision. At the trial Respondent admitted the allegation that the Union
was a labor organization. With respect to commerce the evidence shows that
Respondent is engaged at various points in the State of Michigan in process-
ing, selling, and distributing sand and gravel During Respondent's fiscal
year ending March 31, 1970, its total sales were in excess of $350,000, of
which something over $77,000 was to Sargeant Contracting Company. All
jobs at Sargeant Contracting Company are performed in the State of Michi-
gan, but for the performance of those jobs it purchased steel, wire mesh, and
related products valued at about $140,000, which were shipped to it from
points and places outside the State of Michigan Upon these facts I find
without merit Respondent's contention that it is not subject to the Board's
jurisdiction. Ark Readi-Mix Concrete Corp., 158 NLRB 675
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing called "informational pickets."' Houghtaling then went
to the premises of another employer where he happened to
meet Company President Richard Sykes. Houghtaling told
Sykes of his desire to organize Respondent's employees.
Sykes replied that in his opinion, if the employees wanted a
union, it should be Teamsters. Houghtaling then stated that
the decision should be made by the men and asked for permis-
sion to go on Respondent' s premises to talk with the em-
ployees. Sykes gave such permission on condition that there
be no interference with work. About September 9 or 10,
Houghtaling again visited Respondent's premises,4 and spoke
to some employees arranging a meeting for the evening of
September 11 at a local bar. The meeting so arranged was
attended by all but one of the employees at the two plants.'
Following the union meeting James and Daniel Sykes went
to the latter's home, and upon arrival received a telephone
call from Richard Sykes. Speaking with James Sykes, Rich-
ard Sykes asked what happened at the union meeting and
whether any vote was taken. Informed that no vote was taken
and that the men received only general information, Richard
Sykes stated that he could not go along with the Operating
Engineers; they would break him; he knew their agents and
could not get along with them; and before he would deal with
the Operating Engineers, he would sell his equipment. Rich-
ard Sykes then asked James Sykes if the men would be willing
to work without a union until the spring of 1971, and if at that
time the men still wanted a union he would get Teamsters,
the only union he wanted to represent the men, and those who
wanted Teamsters could stay and the others could leave. This
conversation concluded with James Sykes stating that he was
agreeable to continuing without a union until the spring of
1971.
In his conversation with Daniel Sykes, Richard Sykes
asked what happened at the union meeting , and particularly
if Operating Engineers had,been voted in. Daniel replied that
no vote was taken, and that the meeting was devoted to the
men asking questions to which the union representative re-
plied. Richard Sykes then told Daniel Sykes that he knew
who was behind the Union; it was the three men at the sand
plant (Wark, Vatt, and James Sykes); and the Union had
caused a "good many" employers to go broke, and before he
would let "those fellows" break him, he would close his entire
operation. Daniel told Richard Sykes not to blame the three
men at the sand plant because he was in favor of the Operat-
ing Engineers.'
The following morning (September 12), Richard Sykes
went to the crusher plant, called the employees together, and
told them he had stayed up all the preceding night and had
lost all the sleep that he was going to lose over this matter;
he was going to close down the sand plant, because it wasn't
making any money; he would lay off those men and sell the
equipment; and the four men at the crusher plant now con-
stituted the Company, and if they wanted Operating Engi-
neers they would have to vote right there for them, and if they
did they could also go on road in front of the plant and picket,
and that he would sell the crusher plant also. Richard Sykes
' Houghtaling testified that the picket signs remained up about 10 days
6 It is not clear from the evidence whether on this occasion Houghtaling
visited both plants or only one and, if only one, which one.
5 The parties stipulated that the employees at the sand plant were Merl
Wark, James Sykes, and Stephen Vatt, and those employed at the crusher
plant were Bill Bleuer, Sam Jacobs, Dan Sykes, and Cliff Ross. All but
Stephen Vatt attended the union meeting . James Sykes, Dan Sykes, and
Company President Richard Sykes are brothers.
6 Based on the credited testimony of James and Daniel Sykes. Robert
Sykes admits that he talked to his brothers over the telephone on the
occasion referred to, and that he asked them what occurred at the union
meeting and whether they wanted the Union to represent them.
asked each of the four employees in turn if they wanted to be
represented by Operating Engineers, Teamsters, or no union.
In response to Richard Sykes' question each of the men re-
sponded to his question; three stating that they were not in
favor of any union, and the fourth expressed himself as in
favor of Operating Engineers.'
From the crusher plant Richard Sykes went to the sand
plant where he told the men that he was closing down that
operation; the men should pull out the pumps, drain the
plant; and upon completion of that work they were laid off.
Since September 12, the sand plant has not operated.' Robert
Sykes testified without contradiction that the lease he held on
the sand plant has been surrendered, and that the crane,
loader, and scales he had at the sand plant have been sold.
What disposition, if any, he made of the remaining equipment
at the sand plant the record does not show.
Robert Sykes testified that his sole reason for closing the
sand plant when he did was that the operation had been a
losing venture from its inception, and in view of the fact that
its inventory was then at low ebb, the time was opportune for
such closing. In support of this contention, Respondent relies
on two profit-and-loss statements prepared by its accountant.
The first such statement covers the fiscal year from April
1969 to March 31, 1970, showing a loss of $37,483.74. The
second statement covers the period from April 1, 1970, to
September 30, 1970, and shows a loss of $4,395.91. Account-
ant Whaley testified that profit-and-loss statements were nor-
mally prepared each month, except during the winter when
the plants were closed because of adverse weather, and
related to the entire operation, rather than to the sand plant
alone and that the entire operation always showed a loss.
Whaley also testified that the two statements were in fact
prepared at the same time, about 4 months prior to the date
he testified (February 4, 1971). Whaley further testified that
he prepared the two profit-and- loss statements referred at the
request of Respondent's counsel who informed him that the
purpose of the request was to determine costs. He received no
request for the preparation of similar statements for fiscal
1968-69.
B. Contentions and Conclusions
Richard Sykes' interrogation of his brothers in the tele-
phone conversation on September 11, as to what happened at
the union meeting, whether any vote has been taken, as well
as his statements that Operating Engineers would break him
and that before he would deal with them he would sell his
equipment and close down his entire operation, and his
suggestion that the matter of a union be deferred until spring
and at that time he would get Teamsters to represent the men
and those who did not want Teamsters could leave clearly
was a probing into whether or not they supported or intended
to support the Union. The Board has held that such conduct,
absent justification which I find does not exist here, tends to
coerce employees in the free exercise of their Section 7 rights,
and hence violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Essex Wire
Corporation, 188 NLRB No. 59; Engineered Steel Products,
Inc., 188 NLRB No. 52; and cf. Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc., 188
NLRB No. 45. For the same reason Richard Sykes' statement
to the men at the crusher plant on September 12 that if they
' Based on the credited testimony of Daniel Sykes and the admissions of
Richard Sykes. Although Richard Sykes did not admit that he stated his
intention of selling the crusher plant and that if the men selected Operating
Engineers they could go on the road and picket, he did not deny the tes-
timony in that regard of Daniel Sykes, whom I credit.
6 Based on the credited testimony of James Sykes, Merl Wark, and the
admission of Richard Sykes that he closed the sand plant on the occasion
referred to.
SAGINAW AGGREGATES, INC. 555
selected Operating Engineers they would be on the road pick-
eting and that he would close the crusher plant, also violated
Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
Equally violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act was the
polling of the employees at the crusher plant by Richard
Sykes the morning of September 12. As heretofore found,
Sykes on that morning called the four employees of the
crusher plant together and told them that he was not in favor
of Operating Engineers, and asked that each of them state
whether they wanted to join that Union or not; three em-
ployees stated that they were not in favor of any union, the
fourth stating that he was in favor of Operating Engineers.
Although Respondent argues (br., p. 5) that what Sykes did
could `By no stretch of the imagination ... be construed as
a `polling of employees,"' I must and do find and conclude
that it was precisely that. Sykes admittedly required each
employee to declare himself with respect to his union views
and sympathies. This is the exact conduct the Board through-
out its opinion in Struksnes Construction Co., Inc., 165
NLRB 1062, referred to as a "poll" or "polling" of em-
ployees. That Respondent's polling in the instant case failed
to satisfy the safeguards set forth in Struksnes, supra, and
hence must be regarded as violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, is clear. The Union having,niade no demands on Re-
spondent for recognition, the polling could not have been for
the purpose of determining the truth of a claim of majority;
no such purpose was communicated to the employees; no
assurance against reprisal was given; the poll was not by
secret ballot; and the polling was not, as I have found, con-
ducted in an atmosphere free of other unfair labor practices.
Respondent's contention that all Richard Sykes' remarks,
which I have found violative of Section 8(a)(1), are protected
by Section 8(c) of the Act, I find without merit. The Board
has long held that an employer' s statement of intent to close
down his operation, as I have found Richard Sykes did in the
instant case, is not a statement of views, arguments, or opin-
ion, but a threat which is not within the scope of Section 8(c).
KaiserAgricultural Chemicals, 187 NLRB No. 95 (TXD, sec.
Q. And even general statements, to be protected by Section
8(c) must be "phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey
an employer's belief as to demonstrably probable conse-
quences beyond his control.... " N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing
Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618. However, if the employer's statement,
although phrased in terms of a prediction, carries "any im-
plication that an employer may or may not take action solely
on his own initiative for reasons unrelated to economic neces-
sities and known only to him, the statement is no longer a
reasonable prediction based on available facts but a threat of
retaliation based on misrepresentation and coercion, and as
such without the protection of the First Amendment." id
And the test in determining whether a given statement falls
on one side of the line or the other is, "What did the speaker
intend and the listener understand"id. at 619. Applying the
tests set forth in Gissel, supra, I must and do find and con-
clude that Richard Sykes' statements to James and Daniel
Sykes in the telephone conversation on September 11 that
before he would deal with Operating Engineers he would sell
his equipment and close down his entire operation, as well as
his statement to the employees at the crusher plant on Sep-
tember 12, were not predictions of the probable consequences
of unionization , or the expression of a management decision
already arrived at, but simple threats to retaliate against em-
ployees if they selected Operating Engineers to represent
them.
The final question involved is whether Respondent's clos-
ing of the sand plant on September 12, with the attendant
layoff of three employees, was discriminatorily motivated and
hence violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Al-
though Respondent contends that its reason for closing the
sand plant were solely economic, and the evidence leaves no
room for doubt that the Sand plant was losing money, upon
consideration of the entire record I am nonetheless con-
vinced, and therefore find and conclude, that Sykes closed the
sand plant to retaliate against the employees because of their
efforts to have Operating Engineers as their collective-bar-
gaining representative and was, therefore, violative of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the act, and that the sand plant was un-
profitable was simply seized upon in an attempt to give the
closing apparent legitimacy. I reach this conclusion upon the
totality of the following considerations.
1. I must start with the premise that the closure of the sand
plant and the layoff of the three employees that worked there
was conduct "inherently destructive" of important employee
rights. Hence, proof of antiunion motivation was not a part
of the General Counsel's case; rather the burden was on
Respondent to establish that the closing of the sand plant and
the laying off of the employees was motivated solely by legiti-
mate objectives. N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, 388 U.S.
26, 34.
2. In his telephone conversations with James and Daniel
Sykes on the evening of September 11, Richard Sykes made
no reference to the necessity of closing the sand plant because
of economic factors. Rather, Ricahrd Sykes suggested that
the men work until the following spring without any union.
3. The two profit-and-loss statements introduced by Re-
spondent show that in the fiscal year April 1, 1969, to March
31, 1970, the operation of the sand plant resulted in a loss of
$37,483.74, and that in the 6 months after that, ending Sep-
tember 30, 1970, the loss was only $4,395.91. Not only was
this a substantial improvement in the profit picture,' but those
figures were not available to Sykes when he closed the sand
plant on September 12.
4. When Richard Sykes appeared at the crusher plant the
morning of September 12, he told the men that he had stayed
up all the preceding night, had lost all the sleep that he was
going to lose, and that he was going to shut down the sand
plant. In view of his telephone conversations with James and
Daniel Sykes the preceding evening, and the statements he
theta made, it is plain and I find that his statements regarding
loss of sleep has reference only to the advent of the Union.
5'. It is, significant that, although Richard Sykes had made
remarks prior to September 1, the sand plant was not making
money, it was not until the Union came into the picture that
he allegedly found its loss picture, which had by that time
substantially improved, too burdensome to further endure.
In sum, I do not credit the testimony of Richard Sykes that
his decision to close the sand plant was motivated solely by
the fact that the operation was unprofitable. On the contrary,
for the reasons stated, I find and conclude that such closing
was motivated by the fact that Sykes wished to thwart the
organizational efforts of the Union among his employees. I so
find and conclude.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record
in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2) of the Act and 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.
' As the sand plant normally closed during the winter season for some
3 or 4 months, the figures for the year were virtually complete.
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By the conduct set forth in section I , B, hereof, Respond-
ent interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By closing down its sand plant and laying off its em-
ployees there employed , Respondent discriminated against
said employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment, discouraging membership in a labor organization, and
thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, it will be
recommended that it be required to cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action found necessary and
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The 8(a)(1) violations herein found including the closing of
the sand plant, being of a character which go to the very heart
of the Act, an order requiring Respondent to cease and desist
from in any manner infringing upon employee rights is war-
ranted, and I shall so recommend. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg.
Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4); California Lingerie, Inc., 129
NLRB 912, 915.
The critical question regarding remedy is the General
Counsel's contention that restoration of the status quo re-
quires that Respondent be ordered to resume operation of the
sand plant. However, as Respondent has surrendered its lease
on the premises where the sand plant was operated and has
sold a substantial portion of the equipment used in that opera-
tion, I feel that a remedy similar to that which the Board
ordered in Darlington Manufacturing Company, 139 NLRB
241, 253, will afford adequate relief and fully effectuate the
policies of the Act. Accordingly, I shall recommend that
Respondent place the names of James Sykes, Merl Wark, and
Stephen Vatt on a preferential hiring list for jobs at the
crusher plant, should such become available, or at the sand
plant should Respondent resume such operation, before other
persons are hired for such work. It will further be recom-
mended that Respondent be required to make whole James
Sykes, Merl Wark, and Stephen Vatt, for any loss of pay they
suffered by reason, of the discrimination against them, by
paying to each of them a sum of money equal to the amoung
they would have earned, respectively, from September 12,
1970, to the date Respondent offers them reinstatement as
above set forth, or until they obtain other substantially
equivalent employment, less their respective net earnings dur-
ing that period, in accordance with the Board's formula set
forth in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as set forth in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will also be
recommended that Respondent be required to preserve and,
upon request, make available to authorized agents of the
Board all records necessary or useful in determining compli-
ance with the Board's order, or in computing the amount of
backpay due thereunder.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby issue the
following recommended:10
° 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,
ORDER
Saginaw Aggregates, Inc., Saginaw, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating or polling employees with respect to their
union sympathies, activities, or desires.
(b) Threatening employees with plant closure if they con-
tinue their efforts to secure union representation.
(c) Discouraging membership in Local 324, International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization of its employees by plant closing, discharging or
laying off its employees, or by discriminating in any other
manner with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of
its employees, or any term or condition of such employment.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organ-
ization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed and found
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Create a preferential hiring list containing the names
James Sykes, Merl Wark, and Stephen Vatt, and furnish a
copy of said list to the aforementioned Local 324, and to each
of the persons named on said list. If and when Respondent
shall resume operation of a sand plant, or as vacancies occur
in its remaining operations, Respondent shall offer the above-
mentioned individuals reinstatement, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges previously en-
joyed, by offering them employment in such vacancies or
resumed operations before other persons are hired, all as set
forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Make whole James Sykes, Merl Wark, and Stephen
Vatt for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against them, in the manner set forth in the section
hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Notify immediately James Sykes, Merl Wark, and Ste-
phen Vatt, respectively, if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the' United States of their right under this Order,
as provided in the Selective Service Act and' the Universal
Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to author-
ized agents of the National Labor Relations Board, for exami-
nation and copying, all payroll records, social security pay-
ment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary or useful in determining compli-
ance with this recommended Order, or in computing the
amount of backpay due, as herein provided.
(e) Post at its plant in the Saginaw , Michigan, area, and
mail a copy to James Sykes, Merl Wark, and Stephen Vatt,
at their respective last known addresses, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, De-
troit, Michigan, shall, after being signed by an authorized
representative, by posted and mailed as herein provided im-
conclusions, recommendations, 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.
' 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 be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals Enforc-
ing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
SAGINAW AGGREGATES, INC.
mediately 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.
(f) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days what steps it has taken to comply herewith."
11 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified by deleting
the words "receipt of this Decision," and substituting therefor the word
"this Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a full trial in which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we, Saginaw Aggregates, Inc., violated the
National Labor Relations Act, and ordered us to post this
notice. We intend to carry out the order of the Board, the
Judgment of any court, and abide by the following:
Section 7 of the Act gives all employees these rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or help unions
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate or poll our em-
ployees with respect to their sympathy for or activities
in support of any union.
WE WILL NOT close down any part of our operation
and lay off employees because they have elected to assist
or support a union.
WE WILL NOT, in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
As the Board has found that we violated the law when
we closed our sand plant and laid off Merl Wark, James
Sykes, and Stephen Vatt, we will take the following ac-
tion:
557
WE WILL create a preferential hiring list containing
the names of the aforesaid employees, and mail a copy
of said list and of this notice to each of said employees.
WE WILL, should we resume operation of a sand plant
in the Saginaw, Michigan, area, offer the employees
named on said preferential hiring list full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent jobs, without
prejudice to the seniority or rights and privileges they
previously enjoyed, before hiring any other employee for
such operation.
WE WILL, should vacancies occur in the work force of
our crusher plant, offer such employment to the persons
named on the aforementioned preferential hiring list,
without prejudice to the seniority or other rights and
privileges they previously enjoyed, before hiring anyone
else to fill such vacancies.
WE WILL make up to Merl Wark, James Sykes, and
Stephen Vatt, the pay they lost from September 12, 1970,
to the date we offer them reinstatement, or to the date
they severally secure equivalent employment with
another employer, whichever shall first occur, together
with 6 percent interest.
WE WILL notify, if and when we resume operation of
a sand plant in the Saginaw, Michigan, area, Merl Wark,
James Sykes, and Stephen Vatt, if serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstate-
ment upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
SAGINAW
AGGREGATES, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
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 compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan
48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.