Sand Mountain Broadcasting Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 362 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pat M . Courington and No H. Sparkman d/b/a Sand
Mountain Broadcasting Service and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1564. Case
10-CA-8542
June 21, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On February 10, 1971, Trial Examiner Lowell Goer-
lich issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's' Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Nation
Labor Relations, Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection 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, the briefs, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
tered mail on October 20, 1970. A complaint and notice of
hearing was issued on October 21, 1970,• wherein it was al-
leged that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein
referred to as the Act, by interrogating certain of its em-
ployees concerning their union membership, activity, and
desires and the union membership, activity, and desires of
other employees and by discharging employee Donald M.
Barnard on August 13, 1970, because of his membership in
and activities on behalf of the Union and because he engaged
in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection.
The Respondent filed a timely answer denying that it had
engaged in or was engaging in the unfair labor practices
alleged.
The case came on for hearing on December 8 and 9, 1970,
at Guntersville, Alabama. Each party was afforded a full
opportunity to be heard, to call, examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to, argue orally on the record, to submit proposed
findings of fact and conclusions, and to file briefs. All briefs
have been carefully considered by the Trial Examiner.
Upon the whole record and upon his observation of the
witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND REASONS
THEREFOR
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an Alabama partnership with its principal office and
place of business located at Albertville, Alabama, where it is
engaged in AM and FM radio broadcasting. During the past
calendar year,' which period is representative of all times
material herein, the Respondent derived revenue in excess of
$100,000 from its operations, of which in excess of $5,000 was
received for broadcasting for customers located outside the
State of Alabama. The Trial Examiner finds, as is admitted
by the Respondent, that the Respondent is and has been at
all times material herein engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
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 and hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, Pat M. Courington and No H. Sparkman
d/b/a Sand-Mountain Broadcasting Service, Albert-
ville, Alabama, their agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LOWELL GOERLICH, Trial Examiner: A charge was filed
by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
1564, herein referred to as the Union, on August 21, 1970,
and was served upon Pat M. Courington and No H. Spark-
man doing business as Sand Mountain Broadcasting Service,
the Respondent herein, by registered mail on August 24,
1970. A copy of the amended charge was filed on September
14, 1970, and served on the Respondent by registered mail on
the same date. A copy of the second amended charge filed on
October 19, 1970, was served upon the Respondent by regis-
191 NLRB No. 71
n THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
1564 is and has been at all times material herein a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Statement of Pertinent Facts
Partner Pat M. Courington and Station Manager Henry
Hoffman are admitted supervisors and at all times material
herein were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11)
of the Act. In connection with the Respondent's operations,
which were defined by Courington as "Rural Radio," Cour-
ington referred to himself as the "Wheel."
Alleged discriminatee Donald M. Barnard commenced
working for the Respondent in late August 1969 "as an engi-
neer to stand in for Mr. Hoffman who was then the chief
engineer and was going on vacation." Hoffman, a first class
engineer, was the Respondent's only engineering employee.
In order to comply with governmental regulations the station
while operating was required to have a first class engineer
available at all times. Barnard, who was also a first class
engineer, satisfied the governmental regulations in this re-
spect while Hoffman was on vacation. Barnard, who held a
first class FCC license, had worked in military electronics for
5 years. His announcing had been confined to that of military
radio announcer.
SAND MOUNTAIN BROADCASTING SERVICE
Shortly after Hoffman returned from his vacation Hoffman
assumed the duties as manager of the station at which time
he requested Barnard to continue his duties. In December
1969 Barnard became a full-time permanent employee and in
addition to his engineering duties performed duties as an
announcer for FM broadcasts which became his primary
assignment. Of the 40-hour week he spent about 22 or 23
hours in FM announcing and the remainder in the mainte-
nance of equipment. Other than Acting Station Manager
Hoffman, Barnard was the only first class engineer in the
employ of the Respondent. During the period of his employ
Barnard performed no AM broadcasting although he had
asked for such an assignment. From time to time he was given
"constructive criticism" in regard to his work by Hoffman
and Courington. On one occasion he was refused a requested
raise.
At the time Barnard was hired he was self-employed in the
chicken business and since his chicken business kept him busy
during the mornings his work periods at the station were
limited to afternoons.'
On July 16, 1970, Robert Giles entered the Respondent's
employ. While Giles was a youngster 18 years of age he had
considerable experience as a radio announcer. He held a 3d
class radio telephone operator's license. He had worked with
his father who was connected with the radio business and had
been employed as an announcer by radio stations at Cape
Canaveral, Florida, and Cocoa, Florida. At Cocoa he had
worked a regular shift, "disc jockey type work, talking be-
tween records, production, copyrighting and that sort of
thing. Running the board ... and ... music director." Giles
made application for employment with the Respondent
through his uncle who was acquainted with Courington and
lived in the vicinity of Albertville. Giles' uncle "had sug-
gested that [Giles] could come up to go to Snead and live with
him at his home and go to Snead College." After reviewing
an audition tape submitted by Giles, Courington employed
him as an announcer. His schedule was arranged so that he
was able to attend college. The greater part of his work was
in FM announcing; however, he did some AM work.'
On July 29, 1970, at the instigation of Calvin Williamson,
business manager of the Union, a meeting of some of the
Respondent's employees was held at Boaz, Alabama. In addi-
tion to Williamson, employees Billy Prickett, Barnard, Glenn
Dale Johnson, and Philip Gable were present. All the em-
ployees present signed authorization cards. A couple of days
later Barnard gave two cards of other employees to William-
son and Williamson received a third card on August 1, 1970.
On August 3, 1970, Hoffman called Barnard into the
production studio and asked him "if [he] knew anything
about union activities of a union trying to organize the station
and had [he] been contacted in any manner." Barnard replied
that he had attended a union meeting and asked' him why he
was questioning him. Hoffman said that the Respondent had
information that the Union was trying to organize the station
and that "this union is an engineer's union and [Barnard] and
[Hoffman were] the only engineers here." During the conver-
sation Philip Gable walked into the room and upon observing
him Barnard remarked that Gable was also aware of the
union activities; Gable agreed.
On the afternoon of the same day Hoffman said to Barnard,
"Don, if you've got anything to do with the union business
I would advise you to drop it. Mr. Courington is pretty shook
up.
' Courington considered Barnard to be primarily employed in the
chicken business
2 It had been the Employer's practice to utilize schoolboys for its FM
broadcasting. The FM station had never operated on a profitable basis.
363
On August 4, 1970, at "around quarter past nine in the
morning," Hoffman asked employee Johnson whether Bar-
nard was "trying to bring the union in . , . "Johnson replied
that he did not know. Hoffman said, "the whole thing really
disturbs me." Johnson replied that he was "very much dis-
turbed with the whole organization and ... would probably
shove off that day if [he] had another position to go to."
About 4:30 on the evening of August 4 Hoffman called
Barnard into his office and informed him that he was being
placed on "standby status." At Barnard's request Barnard
and Hoffman went to Courington's office. According to Bar-
nard, Courington informed him that he had just received the
end of the month financial statement and that the revenue
was down for which reason he had to cut the staff. Pointing
out to Courington that the station was one over normal
strength in announcers and that he was the only working
engineer, 'Barnard asked why he was cut rather than an an-
nouncer. Courington replied that it was a management deci-
sion . According to Courington's version Barnard asked him
why he was being laid off instead of somebody else. Couring-
ton replied that he made "the decisions" and that he thought
others were more important to the station. After further dis-
cussion on the point Courington inquired of Barnard as to
whom he would have laid off. Barnard offered no suggestion.
During the conversation Barnard asked Courington if he was
being laid off "because of the Union." Courington replied that
"the economy caused the layoff." Barnard asked when he
would be called for work. Courington replied, "you will work
upon call, when Henry Hoffman calls you for work," where-
upon Barnard asked, "will it be 10, will it be 5." Courington
responded, "I can not tell you that. It might be 40. It might
be an hour. If we do not have trouble you will not be called.
If we do not have trouble where we would need your help you
will not be called."
August 5, 1970, the Respondent received a letter from the
Union demanding representative status.' On the same day,
about 10:30 in the morning, employee Johnson was called to
Courington's office where, in the presence of Hoffman, Cour-
ington told him that they wanted him on "early morning."
Courington further said, "I understand you have signed the
card asking the IBEW or someone to represent you." John-
son did not reply. Courington further commented, "we don't
like this. I want to run the station and I want Henry to run
the station ... I am putting you on this position so that if this
thing does come about then ... you can't look back and say
I had so and so..""
On the same day Courington asked Giles "how [he]
thought about the Union" and what he "had done about it."
"If [he] had a union card, if [he] had seen it and what [he]
had done with any card [he] had." Giles replied that he "gave
the card back to whom [he] had gotten the card from." The
Union was further discussed; Courington "allowed [Giles] to
say how [he] felt about the union ... "
Shortly thereafter Courington asked employer Dave
Turner whether he had signed "a card to request a vote on
union representation ." He answered that he had signed a
card, whereupon Courington inquired, "[W]ho else signed
cards for the union representative?" Turner replied that "all
the eligible radio employees had signed applications."'
' While there is contradictory evidence in the record as to whether or not
the letter was received on August 4 or August 5, the Trial Examiner is of
the opinion that the preponderance of the credited testimony establishes
that the letter was received by the Respondent on August 5 rather than
August 4.
° The uncontroverted and credited testimony of Johnson.
The uncontroverted and credited testimony of Turner
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 10, 1970, the Union filed its petition for a
representation election.
Thereafter Courington conferred with his attorney. Out of
such conference came the following letter addressed to Bar-
nard dated August 13, 1970:
When your services were terminated, I advised you that
when we needed you we would call you. I also advised
you that the quality of your announcing was not accepta-
ble.
In all fairness, I must tell you that we will have no need
for your services in the foreseeable future, and you
should feel free to seek and accept employment else-
where.'
On August 27 while employee Johnson was in Couring-
ton's office, Courington told him that "he had been thinking
about and studying about the whole situation and to where
it had started and what caused it." He said "maybe I am a
little concerned about Donald Barnard since he ... had come
around asking for more money ... I don't know about Phil
Gable, maybe he's just going along with the crowd.... "
Counngton added, "I don't believe we had any of this kind
of trouble until Dave Turner came around and maybe he
might have changed the people's thinking toward it or some-
thing." Among other things Courington told Johnson that
"the way you vote has nothing whatsoever to do with whether
or not you are still employed." He added "that having a union
was no guarantee that you could not be dismissed. If an
employer was looking for mistakes in a man he could cer-
tainly find them."'
On August 28, 1970, employee Gable was called into Cou-
rington's office where Courington asked him if he knew that
he would have to vote in the coming election for a union
representative. Gable answered in the affirmative whereupon
Courington asked him whether he had signed a union card
and attended union meetings . Gable again answered in the
affirmative. Both then talked "about the pros and cons of the
Union." Courington asked Gable how he "thought the elec-
tion would go." Gable answered that he thought the Union
would win.
On August 31, 1970, an agreement for a stipulated consent
election was approved by the Regional Director and the elec-
tion subsequently was held on September 17, 1970.
Approximately 3 weeks before the hearing while Barnard
was having coffee with former Station Manager Hoffman he
asked Hoffman why Courington had singled him out for
discharge as opposed to other employees. Hoffman replied
that Courington thought that Barnard was behind the union
activity because the Union was an engineer's union and Hoff-
man and Barnard were the only engineers in the Respond-
ent's employ.
Conclusions and Reasons Therefor
First: The 8(a)(1) allegations. The General Counsel claims
that the interrogations addressed to the Respondent's em-
ployees set out above were unlawful and in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. While the Respondent does not affir-
matively deny any of the incidents concerning the alleged
interrogations, the Respondent "would respectfully suggest
to the Trial Examiner that the alleged instances of interroga-
tion are at best nebulous and at no point was any proof
introduced regarding a statement on behalf of the Respond-
ent, or its agent, which contained a threat of reprisal or
6 Courington admitted that at the time of Barnard's layoff he did not tell
him that the quality of his announcing was the reason for his layoff nor did
he tell him at the time of his layoff that his "services were terminated."
' The uncontroverted and credited testimony of Turner.
promise of benefit, especially as to the Charging Party."8 The
Trial Examiner views the foregoing interrogations as being
oppressive. They served no legitimate Employer's purpose
but sought information most useful for discrimination and for
combating union organization. The information was solicited
under such circumstances as to lead employees to believe that
the information which the Employer sought would be used
in reprisal against its employees. Thus the interrogations were
coercive in character and interfered with employees' Section
7 rights. By the interrogations of employees Barnard, John-
son, Giles, Turner, and Gable, set out above, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Professional Tape
Company, Inc., 171 NLRB No. 61, affd. N.L.R.B. v. Profes-
sional Tape Company, Inc., 422 F.2d 989 (C.A. 7).
Second: The Discharge of Donald M. Barnard. On August
5, 1970, Barnard was put on standby status' where he re-
mained until his discharge on August 13, 1970. During this
period, it is clear from the record that he did nothing as a
working employee (since he was not employed) which would
have triggered his discharge on August 13, 1970. Thus the
explanation for his discharge must lie either in his conduct
prior to August 4, 1970, the date he was put on standby
status, or in the events which occurred subsequent to August
4, 1970. The Respondent fingers Barnard's prior conduct and
contends that he was discharged because of the prior unac-
ceptable quality of his announcing (re: letter of discharge)
and "so that he might be free to seek other employment if he
choose."
Such contentions are unbelievable and without merit in the
light of the credible record.
An examination of the events which occurred between Au-
gust 5 and August 13 convinces the Trial Examiner that they
not only explain the Respondent's action in discharging Bar-
nard but also reveal the "true purpose" or "real motive"" of
the Respondent in discharging him.
After Barnard was placed on standby status the Employer
received the letter from the Union on August 5, 1970, de-
manding representative status. On the same day Courington
told employee Johnson that he did not like "this" ("asking
the IBEW or someone to represent you") and he wanted to
run the station. On the same day Courington unlawfully
interrogated employee Giles about the Union and shortly
thereafter learned from employee Turner by unlawful interro-
gation that "all eligible radio employees had signed applica-
tions". On August 10, 1970, the Union filed its petition for
an election whereupon Courington for the first time was faced
with the actuality of a union election which, the chances
were, would be resolved in the Union's favor for "all eligible
radio employees had signed applications."" Citing a cause
which had not been mentioned at the time of Barnard's layoff,
Courington precipitately discharged Barnard, an employee
about whom he was concerned "since [he] came around ask-
ing for money" and because he suspected that Barnard, as the
only nonsupervisory engineer in the Respondent's employ,
instigated union organization at the station. Indeed it would
appear that business considerations would have weighed in
Brief of Respondent p. 1.
While there is more than a strong suspicion in the record that Barnard
was placed on a standby status because of his union affection, the Trial
Examiner makes no finding in this respect in that there is no allegation in
the complaint Barnard's layoff on August 5 was discriminatorily motivated
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
'° "It is the'true purpose ' or 'real motive ' in hiring or firing that consti-
tutes the test." Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters [Los
Angeles-Seattle Motor Express] v. N.L.R.B, 365 U S 667, 675. See also
N.L.R B. v. Brown Food Stores, 380 U.S. 278, 287.
" No doubt Courington was as "shook up" about the Union's petition as
he was when he first learned of the Union.
SAND MOUNTAIN BROADCASTING SERVICE
favor of retaining Barnard and that Courington acted to the
disadvantage of the station in that had Barnard been retained
on standby status not only would the Employer have had an
announcer to call upon if needed, but also an engineer, whose
qualifications met the Government 's requirements, and who
would have been available for stand-in for Hoffman, the Re-
spondent 's only engineer, when he was unavailable because of
illness, vaction , or other causes . Moreover, because Barnard's
roots were well established in the community by reason of his
chicken business, the chances were that he would have re-
mained in the community available for the Respondent 's call.
Surely Courington must have known and conditioned his
responses to the salient fact well known in labor-management
relations: "Obviously the discharge of a leading union advo-
cate is a most effective method of undermining the union
organizational effort." N.L.R.B. v. Longhorn Transfer Ser-
vice, 346 F.2d 1003(C.A. 5). Courington's testimony confirms
such a conclusion and clinches a finding of discriminatory
motivation.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Mr. Batson wants to know what
caused you to do that [send the letter of August 13].
What happened during that period?
THE WITNESS I had talked with Mr. Clements' firm
and we had decided to send a letter.
Q. (By Mr. Batson) As a result of having contacted
them you left the man go.
A. After I had contacted Mr. Clements ' firm I wrote
the letter.
Q. You wanted to get rid of all the people that you
could ...
A. No, not necessarily.
Q. Not necessarily ...
A. That did play a part in it, however ...
* * * * *
Q. (By Mr. Batson) But after learning of his union
activities and the union activity at the plant you did
terminate him.
A. Yes. I terminated him after I knew about it but I
had not called him to work.
Q. That's right . You,had not called him back in in-
terim.
A. I had not needed his services and I thought that he
might want to work.
Q. But it was upon learning of this and the union
activity of others at the plant that you decided to termi-
nate him.
A. No. It was after I knew about it.
Q. (By Mr. Batson) I am asking you that your ac-
quired knowledge of Mr . Barnard 's union activities and
the general union activity at the plant, at the station is
the only thing that happened between August 4th and
August 13th that precipated [sic] you discharging him
on August 13th.
A. That's the only thing. I could not see any need for
his services so I gave him the letter.
365
TRIAL EXAMINER Now, would you tell me what
caused you to send the letter on August 14th to him
terminating his services completely?
THE WITNESS: I could not see that we would be need-
ing his services any more. I had discussed this with Mr.
Hoffman and we did not see that we needed his services.
Certainly I knew that he would not be announcing. We
saw that the equipment was in such shape that I would
not need his services there. Certainly I knew about the
union activity by this time but since I knew about the
union activity and I saw that I wouldn 't-feel like I
needed his services any more. I felt like I should make
this determination.
Q. (By Mr. Batson): Because of the union activity at
the plant at that time.
A. Because I did not feel that I would need his services
any more. Now, what prompted me to feel this is some-
thing else.
The "something else" which prompted Courington "to
feel" that he would not need Barnard 's services any more (in
that the record reveals no other reasonable interpretation)
must have been his conviction that the discharge of Barnard
would contribute to the defeat of the Union. To find other-
wise under the credited facts in this case is to defy logic,
renounce expertise , and flout the realities of the industrial
world. The discharge of Barnard for the reasons ascribed by
the Respondent were pretexts, pure and simple. Courington's
explanations lacked a convincing ring. Accordingly , the Trial
Examiner finds that the Respondent's "real motive" and
"true purpose" in discharging Barnard was to discourage
membership in a labor organization , interfere with the free-
dom of choice of its employees in the coming election, and
eliminate an employee as an eligible voter who was a known
union partisan and that by such discharge the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectu-
ate the purposes of the Act for jurisdiction to be exercised
herein.
3. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. -
4. By unlawfully discharging Donald M. Barnard on Au-
gust 13, 1970, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) 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 RECOMMENDED REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been
found that the Respondent unlawfully discharged Donald M.
Barnard, it is recommended that the Respondent remedy
such unlawful conduct. It is recommended in accordance
with Board policy" that Respondent offer Donald M. Bar-
12 See The Rushton Company, 158 NLRB 1730, 1740.
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nard immediate and full reinstatement to his former position
or, if such position no longer exists, to a substantially equiva-
lent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges and make him whole for any loss of earnings
he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against
him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the
amount he would have earned from the date of his dis-
criminatory discharge to the date of an offer of reinstatement
less net earnings during said period to be computed on a
quarterly basis in the manner established by, the Board in F
W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and including inter-
est at the rate of 6 percent per annum in the manner set forth
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716."
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner hereby issues the follow-
ing recommended:"
ORDER
Respondent, Pat M. Courington and No H. Sparkman
d/b/a Sand Mountain Broadcasting Service, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers Local 1564, or any other labor
organization, by unlawfully discriminatorily discharging any
of its employees or discriminating in any manner in respect
to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment to discourage membership in a labor
organization.
(b) Unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their
union activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
1564 or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and to engage
in concerted activity for the purpose of mutual aid or protec-
tion as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act or refrain from any
and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Donald M. Barnard immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if that former job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole
for any loss of pay that he may have suffered by reason of the
Respondent's discrimination against him in accordance with
the recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Recommended 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, person-
nel records and report, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
" The Trial Examiner has made no finding as to whether or not, in view
of Barnard's standby status, he will be entitled to any backpay. Such matter
is reserved for the compliance stage of this proceeding.
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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
(c) Notify immediately the above-named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act.
(d) Post at its Albertville establishment copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained 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 Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other than
those found in this Decision.
" 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 the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
16 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
A Trial Examiner for the National Labor Relations Board,
after a hearing in which all parties were permitted to in-
troduce evidence, found that we discharged Donald M. Bar-
nard unlawfully and that by his discharge we discouraged
employees from becoming and remaining members of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1564
and that his discharge violated the National Labor Relations
Act.
WE WILL give Donald M. Barnard back his job or, if
his job no longer exists, a substantially equivalent job.
WE WILL restore his seniority and pay him the back-
pay he has lost because we discharged him.
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee for the same
reasons for which the Trial Examiner found that we
discharged Donald M. Barnard.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discharge employees, for
lawfully engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our employees
concerning their union sympathies or activities.
The laws of the United States give all employees these
rights:
To organize themselves;
To form, join, or help unions;
To bargain as a group through representatives
that they choose;
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection;
SAND MOUNTAIN BROADCASTING SERVICE 367
And to refuse to do any or all of these things.
All of you are free to become or remain , or refrain from
becoming or remaining , members of any labor organization.
PAT M. COURINGTON
AND No H.
SPARKMAN D/B/A
SAND MOUNTAIN
BROADCASTING
SERVICE
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above -named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement , upon application after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act.
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, 1417 City
Federal Building , 2026 Second Avenue North, Birmingham,
Alabama 35203 , Telephone 205-325-3877.