Southern Illinois Petrol, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1985

277 N.L.R.B. 160 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Southern Illinois Petrol , Inc. and Teamsters Local
347, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America . Cases 14-CA-17326, 14-
CA-17326-2, 14-CA-17326-3, and 14-RC-
9828
31 October 1985
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
On 22 October 1984 Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings,' findings,2
' The Respondent contended that employee Robert Reiman's testimo-
ny that he was told by Foreman Emory that Emory did not tell Vice
President Rice that Reiman stole a CB radio was inadmissible hearsay.
The statement by Emory, an admitted supervisor and agent of the Re-
spondent, was not hearsay but an admission by party-opponent and there-
fore properly allowed by the judge Fed R Evid. 801(d)(2).
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings . The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
In adopting the judge's finding that the Respondent's stated reason for
discharging Reiman, because it suspected he stole a CB radio, was pretex-
tual, we note that the judge discredited Vice President Rice's testimony
that Foreman Emory informed Rice that Reiman stole the radio Absent
this information from Emory there is no record evidence on which the
Respondent can rely to claim that it suspected Reiman stole the radio.
In the absence of exceptions, we pro forma adopt the judge's recom-
mendation to overrule Objections 2, 5, 8, 9-11, 13-15, and part C-E
Chairman Dotson disagrees with his colleagues that the Respondent
violated Sec 8(a)(1) when Foreman Anders told Robert Reiman in the
presence of three other employees that there would be no more union
campaigning and when owner West (pointing to Reiman's union button
and saying Reiman was showing his true colors) indicated that he knew
Reiman would vote for the Union Anders had instructed Reiman and
other employees on several previous occasions not to discuss the Union
on company time and there is no evidence that employees were allowed
to discuss other nonwork subjects while working. The record does not
show whether the Respondent had a no-solicitation rule. Under the cir-
cumstances the General Counsel failed to show that Anders telling
Reiman there would be no more union campaigning on company time
constituted disparate treatment. Houston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 265
NLRB 766, 782 (1982), modified 740 F 2d 398 (1984). Because Reiman
openly proclaimed his union sentiment by wearing the union button,
West's indicating that he knew how Reiman would vote was not inher-
ently coercive
Members Dennis and Babson find that under the circumstances of the
Respondent's coercive and discriminatory conduct (the Respondent dis-
charged employee Robert Reiman shortly after the representation elec-
tion, before the election Reiman had been the target of repeated 8(a)(1)
conduct, including the following. the Respondent's owner interrogated
him several times about union organizing, threatened to withdraw bene-
fits, threatened to fire employees who signed authorization cards, and
and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Southern Il-
linois Petrol, Inc., DuQuoin, Illinois, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in Case 14-RC-9828
that the election held on 9 March 1984 is set aside
and the case is remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 14, who shall conduct a new election in
the appropriate unit at such time as he deems the
circumstances permit the free choice of a bargain-
ing representative.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from pub-
lication.]
threatened plant closure), the foreman's and owner's actions reasonably
tend to coerce within the meaning of Sec 8 (a)(1).
Robert S. Seigel, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Mark J Rubinelli, Esq. and James M. Talent, Esq.
(Moller, Talent, Kuelthau and Welch), of St. Louis,
Missouri, for the Respondent.
Nancy M. Watkins Esq., of St. Louis, Missouri, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON , Administrative Law Judge.
These consolidated cases were heard at Murphysboro, Il-
linois, on July 16 through 18, 1984,' pursuant to charges
filed by Teamsters Local 347, affiliated with Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America (the Union) on March 15 in
Case 14-CA-17326, on March 20 in Case 14-CA-17326-
2, and on March 28 in Case 14-CA-17326-3 and an
amended consolidated complaint issued on May 3.
The amended consolidated complaint, as amended
both prior to and at the hearing,2 and as clarified by the
General Counsel in response to a motion filed by the Re-
spondent for a bill of particulars , alleges that Southern
Illinois Petrol, Inc. (the Respondent) violated Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, by unlawful-
ly interrogating employees about their union activities
and those of other employees and about their knowledge
of the union , requested and solicited employees to
engage in surveillance of employees ' union activities, of-
fered to compensate an employee if the employee en-
gaged in surveillance of employees' union activities, gave
i All dates referred to are in 1984 unless otherwise stated.
2 Various allegations of par. 5, namely , subpars. 5(d), (I), (n), (o), (p),
and (q) were deleted from the amended consolidated complaint based on
the unopposed motion of the General Counsel which was granted after
no evidence had been presented to establish those allegations.
277 NLRB No. 17
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS PETROL 161
the impression employees' union activities were under
surveillance, threatened to and engaged in surveillance of
employees' union activities, threatened to withhold em-
ployees' benefits if employees chose union representation
or in retaliation for employees' union activities, threat-
ened to close the facility in retaliation for employees'
union activities, denigrated an employee because of the
employee's union activities, threatened to discharge em-
ployees in retaliation for their union activities, solicited
an employee to organize a petition opposing unioniza-
tion, gave an employee the impression that union repre-
sentation would be futile, solicited an employee to do
whatever was necessary to induce employees to reject
union representation, informed an employee that a regu-
larly scheduled raise was being withheld because of em-
ployees' union activities, instructed employees not to dis-
cuss the union, and advised an employee that Respond-
ent's owner knew how the employee would vote in the
representation election; and violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act by discriminatorily imposing more onerous
working conditions on Robert Reiman by transferring
Reiman from the mechanic shop to the tire shop, dis-
charged and refused to reinstate Robert Reiman and
James Leonard, Sr. and withheld regularly scheduled
wage increases from William Sizemore because they
joined, supported, or assisted the Union and engaged in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection and to discourage
employees from engaging in such activities or in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection. The amended con-
solidated complaint further alleges that because of these
unfair labor practices a remedial order requiring the Re-
spondent to recognize and bargain with the Union is
warranted.
The Respondent in its answer served on May 15
denies having violated the Act as alleged.
The issues involved are whether the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged by en-
gaging in unlawful interrogations, solicitations, offers,
and surveillances, by creating impressions of surveillance;
by issuing threats, statements, and instructions regarding
employees' union activities; by discriminatorily transfer-
ring Robert Reiman, discharging Robert Reiman and
James Leonard Sr., and withholding wage increases from
William Sizemore because-of their union or protected
concerted activities; and whether a bargaining order is
warranted. An additional issue is whether the objections
to the conduct of the election discussed infra have merit
to warrant setting aside the election results.
The Regional Director for Region 14 by order con-
solidated for hearing with the issues involved in the
amended consolidated complaint the resolution of certain
objections filed by the Union and certain "Other Acts
and Conduct" not specifically alleged but disclosed by
the investigation concerning the election held in Case
14-RC-9828. That election which the Union lost3 was
3 The Regional Director's Report on Objections, Order Approving
Withdrawal of Certain Objections, and Order Directing Hearing, and
Order Consolidating Cases and Notice of Hearing dated April 13, reflects
out of approximately 12 eligible voters, 5 cast valid votes for and 6 cast
valid votes against the Union, with 1 challenged ballot
conducted on-March 9 pursuant to a Stipulation for Cer-
tification Upon Consent Election approved by the Re-
gional Director on February 16 based on a petition filed
by the Union on February 3.
The Union's Objections involved are as follows:
1. On or about February 6, 1984 the Employer's
agent , Mr. Valley West, informed the employees
that if the Union won the election the Company
might quit supplying uniforms and gasoline for their
automobiles . Mr. West further stated that those
terms would be changed over time, that the compa-
ny would begin utilizing three shifts, and the com-
pany would stop giving Christmas bonuses if the
Union won.
2. On or about February 6, 1984 Mr. West held a
meeting with two employees after which they
signed a petition stating that they did not want a
union shop and then requested other employees to
sign said petition.
3. On or about February 6, 1984 Mr West inter-
rogated employees in his office with regard to their
Union activity and specifically asked whether the
employees had contacted the National Labor Rela-
tions Board or a Union organizer.
4. On or about February 8, 1984 Mr. West threat-
ened to "buy" the authorization cards filed with the
National Labor Relations Board to discover who
signed them.
5. On or about February 9, 1984 Mr. West inter-
rogated certain employees regarding whether they
had signed authorization cards.
6. On or about February 9, 1984 Mr. West told
employees that they would lose their benefits, in-
cluding health insurance, if the Union won the elec-
tion.
7. On or about February 9, 1984 Mr. West made
the statement that he knew which employees were
behind the Union activity.
8. On or about February 14, 1984 Mr. West
threatened to lay off five (5) employees if the Union
won the election.
9. On or about March 5, 1984 employees were
transferred from one position to a less desirable po-
sition.
10. On or about March 5, 1984 Mr. West interro-
gated certain employees regarding whether they in-,
tended to vote for the Union.
11. On or about March 5, 1984 and March 6,
1984 Mr. West listened in on the private phone con-
versation of the Company's employees.
13. On or about March 7, 1984 certain employees
were denied their regularly scheduled wage in-
crease and were interrogated regarding their Union
activities.
14. On or about March 8, 1984 Mr. West made
the statement that the Employer would be able to
discharge people even if the Union won the election
because he could just "write up" an employee who
was late for work and fire him.
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
15. On or about March 8, 1984 Mr. West made
the statement to an employee that a fellow employ-
ee was no good.
The "Other Acts and Conduct" not specifically al-
leged are as follows:
Part A
It is alleged in the complaint at paragraph 5, sub-
paragraph F(ii), that Employer Owner West threat-
ened to close the facility in retaliation for employ-
ees' union activities , in violation of Section 8(aXl)
of the Act, and that such conduct occurred between
the date the petition was filed and the date of the
election.
Part B
It is alleged in the complaint at paragraph 5, sub-
paragraph I, that Employer Owner West gave an
employee the impression that union representation
would be futile, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act, and that such conduct occurred between the
date the petition was filed and the date of the elec-
tion.
Part C
It is alleged in the complaint at paragraph 5, sub-
paragraph N, that Employer Owner West gave an
employee the impression that union representation
would be futile, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, and that such conduct occurred between the
date the petition was filed and the date of the elec-
tion.
Part D
It is alleged in the complaint at paragraph 5, sub-
paragraph Q, that Employer Owner West implied
that bargaining with the Union would start from
scratch, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
and that such conduct occurred between the date
the petition was filed and the date of the election.
Part E
It is alleged in the complaint at paragraph 5, sub-
paragraph R, that Employer's Foreman Anders in-
structed employees not to discuss the Union, in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and that such
conduct occurred between the date the petition was
filed and the date of the election.
Since parts C and D of "Other Acts and Conduct"
were based on paragraphs 5(n) and (q) of the amended
consolidated complaint, respectively, and those allega-
tions were deleted on the grounds no evidence was prof-
fered to support them, I find those two objections have
no merit and they are overruled.
On the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tions of the witnesses and after due consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent4
I make the following5
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, an Illinois corporation with its prin-
cipal office and place of business located at DuQuoin, Il-
linois, is engaged in the business of providing nonretail
truck repair and service and nonretail sale and distribu-
tion of tires, gasoline, fuel oil, and related products.
During the year ending March 31, a representative
period, Respondent in the course of its operations pro-
vided truck repair and service and caused to be sold and
distributed tires, gasoline, fuel oil, and related products at
its DuQuoin, Illinois facility, valued in excess of $50,000,
of which services and products, valued in excess of
$50,000, were furnished to enterprises each of which
meet other than a solely indirect standard of the Board
for the assertion of jurisdiction.
The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters Local 347, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and the Appropriate Unit
The Respondent operates a facility located at Du-
Quoin, Illinois, where it is engaged in the nonretail truck
repair and service and sale and distribution of tires, gaso-
line, fuel oil and related products. Included among its of-
ficials and supervisors were Owner and President Vallie
West, Vice President James Rice,6 Shop Foreman Dee
Anders, and Shop Foreman James Emory7 who left in
May.
About the middle of January the Union began an orga-
nizing campaign among the Respondent's employees. It
filed a petition with the Board on February 3, seeking to
represent the Respondent's employees. On March 9 an
election was held which the Union unit lost; however,
objections to the conduct of the election were filed by
the Union.
The pleadings admit and I find that the following unit
constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All employees employed by the Employer at its
DuQuoin, Illinois facility, excluding all office cleri-
4 The Union did not submit a brief
e Unless otherwise indicated the findings are based on the pleadings,
admissions, stipulations, and undisputed evidence contained in the record
which I credit
® Rice is the son-in-law of West.
7 These four persons were supervisors under the Act
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS PETROL 163
cals and professional employees , guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
B. Signing Union Authorization Cards
During the period from January 27 through February
6 there were, 13 unit employees employed by the Re-
spondent. They were Rodney Carrothers, Joseph Clark,
Frederick Davidson, James Leonard, Sr., Jackie Loucks,
Terry Loucks, Daniel Morski, Leonard Moss, David
Newton, Robert Reiman, William Sizemore, Benjamin
Moss, and William Lyle, Jr.
Among this group of 13 employees 8 of them, includ-
ing James Leonard, Sr., William Lyle, Jr., William Size-
more, David Newton, Joseph Clark, Robert Reiman,
Leonard Moss, and Benjamin Moss all signed union au-
thorization cards during the period from January 17
through 27 which list the Respondent as their employer.
These cards are entitled "Authorization For Representa-
tion and Union Shop" and list the name of the Union
provided in the body as follows:
I hereby request and accept membership in the
above named union, and of my own free will au-
thorize it, their agents or representatives to act for
me as a collective bargaining agency in all matters
pertaining to pay rates, wages, hours of employ-
ment and other conditions of employment. I agree
to be bound by and comply with the Constitution,
rules and regulations of the Teamsters's Union
Local 347, Affiliated with I.B.T.C.W. & H of
America.
The union authorization cards of James Leonard, Sr.,
David Newton, and Joseph Clark were identified by
those employees themselves who acknowledged reading
the cards and then signing them. James Leonard, Sr.,
who solicited employees to sign cards, identified the
cards of William Lyle, Jr., Benjamin Moss, Leonard
Moss, and Robert Reiman's who he stated signed them
in his presence. Leonard also said Lyle appeared to read
the card before signing it. However, Leonard denied
knowing whether Benjamin Moss and Leonard Moss
who took the cards home with them had read their cards
before signing them.
Another employee, Harry Peterson who worked as a
helper in the mechanic shop until he was laid off on Jan-
uary 21, also identified a card he signed on January 18
after reading it. Peterson further stated he solicited Wil-
liam Sizemore9 to sign a card telling him the card was to
help unionize and would show a certain amount or per-
centage of people interested in joining a union and if
they had a certain amount of people then there would be
an election. Peterson denied saying the card would be
used only for an election. Sizemore then took the card
and returned it to Leonard a couple of days later already
filled out, signed, and dated January 19.
Leonard, who initially contacted the Union and was
instrumental in attempting to organize the employees,
testified on first meeting with Union Organizer and Busi-
Reiman acknowledged signing a card after reading it.
Sizemore did not testify
ness Agent Melvin Allen on January 17 about organizing
the employees Allen gave him union authorization cards
to get signed. Allen explained the cards had two pur-
poses. These purposes were to obtain a majority and ask
for voluntary recognition of the employer or, after ob-
taining a sufficient showing of interest, to have an elec-
tion conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.
After discussing these options Leonard stated based upon
opinions expressed to him by the other employees inter-
ested in organizing that they decided asking for volun-
tary recognition would not be the way to go. Leonard
then signed his own card and gave it to Allen. Allen,
who is presently an organizer for Teamsters Joint Coun-
cil No. 65, corroborated Leonard's testimony and ac-
knowledged that Leonard was opposed to seeking volun-
tary recognition.
Leonard, who then solicited other employees to sign
cards including William Lyle, Jr., Harry Peterson, Benja-
min Moss, Leonard Moss, Joseph Clark, and Robert
Reiman, stated on talking to them about signing the
cards that he explained to them prior to their signing the
cards the two options. However, they rejected the
option of seeking voluntary recognition. Leonard denied
telling any of the employees the sole purpose of the
cards was to obtain an election.
Harry Peterson in recounting what Leonard had told
him about signing the card made no mention of the
option of seeking voluntary recognition but denied Leon-
ard said the cards would be used only for an election.
Contrary to his direct testimony, however, Leonard
admitted having signed an unworn statement given by
him to Respondent's attorney Rubinelli concerning both
what Allen told him about the cards and what he told
the employees. This statement reflects that Allen in-
formed Leonard that all signing the card meant was that
it showed interest in a petition to vote for a union and
that Leonard told employees it only meant it was show-
ing an interest in getting an election. There was no men-
tion in this statement about the option of seeking volun-
tary recognition. Leonard also acknowledged in an affi-
davit given by him to a Board agent concerning what
Allen had told him about the cards that there was noth-
ing in the affidavit about approaching the Respondent
for recognition.
Joseph Clark, presented as a witness by the Respond-
ent, testified that Leonard who got him to sign a card
informed him the cards were just to have a vote.
Another employee, Terry Loucks, who did not sign a
card and testified as a witness for the Respondent, stated
Leonard talked to him several times about signing a card
and the only thing Leonard said about the card was he
needed a majority to get a union vote to come in.
Based on Leonard's own testimony, corroborated in
part by Business Agent Allen, Leonard as well as those
employees solicited by Leonard to sign authorization
cards had prior to signing their cards ruled out the
option of the Union using them to seek voluntary recog-
nition by the Respondent. Thus, implicit in their actions
was they signed the authorization cards solely for the
purpose of getting an election. This finding that the
cards would be used only to get an election is also con-
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sistent with Leonard's signed statement in which he said
he informed employees whom he solicited to sign cards
that all signing the card meant was that it was showing
an interest in getting an election and with Joseph Clark's
testimony that Leonard informed him the cards were just
to have an election.
C. Unlawful Interrogations, Solicitations, Offers,
Surveillances, Threats, Statements, and Instructions
Several employees testified concerning conversations
they had with Owner West and Shop Foreman Anders
concerning the Union.
On February 6 James Leonard Sr . testified that West
in the presence of Anders asked him where he had been
the previous Friday and whether he had been to a union
office and talked to a union representative . Leonard
denied it and West asked him whether he went to the
NLRB and filed a charge against West. Leonard also
denied it whereupon West looked at Anders and re-
marked he believed Leonard . West then said there was
union talk going on which he wanted stopped and asked
Leonard if he knew who was responsible . Leonard
denied knowing and West asked Leonard if Leonard
found out who was responsible or if anyone approached
Leonard for him to let West know. West stated if the
Union got in he did not have to furnish uniforms , insur-
ance, Christmas bonuses, or the weekly tank of gas they
received. 1o
Robert Reiman also testified that on February 6 West
in the presence of Anders asked him if he knew anything
about the Union trying to get in and whether he had
called or had a relative working for the NLRB. Reiman
denied knowing anything about the Union trying to
come in or having a relative working for the NLRB but
mentioned he had a relative who was a union steward.
West then asked Reiman if he could find out anything
and to let them know . Anders also indicated the Union
was no good.
David Newton testified about a couple of weeks after
he had signed a union authorization card, which was on
January 26 , West asked him if he knew anything about
the union business going on, which Newton denied.
On February 6 Owner West stated he received from
the NLRB a copy of the union petition in Case 14-RC-
9828 filed on February 3 along with a transmittal letter
and accompanying documents requesting commerce in-
formation , designation of agent for service, appearance
notice, procedures to be followed , and a notice advising
employees of their rights . West after showing these doc-
uments to Vice President Rice and Shop Foreman
Anders stated he then, or shortly afterwards , talked to
almost every employee about receiving the documents
and asked them if they knew anything about it, which
they denied . Under cross-examination , however, West
said when he spoke to the employees he asked them if
they knew anything about the Union.
10 The employees' benefits as described by Owner West include a free
tank of gasoline each week, uniforms, double pay for overtime work, free
hospitalization and life insurance , a noncontributing pension plan, and
Christmas bonuses
West acknowledged talking to both Leonard and
Reiman . However, he stated he only asked them like the
other employees whether they knew anything about the
documents and he denied making the statements attrib-
uted to him by Leonard and Reiman. When Leonard
denied having any knowledge about them West said he
told Anders who was present that he believed Leonard.
According to West no one else was present when he
talked to Reiman. West also stated a few days later that
Reiman informed him he had "kin folks" on the NLRB
and he could help him; however, he told Reiman he did
not want anything to do with them. i, i
While Foreman Anders testified, he did not testify
about these conversations.
I credit Leonard, Reiman, and Newton rather than
West. Apart from my observations of the witnesses in
discrediting West his testimony was both contradictory
and implausible. Having credited them I find that on
February 6 Owner West interrogated James Leonard Sr.
about his union activities, solicited Leonard to report to
West who was responsible for the union talk going on or
if anyone approached Leonard about it, and threatened
Leonard if the Union got in West did not have to furnish
uniforms, insurance, Christmas bonuses, or the weekly
tank of gas which benefits employees were then receiv-
ing; on February 6 Owner West interrogated Robert
Reiman about his knowledge of the Union trying to or-
ganize the Respondent's employees, and solicited Reiman
to find out about the Union trying to organize the Re-
spondent's employees and to let West know; and about
February 6 Owner West interrogated David Newton
about his knowledge of the union trying to organize the
Respondent's employees.
However, I do not find as further alleged that Owner
West on or about February 6 interrogated an employee
about the employee signing a union card or gave an em-
ployee the impression the employees' union activities
were under surveillance.
Robert Reiman stated that, about a week later, al-
though it could have been earlier or later, Owner West
asked him what he had found out about the Union and if
he knew who all was involved. When Reiman denied he
had found out anything West mentioned he felt Leonard
was behind it and had stabbed him in the back and given
him a raw deal because he had helped Leonard out by
helping him get up there and giving him a job. West
asked Reiman to see what else he could find out about
the Union and to let him know, whereupon he promised
West he would see what he could do. During the con-
versation West said that one way or the other he was
going to get the cards that were signed and he men-
tioned he knew Neal Moss and Benny Moss had signed
cards. West also told Reiman he did not have to let them
have free gas, Christmas bonuses, supply uniforms, and
the other fringe benefits they had and they could be
taken away if the Union was brought in. West further
said he could fire those employees who had signed cards
and if the Union got in he would close the place down.
11 Reiman denied making such statement
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS PETROL
Owner West denied having such a conversation with
Reiman or making such statements to him . However, I
credit Reiman rather than West , whom I have previously
discredited , and find that about the week of February 13
Owner West interrogated Robert Reiman about his union
activities and those of other employees , threatened
Reiman if the Union got in the free gas , Christmas bo-
nuses , uniforms , and other fringe benefits could be taken
away and the plant would be closed down , solicited
Reiman to find out about the Union and to let West
know, and denigrated James Leonard Sr. by mentioning
Leonard was behind the Union and accusing Leonard of
stabbing West in the back and giving West a raw deal by
trying to organize the Respondent 's employees.
Reiman testified that about a week or so later (which
would have been about the week of February 20 or 27)
he had another conversation with West . West asked
Reiman what he had found out, whereupon Reiman re-
plied he had not found out much but he promised to see
what he could do. West repeated that he felt Leonard
had given him a raw deal and questioned Reiman about
whether he felt West had mistreated him. Reiman denied
West had mistreated him and remarked it really was not
against West but a lot of employees were afraid of what
might happen if Vice President Rice took over. West
named four employees-Rodney Carrothers, Jack
Loucks, Dan Morski , and Fred Davidson-and said he
knew they had not signed cards and were against the
Union and were for the Company and that the other em-
ployees were pretty well for the Union . Reiman, who
said lie had previously told West he was undecided,
agreed . West then mentioned if the Union got in he
would not have to bargain with them and he would
close it down. On Reiman replying there would probably
be some trouble and picketing West remarked he had
friends in high places and he used to be police chief in
DuQuoin and he could handle it; he even had shotguns.
West also said he would pay $ 100,000 to keep the Union
out. West asked Reiman how his wife felt about the
Union whereupon Reiman said she was kind of neutral
and did not care. West asked Reiman to get a petition
together and to try to get a bunch of employees to sign a
petition to keep the Union out and to take it to the
NLRI; I to stop the election . Reiman promised to see
what he could do. West again asked him to find out
what he could and to let him know and Reiman said he
would. During the conversation West also said if the
Union got in the double time overtime , bonuses, and all
the benefits would stop . West further said he was going
to get the cards even if he had to pay to get them and if
he got the cards those whose names were on the cards
would be fired.
Owner West denied having such a conversation with
Reiman or making the statements attributed to him by
Reiman.
Based on Reiman 's testimony , which I credit for rea-
sons previously given, I find that about the week of Feb-
ruary 20 or 27 Owner West interrogated Robert Reiman
concerning what he had found out about the Union; so-
licited Reiman to organize a petition and get employees
to sign it to keep the Union out and to stop the Board
election ; solicited Reiman to find out what he could
165
about the Union and to let West know; informed Reiman
if the Union got in West would not have to bargain with
it and West would close the plant down thereby giving
Reiman the impression that union representation would
be futile; threatened Reiman with obtaining the union au-
thorization cards employees had signed and to fire those
employees who had signed authorization cards; and of-
fered to pay money to keep the Union from organizing
the Respondent's employees. 12 I do not find such evi-
dence establishes as further alleged that West offered to
compensate Reiman for engaging in surveillance of em-
ployees' union activities.
Robert Reiman also testified about a week before the
election held on March 9 he received a telephone call at
work from Union Business Agent Allen, whom he had
attempted to call earlier that day from the plant. Reiman,
who was paged on the intercom system for this call by
the secretary, stated that, on going to the telephone
which was located on the wall outside Vice President
Rice's office and picking up the receiver, the only blink-
ing light among the lights for four lines on the telephone
lighted up. According to Reiman, Allen identified him-
self as Mel and asked if they could talk. However,
Reiman said at the time there was a clicking sound on
the telephone and he saw Owner West in the secretary's
office with a telephone receiver from the telephone on
the secretary's desk in his hand which he was holding by
his ear. Reiman said he informed Allen they could not
talk then and as he hung up the telephone he saw West
also hang up. Under cross-examination Reiman acknowl-
edged it was possible West had been on another line and
also that one of the lights on the telephone might have
been out.
Allen acknowledged that on one occasion, although he
could not recall the date, he had called Reiman at work
and Reiman had said he could not talk then. Allen
denied identifying himself to the secretary who answered
the telephone and said he only identified himself as Mel
to Reiman.
Owner West, who stated that employees received per-
sonal telephone calls at the plant all the time, denied
ever listening in on a telephone conversation regarding
Reiman and I credit his denial. Further, Reiman's own
version fails to establish that West was actually listening
in on the call since logically West could have been at-
tempting to place a call himself.
James Leonard Sr., while wearing a union button on
his vest and serving as the Union's only observer in the
election, stated that about 8:30 a.m. on March 9, the day
of the election, Owner West told him he was not telling
him how to vote but reminded him West did not have to
furnish gas, uniforms, and their benefits if the Union
came in. West said he had had two heart attacks himself
and that Leonard's heart trouble was all this union stuff.
;i While the evidence further establishes on this occasion Owner west
also indicated to Reiman he knew the identities of those employees who
were both for and against the Union and was going to get the union au-
thorization cards even if he had to pay to get them both of which are
alleged in the Union's objections and again threatened that employees'
benefits would stop if the Union was selected to repi esent the employees,
this was not alleged and no violation would be found
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While Leonard also testified West mentioned something
to the effect if the Union got in it would not stop West
from firing people, Leonard did not testify specifically
what West said about it.
Owner West, who acknowledged seeing Leonard
wearing a union button the day of the election and knew
he was the Union's observer, denied having a conversa-
tion with Leonard that day or making such statements to
Leonard.
I credit Leonard and find that about 8.30 & in. on
March 9 Owner West impliedly threatened James Leon-
ard, Sr. if employees voted for the union the Respondent
did not have to furnish gas, uniforms, and other benefits.
About a week before the election on March 9 David
Newton testified that Owner West asked him how he
thought the election would go, whereupon he replied
they would just have to wait and see. While West did
not specifically deny such conversation and I credit
Newton's undisputed testimony this was not alleged and
no violation will be found.
Robert Reiman testified that about 2 weeks before the
March 9 election he was in the tire shop talking to em-
ployee Benjamin Moss about the Union when Shop
Foreman Anders came and told them he did not want
any union talk on company time. After Reiman was
transferred to the tire shop about that same time he
stated that at several times, the dates of which were not
established, Anders told him not to be talking union on
company time. On the day before the election Reiman,
who was wearing a union button, stated he was in the
tire shop talking to James Leonard Sr., Joe Clark, and
Dave Morski about the election when Anders told him
there was no more campaigning and if Reiman did not
think they did not know he was campaigning Anders
would take Reiman up front and prove it to him. Reiman
denied he was campaigning.
Shop Foreman Anders did not deny having such con-
versations with Reiman. I credit Reiman's undenied testi-
mony and find that about February 24 Shop Foreman
Anders instructed Robert Reiman and Benjamin Moss
and several times afterwards instructed Reiman not to
discuss the Union on company time13 and on March 8
Anders instructed Robert Reiman in the presence of
three other employees there would be no more union
campaigning.
Following this conversation with Anders, Reiman tes-
tified he then went and asked Owner West what proof
they had he was campaigning. West' s response was they
did not have to have any proof and he said the proof
was on Reiman 's shirt. Reiman then asked West why
they had transferred him from the other shop at which
time West replied he would move him wherever he
wanted because he owned the place.
Owner West acknowledged having a conversation
with Reiman that day but claimed on that occasion
Reiman pointed to the union button he was wearing and
told him the reason he was wearing the button was be-
cause they had transferred him from the mechanic's shop
1s The record does not reflect whether the Respondent had a no-sohcl-
tation rule or whether employees were allowed to discuss other nonwork
subjects while working.
to the tire shop.14 West said he informed Reiman he was
not allowed to talk to him before the election or to talk
anything about it which ended the conversation. West
denied anything else was discussed.
While I credit Reiman rather than West for reasons
previously stated this statement was not alleged and no
violation will be found.
Reiman testified that early on the morning of March 9,
election day, Owner West pointed to the union button
Reiman was wearing and said he saw Reiman showed his
true colors, Reiman's response was he had to do what he
had to do.
Owner West denied making such statement to Reiman.
however, I credit Reiman and find that early on the
morning of the Board election, March 9, Owner West in-
dicated to Reiman that he knew Reiman would vote for
the Union.
D. Alleged Withholding of William Sizemore's Wage
Increase
New employees are paid wages as described by Presi-
dent West at the rate of $170 a week for the first month,
then raised to $180 a week for the second month, and
the third month they are raised to $215 a week. West
denied the 3-month pay progression program is a hard-
and-fast rule for every employee and explained that em-
ployees who are already trained when hired can move
up more quickly. Employees hired without experience
are on a 3-month trial period and they receive salary in-
creases during that period as indicated.
William Sizemore who worked as a mechanic was
hired on December 14, 1983, and quit about March 12 or
14.
According to West, Sizemore started at the base pay
rate. While West first said he did not know but did not
think Sizemore received increases, after that he subse-
quently testified he could not remember whether Size-
more received pay raises prior to the election.
Robert Reiman testified that about the second or third
week in February he was present during a conversation
between Sizemore" and Owner West during which Si-
zemore asked West when Sizemore was going to get his
raise. West responded by saying, "Well, until this union
business is done, I can't give no raises because it might
look like that I'm trying to give a favoritism towards
you.,,
Owner West did not specifically deny making such
statement and, based on Reiman's testimony which I
credit, I find that about the second or third week of Feb-
ruary Owner West informed William Sizemore, who
asked about a wage increase , that until the union business
was done he could not give any raises.
E. The Discriminatory Discharge of James Leonard
Sr.
James Leonard Sr. was employed by the Respondent
from May 27, 1983, until March 19 and worked as a tire
service man under the supervision of Shop Foreman
14 Reiman denied making such a statement
15 Sizemore as previously indicated did not testify
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS PETROL
Anders. His duties included changing and repairing tires
and installing earth- moving-type tires.
Leonard's union activities included initially contacting
the Union about organizing Respondent's employees, at-
tending meetings , soliciting employees to sign authoriza-
tion cards, wearing a union button at work on March 9,
and serving as the only union observer in the Board-con-
ducted election.
Robert Reiman credibly testified without denial that
about a week before the March 9 election he overheard
employee Rodney Carrothers tell Shop Foreman Anders
since Leonard was involved with this "union activity
_„216 that he felt "Leonard ought to get all the -
jobs." Anders responded by informing Carrothers that
Leonard "would get all the jobs." 17
On Friday, March 16, Leonard, while performing
work at a customer 's facility, accidently lacerated his
finger when a chain he was using on a tire snapped. Vice
President Rice gave Leonard a ride to his vehicle to go
to the doctor. Leonard went to the doctor, who treated
him and gave him a release telling him not to work until
he saw him on Monday which would have been March
19. Leonard testified he took the release to the Respond-
ent that same day and gave it to Shop Foreman Anders,
who looked at it and said, "Okay," and to take it easy.
Anders did not dispute Leonard's testimony which I
credit. Vice President Rice acknowledged Leonard in-
jured his finger and he gave him a ride to go to the
doctor. He also stated later that day Leonard gave him
the doctor's excuse but denied anything was said.
On Monday morning, March 19, on arriving at the Re-
spondent, Leonard was informed Rice wanted to see
him. Leonard testified on going to Anders' office Rice
told Leonard he was having a problem with Leonard
being hurt and also said Leonard should have come in
over the weekend and supervised if nothing else. Rice
further said he had no problem with Leonard until he
took the weekend off with his hurt finger. When Rice
mentioned a problem with the fifth gear in one of the
trucks and something about one of the other boom
trucks, Leonard informed Rice unless he had concrete
proof he would advise Rice not to make allegations to
him. Rice then told Leonard he was terminating him.
Rice also commented he did not understand what was
going on and said for awhile they "had good people and
things were getting done and then all this start-
ed. "18
Vice President Rice, who claimed he alone made the
decision to discharge Leonard,19 acknowledged dis-
charging Leonard on March 19. Rice said he told Leon-
ard he felt Leonard could have helped them out over the
weekend and with his finger being hurt he could have
gone out on a truck with another individual. When
Leonard responded he did not know he was able to do
16 The omitted word used in this conversation in a vulgar expression
for excrement
11 This conversation was not alleged as a violation
18 The omitted word is a vulgar expression for a bull's excrement and
I find that Rice in using such term in his statement was referring to union
activity
19 Although Owner West was at the plant on March 19 both West and
Rice denied they discussed discharging Leonard prior to the discharge.
167
that, he told Leonard if Leonard thought anything and
could have helped them out he felt that would have been
one way to offer. According to Rice they also talked
about Leonard's accident record. Although Leonard said
he felt he was not getting hurt that much and he could
not help getting hurt, Rice said he felt Leonard had been
getting hurt too much and with people getting hurt in-
surance rates were getting high. Rice then informed
Leonard he was terminated.
Shop Foreman Anders, who was present, corroborated
Rice's version of the discharge conversation. While Rice
stated he did not recall using the word 11"20 in the
conversation, Anders said he did not hear Rice make
such a remark.
To the extent the testimony of Leonard conflicts with
that of Vice President Rice and Shop Foreman Anders I
credit Leonard. Besides my observations of the witnesses
in discrediting Rice and Anders I do not find their testi-
mony plausible; Rice also gave contradictory testimony.
Rice, who acknowledged 'he had not previously
warned Leonard, stated he made the decision the previ-
ous Saturday to discharge Leonard. His reasons, which
he denied had anything to do with the Union, were be-
cause he felt they were short handed at the time and did
not have many big tire service people and Leonard could
have volunteered to go on the truck with another person
and supervise or tell the other person what to do to get
the job done, and also because Leonard was getting hurt
quite a bit.
Under cross-examination however Rice acknowledged
he had not asked Leonard to come in and work over the
weekend.
According to Rice, Leonard's injuries included three
finger injuries which occurred in July 1983, October
1983, and on March 16 and two head injuries which oc-
curred in August 1983 and January; he stated Leonard
lost a few days on each of those occasions.21
Leonard acknowledged having suffered a couple of in-
juries besides his finger injury on March 16. They in-
volved incidents when pieces of metal from machines
nipped him above the eye on one occasion and hit him in
the palm of his hand on the other occasion, for which he
believed he missed 1 day's work on each occasion.
Under cross-examination Leonard said an injury to his
left hand and thumb occurred in the summer of 1983 and
on January 21 he had an injury to his head which result-
ed in a concussion.
The Respondent's records of workmen's compensation
claims filed reflect Leonard suffered a finger injury on
July 16, 1983, for which he lost 1 day from work; suf-
fered an injury to his forehead on August 11, 1983, for
which he lost one-half a day from work; injured his
finger on October 5, 1983, for which he refused treat-
ment and no lost days were shown; suffered a concussion
on January 21 and lost 5 days from work; and injured his
finger on March 16 at which time he lost 3 days from
work.
20 The omitted word is the same word previously described.
21 While Leonard was off work from about February 21 until March 8
because of a minor heart attack Rice denied relying on it as a basis for his
discharge.
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rice testified that about October 20 or 21, 1983, he
had terminated another employee Danny Prather because
he was getting hurt too much. The Respondent's work-
men's compensation claims records reflect Prather in-
jured his ankle on May 3, 1982, and lost 5 days from
work; injured his shoulder and collarbone on March 3,
1983, for which no lost days were shown; and injured his
shoulder, neck, and wrist on August 2, 1983, and lost 70
days from work. Rice also stated that about the end of
June 1983 Prather was off work about 20 to 25 days as a
result of a fight in a bar.
Since Leonard's discharge he has not been offered his
job back.
F. The Transfer and Discriminatory Discharge of
Robert Reiman
Robert Reiman was employed by the Respondent from
October 10, 1983, until March 26. On being hired
Reiman stated that Owner West who hired him informed
him he was being hired as a mechanic. However, Reiman
acknowledged West did not tell him he would be doing
only mechanic's work. Owner West stated that when he
hired Reiman he discussed with him that he would be
working where they needed him and Reiman indicated
he could do anything and was willing to do anything
West needed done. According to West, the Respondent's
policy is to use employees wherever they are needed and
other employees, including mechanic J. Evilsizer have
been transferred from the mechanic's shop to the tire
shop.
From the time he was hired up until about 2 weeks
before the March 9 election, which would have been
about February 24, Reiman, who was a skilled and certi-
fied mechanic, worked as a mechanic in the machine
shop. His duties included inspecting, tuning up, and
overhauling trucks. Reiman worked under the supervi-
sion of Foreman James Emory after Emory was hired in
January.
Reiman's union activities included attending a union
meeting, signing an authorization card, and on March 8
and 9 wearing a union button at work.
About 2 weeks prior to the March 9 election Reiman
stated he had been discussing the election with employee
Daniel Morski when Foreman Emory came in and, using
profanity mentioned unions were poor and did not do
another company (which he referred to by name), any
good. Emory did not testify and I credit Reiman's undis-
puted testimony.
About February 24 Reiman was transferred to the tire
shop where he worked until his discharge under the su-
pervision of Shop Foreman Anders. Reiman stated that
on that date he was called into the office at which time
Owner West told him to report to Shop Foreman
Anders to work with him. West acknowledged transfer-
ring Reiman to the tire shop in late February. While
Reiman denied any reason was given West said he told
Reiman they were busy over there and they needed him.
West testified he made the decision to transfer Reiman
and the reason was because they were busy in the tire
shop while Reiman was not busy at the time in the me-
chanic's shop. Reiman's basic rate of pay and level of
benefits remained the same following his transfer.
Reiman had never worked in the tire shop before and
did not know how to perform the work. He described
his duties there included using a chopper to break down
tires which was back bending, dirty, and more strenuous
work than mechanic's work. Further, the work in the
tire shop was more hazardous because when work was
being performed on split rims, which is done inside a
cage, a rim could come out from between the bars of the
cage and hurt the person performing the work.
On March 9 Reiman was injured on the job when a
stack of tires being unloaded from a truck fell off and
struck him on the leg resulting in a bad sprain. He was
taken to the hospital where he was treated and told by
the doctor (who gave him a slip) to lay off from work
for a week. Following this Reiman returned to the Re-
spondent the same morning prior to the election held
that day at which time he stated he told both Vice Presi-
dent Rice and Foreman Anders the doctor did not want
him to work for a week at which time Reiman was to
report back to the doctor who would tell him whether
he could return to work then. Rice and Anders both told
Reiman not to report back until he had a return-to-work
slip.
Both Owner West and Vice President Rice acknowl-
edged Reiman was injured on the job on March 9. While
Rice denied talking to Reiman that day Anders did not
deny doing so. I credit Reiman rather than Rice for rea-
sons previously given.
About a week later Reiman stated he informed Rice
the doctor did not want to release him because the swell-
ing was too bad; he wanted him to stay off his foot and
had given him some crutches. Rice said, "Okay" and for
him not to return unless he had a return-to-work slip.
Rice then took Reiman into the mechanic's office where
Reiman stated Rice asked him whether he had stolen the
CB radio which had been on the shelf, which Reiman
denied. Rice then told him Foreman Emory had said
Reiman had taken the CB radio whereupon Reiman ac-
cused Emory of lying and said he would be happy to go
to court to prove it.
Vice President Rice acknowledged on that occasion
telling Reiman he was accused of taking the CB radio
from the wrecker, which Reiman denied, and said he
told Reiman probably the sheriffs office would contact
him.
According to Rice on March 8 Foreman Emory had
told him it had just come to his attention Reiman had
said the CB radio in the wrecker belonged to him and
Reiman had previously taken it home with him. Emory
explained his reason for waiting so long to inform Rice
was because he had an occasion the other day to be in
the wrecker and the radio was out. Rice, who said he
had remembered the CB radio being in the shop office,
then reported it to West that same day. West also stated
on March 8 Rice told him Foreman Emory had in-
formed him Reiman had taken a CB radio stored there
home and had told Emory it was his. West said he in-
structed Rice not to do anything about it that day be-
cause the election was the next day and he did not want
to cause a hassle. West said he then reported it to the
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS PETROL 169
sheriff and the deputy sheriff later took a statement from
Emory.
Reiman explained at the hearing there used to be a CB
radio in the wrecker which -he drove; however, it was
not working and when shifting to third gear it would hit
the radio . On complaining about it to his prior Foreman
Bob Ingram in December 1983 Ingram instructed him to
remov& it. Reiman then removed - the CB radio from the
wrecker and put it on a shelf in , the mechanic's 'office
where he said he last saw it when he first returned to the
Respondent following'his injury on March 9.
Reiman testified that about March 24 after the doctor
had informed him there was a possibility he might be
able to return to work the following week on light duty
he `vent to the Respondent . On seeing 'Shoo Foreman
Emory and confronting him about the accusation ' Emory
had allegedly made, to Rice about seeing Reiman steal
the CB radio Emory denied making such an ' accusation-
and -accused - Rice, of lying . 22 Emory did say the CB
radio was` missing and he had already notified Rice and
West.
Reiman stated he then went - and told Rice and Anders
what the doctor had said and they said "okay" and re-
minded him not to report ' back unless he had a return-to-
work slip by the doctor . Reiman stated he then walked
over to the mechanic 's shop ; however, Owner West 'was
there and informed him he was not allowed over there
and told him - to stay away.
On March 26 Reiman was discharged. On that, day,
Reiman testified , on going to the plant he told Rice the
doctor did not want him to work that day,but he could
start the next day on light duty. 'Pursuant to Rice's in-
quiry he showed 'Rice the , doctor's slip . ^ This slip from
Doctor Fulk dated March 26 reflects Reiman could
return to light duty on March 27 . Rice then went over
to the service bay area and handed the doctor 's slip, to
Business Manager Peter Gieschen , who returned it to
Rice, and Rice then said ' they did not have any light
work ' there. Rice further said besides it was all up in the
air about the CB business and he was going to have to
terminate Reiman unless he took a lie detector test to
prove otherwise. Reiman told ,him okay if that was what
he wanted and he , would be in touch.
Reiman, who denied taking-the,CB radio , has not re-
turned to work - nor has he ,been offered his job back
since.
Rice acknowledged that when Reiman reported back
to work on March 26 he informed Reiman in the pres-
ence of Business -Manager Peter Gieschen that he was
accused of taking . the CB .radio out of the wrecker. This
Reiman , denied and Rice said he had to believe Emory
and, if Reiman wanted to take , a lie .detector test to prove
his innocence, other than that, he would have to, termi-
nate,him for suspected- theft of company property.'
The following day ,Reiman, stated he went to the- plant
and asked Rice for a written termination notice. Rice,
who stated this ,was,the same day rather than the follow-
ing day, furnished him , a statement signed by Rice and
Gieschen which provides as follows:
22 Reiman did not confront Rice with what Emory told him
' On', Monday March -26," 1984 at 11:16, am Mr.
Robert Rieman was terminated from employment at
Southern Illinois Petrol Inc.
'Mr.' Rieman was terminated over the question of
the missing CB' radio that was 'taken - from the shop
office. A report 'has `been . filed with the Perry
County Shetrifs [sic] Department concerning ` this
radio. Mr Rice told Mr, Rieman that he could clear
himself and all questions concerning the radio by
taking a ,lie detector test. '
Vice President Rice testified that about a week or so
after his ' conversation with Reiman about March 16 he
made the decision to terminate Reiman . He claimed 'the
factor he relied on was-he had to believe Shop Foreman
Emory' over Reiman; 'he denied the Union had anything
to do with Reiman 's discharge . Rice acknowledged he
did not know for a fact Reiman had taken the CB radio;
he claimed the , only reason he' discharged Reiman was
the suspicion he had stolen the CB radio.
Rice also said he did not know- when the CB radio
was actually taken but he last saw it about late January
or early February.' Rice explained his reason for not
taking action sooner after learning about : the CB radio on
March 8 was because Reiman , was off work because of_
the injury and he felt Reiman-would not return to work.
Rice denied advising West he was going to terminate
Reiman. However', 'he acknowledged that about a week
prior to Reiman's termination ,he had talked to West
about , it. West also -denied discussing with Rice about dis-
chargmg 'Reiman; _ however, he subsequently acknowl-
edged that before Reiman was discharged they had dis-
cussed the reason. and West had agreed Reiman should
be terminated.
Both West and Rice testified that another employee
had, also been discharged on - another -occasion for suspi-
cion of theft of company property. However, West ac-
knowledged this employee , was later, rehired in March.22
F. Analysis and Conclusions
The, General Counsel contends, contrary to the Re-
spondent's denials, that the Respondent violated - Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the-Act by engaging`ih unlawful-
inter-rogations, solicitations, 'offers, surveillances , created im-'
pressions of surveillance , threats, statements,- and instruc-'
tions regarding employees '- union activities; discrimina-
torily transferred Robert Reiman ,, discharged Reiman
and James Leonard, and withheld wage increases from
William Sizemore because ' of ' their` union or protected
concerted activities; and asserts a' remedial bargaining
order is warranted because of such unfair labor practices.
Section 8(a)(1)' of 'the Act ^ prohibits an employer from
interfering 'with, restraining , and -coercing its'- employees
in the exercise of the rights , guaranteed in Section 7' of
the Act. Section'8(a)(3)of,fhe Act provides in pertinent
part: "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer
... by discrimination in regard "to hire or-'tenure o'f'em-
ployment or any term or condition of employment to en-
23 The Respondent did not have any personnel records for this em-
ployeeprior to his rehire.
170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
courage or discourage membership in any labor organi-
zation."
The test applied in determining whether a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act has occurred is "whether the
employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably
be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of em-
ployee rights under the Act." Electrical Fittings Corp.,
216 NLRB 1076 (1975). Interrogation of employees is
not illegal per se and to be unlawful under Section
8(a)(1) of the Act it must in some manner tend to re-
strain, coerce, or interfere with employee rights. See
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984). Where an em-
ployer is confronted by a union organizing campaign it
must proceed, including the granting of wage increases,
as it would have done had the union not been conduct-
ing its campaign. Russell Stover Candies, 221 NLRB 441
(1975).
The findings supra establish that on February 6 Owner
West interrogated James Leonard Sr. about his union ac-
tivities, solicited Leonard to report to Respondent who
was responsible for the union talk going on or if anyone
approached Leonard about it, and threatened Leonard if
the Union got in West did not have to furnish uniforms,
insurance, Christmas bonuses, or the weekly tank of gas
which benefits employees were then receiving; on Febru-
ary 6 Owner West interrogated Robert Reiman about his
knowledge of the Union trying to organize the Respond-
ent's employees, and solicited Reiman to find out about
the Union trying to organize the Respondent's employees
and to let West know; about February 6 Owner West in-
terrogated David Newton about his knowledge of the
Union trying to organize the Respondent's employees;
about the week of February 13 Owner West interrogated
Robert Reiman about his union activities and those of
other employees, threatened Reiman if the Union got in
the free gas, Christmas bonuses, uniforms, and other
fringe benefits could be taken away and the plant would
be closed down, solicited Reiman to find out about the
Union and to let West know, and denigrated James
Leonard Sr. by mentioning Leonard was behind the
Union and accusing Leonard of stabbing West in the
back and giving West a raw deal by trying to organize
the Respondent's employees; about the week of February
20 or 27 Owner West interrogated Robert Reiman con-
cerning what he had found out about the Union, solicited
Reiman to organize a petition and get employees to sign
it to keep the Union out and to stop the Board election,
solicited Reiman to find out what he could about the
Union and to let West know, informed Reiman if the
Union got in West would not have to bargain with it and
West would close the plant down thereby giving Reiman
the impression that union representation would be futile,
threatened Reiman with obtaining the union authoriza-
tion cards employees had signed and to fire those em-
ployees who had signed authorization cards, and offered
to pay money to keep the Union from organizing the Re-
spondent's employees; on March 9 Owner West implied-
ly threatened James Leonard Sr. if employees voted for
the Union the Respondent did not have to furnish gas,
uniforms, and other benefits; on March 8 Shop Foreman
Anders instructed Robert Reiman in the presence of
three other employees there would be no more union
campaigning; on March 9 Owner West indicated to
Reiman that he knew Reiman would vote for the Union;
and about the second or third week of February Owner
West informed William Sizemore, who asked about a
raise, that until the union business was done he could not
give any raises.
Applying the applicable law set forth above to these
findings enumerated I find such conduct interfered with,
restrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and the Re-
spondent by engaging in such conduct violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. The unlawfulness of the statement by
Owner West to Sizemore about not giving any raises
until the union business was done was based on the fact
that new employees were entitled to raises on a 3-month
pay progression program and the statement if carried out
would have precluded granting those raises solely be-
cause of the Union.
While the evidence further establishes that about Feb-
ruary 24 Shop Foreman Anders instructed Robert
Reiman and Benjamin Moss and several times afterwards
instructed Reiman not to discuss the Union on company
time absent as here any evidence about whether there
was any no-solicitation rule or whether employees were
allowed to discuss other nonwork subjects while work-
ing, I do not find such instructions by Anders standing
alone to be unlawful.
The law is well established that to discriminate against
employees in their employment because of their union
activities violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Where motivation for discharge is at issue the General
Counsel must make a prima facie showing sufficient to
support the inference that protected activity by employ-
ees was a motivating factor in an employer's decision to
discharge and the employer then has the burden of
showing that the employees would have been discharged
absent the protected activity. Wright Line, 251 NLRB
1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981),
cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v.
Transportation Management Corp., 402 U.S. 393 (1983).
Direct evidence of discriminatory motivation is not nec-
essary to support a finding of discrimination and such
intent may be inferred from the record as a whole. Heath
International, Inc., 196 NLRB 318 (1972).
Regarding the alleged withholding of William Size-
more's wage increase, while the evidence establishes that
Owner West about the second or third week of February
unlawfully informed Sizemore when he asked about a
raise that until the union business was done he could not
give any raises, no evidence was presented to show Size-
more did not actually receive any raise due. Sizemore
did not testify and West, who was the only person asked
about whether Sizemore received raises, was uncertain
and did not remember whether Sizemore received them
prior to the election. Moreover, under the Respondent's
pay progression program for new hires while it appears
Sizemore, who was hired on December 14, 1983, should
have received raises about January 14 and February 14
this was not a hard-and-fast rule for all employees; when
Sizemore inquired of West about a raise there is no
showing what particular raise he was referring to. Fur-
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS PETROL
ther, there was no showing Sizemore was either prom-
ised or otherwise entitled to a raise about March 16.
'Under these circumstances I find the evidence is insuffi-
cient to establish that the Respondent unlawfully with-
held wage increases from Sizemore about the middle of
January and February 1984, and about March 16, 1984,
as alleged.
The findings supra with respect to James Leonard Sr.
establish that he was active in the union organizing cam-
paign and served as the only union observer in the elec-
tion. Not only was the Respondent well aware of his
union activities by the union button he wore to work on
March 9 and the fact that he served as union observer on
that day but Owner West also informed Robert Reiman
he felt that Leonard was behind the Union. Further,
Leonard's supervisor, Shop Foreman Anders, indicated
to employee Rodney Carrothers about a week before the
election that Leonard would get the worst job assign-
ments because he was involved in union activity. Leon-
ard was also subjected to unlawful conduct engaged in
by Owner West including interrogation about his union
activities, solicited to report on who was responsible for
the Union, and threatened twice with loss of benefits if
the Union got in. West also denigrated Leonard to
Reiman by accusing Leonard of being behind the Union
and stabbing West in the back and giving West a raw
deal by trying to organize the Respondent's employees.
The Respondent's asserted reasons for discharging
Leonard on March 19, because he did not come in to
work over the weekend to help out and because of his
injuries on the job are unsupported by and contrary to
the evidence. Leonard was off work due to a finger
injury and not only was he under his doctor's orders not
to return to work, of which Respondent was aware, but
he was not asked to come to work that weekend. The
only employee shown to have been discharged for inju-
ries was Danny Prather who was injured on four differ-
ent occasions including one as a result of a fight in a bar,
as a result of which injuries he missed a total of about 95
to 100 clays from work, whereas Leonard who was in-
jured about four times lost a total of only about 9-1/2
days from work. Moreover, Vice President Rice implied
to Leonard at the time he discharged him that they had
good people until the union activity started.
Based on such evidence including Leonard's union ac-
tivities of which the Respondent had knowledge; Re-
spondent's unlawful conduct directed against Leonard
and in particular Owner West's expressed belief that
Leonard was responsible for and had stabbed him in the
back by trying to organize the Respondent's employees;
the Respondent's union animus as established by its un-
lawful conduct herein found; and having rejected the Re-
spondent's defense which I find was but a mere pretext
seized on to conceal its real discriminatory reason, I am
persuaded and find that the Respondent discriminatorily
discharged James Leonard Sr. on March 19, 1984, and
thereafter refused to reinstate him because of his union
activities and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
Insofar as the transfer and discharge of Robert Reiman
is concerned the evidence herein found shows that
Reiman, who was active in the Union, worked as a me-
171
chanic' in the mechanic's shop until about February 24
when he was transferred to the tire shop where he
worked until his discharge on March 26. Not only did
the Respondent have knowledge of or was aware of Rei-
man's union activities but it unsuccessfully solicited his
aid in an attempt to defeat the Union and directed cer-
tain unlawful conduct against Reiman. Owner West as
revealed by the evidence unlawfully interrogated Reiman
several times about his knowledge of the Union trying to
organize Respondent's employees and about his union ac-
tivities and those of other employees; solicited Reiman
on several occasions to find out who was trying to orga-
nize them or what he could about the Union and to let
West know which Reiman promised to do but did not;
threatened Reiman if the Union got in the employees'
fringe benefits could be taken away or would stop and
the plant would be closed down; solicited Reiman to or-
ganize a petition to keep the Union out and to stop the
Board election; informed Reiman if the Union got in
West would not have to bargain with it and he would
close the plant down, giving Reiman the impression that
union representation would be futile; threatened Reiman
with obtaining the union authorization cards employees
had signed and firing those employees who had signed
them; offered to pay money to keep the Union from or-
ganizing Respondent's employees; and on March 9 indi-
cated to Reiman that he knew Reiman, who was wearing
a union button, would vote for the Union that day. Shop
Foreman Anders, who on several occasions told Reiman
not to discuss the Union on company time, also unlaw-
fully instructed Reiman there would be no more union
campaigning.
The Respondent's reason for transferring Reiman to
the tire shop about February 24, where his rate of pay
and benefits remained the same, was because they were
busy in the tire shop and needed him there and Reiman
at the time was not busy in the mechanic's shop. No evi-
dence was proffered to dispute the validity of such
reason relating to the amount of work available in those
departments or the assertion by Owner West that it was
the Respondent's policy to use employees wherever they
were needed. Further, other employees including an-
other mechanic on another occasion had also been trans-
ferred from the mechanic shop to the tire shop. While
Reiman was hired as and worked as a mechanic before
the transfer, he admittedly was never informed he would
only be doing only mechanic's work. Under these cir-
cumstances although Reiman was active in the Union, I
find Reiman was not discriminatorily transferred from
the mechanic shop to the tire shop about late February
1984 because of union activities in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act as alleged.
However, with respect to Reiman's discharge on
March 26 the evidence shows when Reiman, who had
been off work on sick leave since the day of the election
due to a work injury, attempted to return to work on
March 26 he was terminated by Vice President Rice for
suspicion of stealing a CB radio from the Respondent's
plant. While Rice claimed that Foreman Emory, who did
not testify to support such accusation, had reported to
him on March 8 Reiman had previously claimed the CB
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
radio was his and had taken it home with him, Reiman
denied taking the CB radio which he saw at the plant
while he was still on sick leave. Upon Reiman confront-
ing Emory about the accusation Emory denied it and ac-
cused Rice of lying. I credit Reiman rather than the un-
supported and contradicted testimony of Rice and I find
that Reiman neither took the CB radio nor did Emory
inform Rice he did. Further, Rice's claim that he delayed
in discharging Reiman after learning of the CB radio be-
cause he felt Reiman would not return to work after his
injury is refuted by the evidence, which shows Reiman
kept Rice informed about his doctor's instructions on
when he could return to work which clearly indicated
Reiman planned to return. Under the circumstances set
forth above, including Reiman's union activities of which
the Respondent had knowledge; the Respondent's unlaw-
ful conduct directed against Reiman because of his union
activities herein found; the Respondent's union animus as
established by its unlawful conduct herein found; and
having rejected the Respondent's defense which I find is
a mere pretext to conceal the real discriminatory reason,
I am persuaded and find the Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Robert Reiman on March 26, 1984, and
thereafter refused to reinstate him because of his union
activities and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
The remaining issue to be resolved is whether a reme-
dial bargaining order is warranted. Under the general
principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Gissel24
applicable to the issuance of bargaining orders, such
orders are authorized to redress those unfair labor prac-
tices so coercive that, even in the absence of an 8(a)(5)
violation of the Act, a bargaining order would be neces-
sary to repair the unlawful effects of such unfair labor
practices and additionally in those less extraordinary
cases marked by less pervasive practices which nonethe-
less still have the tendency to undermine majority
strength and impede the election process. In the latter in-
stance the Board is to determine the nature and extent of
the employer's unlawful conduct and to ascertain wheth-
er use of traditional remedies would ensure a fair elec-
tion.
Where an election has been held a bargaining order
will not be issued where otherwise appropriate unless the
election is set aside on meritorious objections filed in the
representation case. Irving Air Chute Co., 149 NLRB 627
(1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1965).
A remedial bargaining order to be issued requires a
showing that a union represented a majority of the em-
ployer's employees in an appropriate unit. Gourmet
Foods, 270 NLRB 578 (1984). Unambiguous authoriza-
tion cards are invalid because of misrepresentations only
if employees are told or intentionally led to believe that
the sole purpose of the card is to secure an election. Wal-
green Co., 221 NLRB 1096 (1975).
While the union authorization cards signed by the em-
ployees in the instant case are clear and unambiguous on
their face authorizing the Union to act as their bargain-
ing representative, the findings supra, however, establish
that the employees were solicited and signed such cards
24 NLRB v Gissel Packing Co., 395 U S 575 (1969)
solely for the purpose of getting an election. Thus, the
cards are invalid for the purpose of establishing that the
Union represented a majority of the Respondent's em-
ployees and absent, as here, a showing of a majority
status by the Union no bargaining order could be issued
even if it might otherwise be warranted to remedy the
unfair labor practices herein found.25
G. The Objections to the Elections
Having found the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by Owner West on February 6 threatening
James Leonard Sr. if the Union got in West did not have
to furnish uniforms, insurance, Christmas bonuses, or the
weekly tank of gas; on February 6 interrogating James
Leonard Sr., Robert Reiman, and David Newton about
the Union; about the week of February 13 mentioning
James Leonard Sr. was behind the Union; about the
week of February 13 threatening Robert Reiman if the
Union got in the plant would be closed down; and about
the week of February 20 or 27 informing Robert Reiman
if the Union got in West would not have to bargain with
it and West would close the plant down thereby giving
Reiman the impression that union representation would
be futile, and further findings, although not alleged as
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, that about the
week February 20 or 27 Owner West indicated to
Robert Reiman he knew the identities of those employ-
ees who were both for and against the Union and he was
going to get the union authorization cards even if he had
to pay to get them, and such conduct all occurring
during the critical period between the filing of the peti-
tion on February 3 and the holding of the election on
March 9, I find the Union's Objections 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7,
and part A and part B of "Other Acts and Conduct"
enumerated supra all have merit and are sustained. Inso-
far as the remaining Union's Objections 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11,
13, 14, and 15 and part E of "Other Acts and Conduct"
are concerned, I find they are unsupported by the evi-
dence and lack merit and are overruled.
The Board has long held that conduct violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act is, a fortiori, conduct which
interferes with the laboratory conditions of an election.
Life Savers, Inc., 264 NLRB 1257 (1982); and Dal-Tex
Optical Co., 137 NLRB 1782, 1786 (1962).
Having found the Union's Objections 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7
and part A and part B of "Other Acts and Conduct"
have merit and should be sustained, I find such conduct
was sufficient to have interfered with the election held
on March 9, and to warrant setting the election aside.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above, found to constitute unfair labor practices oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the Re-
spondent described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
25 Since no bargaining order can issue I do not find it necessary to
determine whether the unfair labor practices are sufficient to warrant
such an order.
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS PETROL 173
commerce among the several States an d tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.`
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Southern Illinois Petrol, Inc. is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2,' Teamsters Local 347, affiliated with International
Brotherhood-of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees about their union activi-
ties and those of other employees, about their knowledge
of the Union trying to organize the Respondent's em-
ployees, and about what they-have found out about the
Union; by soliciting employees to find out about and to
report to the Respondent "about the Union trying to or-
ganize-the Respondent's employees and who was respon-
sible for the union talk going on or if anyone approached
the -employees 'about it; by threatening or impliedly
threatening employees, if the Union got in or if employ-
ees'voted for the Union the Respondent did not have to
furnish - uniforms, insurance, Christmas bonuses, the
weekly tank of gasoline, and other fringe benefits ` em-
ployees were then receiving or that such benefits could
be taken away; by threatening employees if the" Union
got in the plant would be closed down; by denigrating
an employee by mentioning the employee was behind the
Union and accusing the employee of stabbing Respond-
ent's owner in the back and giving the owner a raw deal
by trying to organize the Respondent's employees; by so-
liciting an employee to organize a petition and get em-
ployees to sign it to keep the Union out and to stop the
Board election; by informing an -employee if the Union
got in the Respondent would not have to bargain with it
and the Respondent would close the plant down thereby
giving the employee the impression that union represen-
tation would be futile; by threatening an employee with
obtaining the union authorization cards employees had
signed and to fire those employees who have signed such
cards; by offering to pay money to keep the Union from
organizing the Respondent's employees; by instructing an
employee in the presence of other employees that there
would be no more union campaigning ; by indicating to
an employee that the Respondent knew the employee
would vote for the Union; and by informing an employ-
ee who asked about a raise that,- until the union business
was done, the Respondent could not give any raises, the
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of, the Act and has engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation,of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminatorily discharging James Leonard Sr.
on March 19,,1984, and Robert Reiman on March 26,
1984, and thereafter refusing to reinstate them because of
their union activities, the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
5. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Union's Objections 1, 3, 4,'6, and 7 and part A
and part B of "Other Acts and Conduct" 'all occurring
during the critical period have been sustained by the evi-
dence and the Respondent has thereby interfered with
and illegally affected the,results of the election held on
March 9, 1984.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(!') and ' (3) of the Act, I shall recommend -that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain' affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, the Respondent shall be ordered to' offer
immediate and full -reinstatement to James Leonard Sr.
and to Robert 'Reiman to' their former jobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs with-
out prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges and make them whole for any loss, of earnings
and other, compensation- they may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination'against them in their employ-
ment herein found by discriminatorily discharging James
Leonard Sr., on March 19, 1984,, and Robert Reiman on
March 26, 1984, and thereafter refusing ,to reinstate them.
,pay shall' be computed, in, , accordance with _ theBack
manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in Florida Steel
Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See generally Isis Plumbing
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
The Respondent shall also be ordered to expunge from
its files any references to the discriminatory discharges -of
James Leonard Sr. and Robert Reiman and the refusals
to reinstate them and to notify both Leonard and Reiman
in writing that this has been done and that evidence of
its unlawful conduct will not be usedoas a basis for future
personnel actions against them.
Further, ' in Case-,1,4-RC-9828 -having found that cer-
tain objections to the conduct of the election sufficient to
warrant setting 'aside the election were sustained by the
evidence, I shall recommend that 'the election held - on
March 9, 1984,' be set aside -and the case 'be remanded to
the Regional Director for Region 14 and a new election
shall be conducted.
On these findings of fact and conclusions, of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed26
ORDER -
The Respondent, Southern Illinois Petrol, Inc., Du-
Quoin, Illinois, by its officers, agents, successors, and
assign, shall. - '
1. -Cease and desist from
(a) `Interrogating employees about their union activities
and those of other employees, about their knowledge of
2 s If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and -Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the, Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union trying to organize the Respondent's employ-
ees, and about what they find out about the Union.
(b) Soliciting employees to find out about and to
report to the Respondent about the Union trying to or-
ganize the Respondent's employees and who is responsi-
ble for the union talk going on or if anyone approaches
the employees about it.
(c) Threatening or impliedly threatening employees if
the Union gets in or if employees vote for the Union the
Respondent does not have to furnish uniforms, insurance,
Christmas bonuses, the weekly tank of gasoline, and
other fringe benefits employees are receiving or that
such benefits could be taken away.
(d) Threatening employees that if the Union gets in the
plant would be closed down.
(e) Denigrating employees by mentioning the employ-
ees are behind the Union and accusing the employees of
stabbing Respondent's owner in the back and giving the
owner a raw deal by trying to organize the Respondent's
employees.
(f) Soliciting employees to organize a petition and get
employees to sign it to keep the Union out and to stop
the Board election.
(g) Informing employees if the Union gets in the Re-
spondent would not have to bargain with it and the Re-
spondent would close the plant down thereby giving em-
ployees the impression that union representation would
be futile.
(h) Threatening employees with obtaining the union
authorization cards employees sign and to fire those em-
ployees who sign such cards.
(i) Offering to pay money to keep the Union from or-
ganizing the Respondent's employees.
(j) Instructing employees that there will be no more
union campaigning.
(k) Indicating to employees that the Respondent
knows the employees would vote for the Union.
(1) Informing employees who ask about raises that until
the union business is done the Respondent cannot give
any raises.
(m) Discouraging membership and activities in Team-
sters Local 347, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization, by discharg-
ing, refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner dis-
criminating against employees in regard to hire and
tenure of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment.
(n) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to James
Leonard Sr. and to Robert Reiman to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, then to substantially
equivalent jobs without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges and make them whole for any
loss of earnings and other compensation they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by
discriminatorily discharging Leonard on March 19, 1984,
and Reiman on March 26, 1984, and thereafter refusing
to reinstate them in the manner set forth in that section
of this decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Expunge from its files any references to the dis-
criminatory discharges of James Leonard Sr. on March
19, 1984, and Robert Reiman on March 26, 1984, and the
refusals to reinstate them and notify each of them in
writing this has been done and that evidence of its un-
lawful conduct will not be used a basis for future person-
nel actions against them.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze and determine the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its DuQuoin, Illinois plant copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."27 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended consolidat-
ed complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor
practices not specifically found herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in Case 14-RC-9828 that the
election held on March 9, 1984, is set aside and the case
is remanded to the Regional Director for Region 14,
who shall conduct a new election in the appropriate unit
at such time as he deems the circumstances permit the
free choice of a bargaining representative.
27 If 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 Nation-
al 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 "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their
union activities and those of other employees, about their
knowledge of the Union trying to organize our employ-
ees, and about what they find out about the Union.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to find out about
and to report to us about the Union trying to organize
our employees and who is responsible for the union talk
going on or if anyone approaches our employees about
it.
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS PETROL 175
WE WILL NOT threaten or impliedly threaten our em-
ployees if the Union gets in or if employees vote for the
Union that we do not have to furnish uniforms , insur-
ance, Christmas bonuses, the weekly tank of gasoline,
and other fringe benefits our employees are receiving or
that such benefits could be taken away.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that if the
Union gets in the plant would be closed down.
WE WILL NOT denigrate our employees by mentioning
the employees are behind the Union and accusing the
employees of stabbing our owner in the back and giving
the owner a ra'w deal by trying to organize our employ-
ees.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to organize a peti-
tion and get employees to sign it to keep the Union out
and to stop the Board election.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees if the Union gets
in we would not have to bargain with it and we would
close the plant down thereby giving employees the im-
pression that union representation would be futile.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with obtaining
the union authorization cards employees sign and to fire
those employees who sign such cards.
WE WILL NOT offer to pay money to keep the Union
from organizing our employees.
WE WILL NOT instruct our employees that there will
be no more union campaigning.
WE WILL NOT indicate to our employees that we
know they would vote for the Union.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees who ask about
raises that until the union business is done we cannot
give any raises.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership and activities in
Teamsters Local 347, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, by
discharging , refusing to reinstate , or any other manner
discriminating against employees in regard to hire and
tenure of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer James Leonard Sr . and Robert Reiman
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or,
if those jobs no longer exist, to a substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to their seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE WILL
make them whole for any loss of earnings and other ben-
efits resulting from their discharge , less any net interim
earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL expunge from our files any references to the
discharges of James Leonard Sr . on March 19 , 1984, and
Robert Reiman on March 26, 1984 , and WE WILL notify
each of them in writing this has been done and that evi-
dence of our unlawful conduct will not be used as a basis
for future personnel actions against them.
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS PETROL, INC.