Standard Plumbing & Appliance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 2, 2009

354 NLRB No. 40 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

354 NLRB No. 40
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Standard Plumbing & Appliance Co., Inc. and
Plumbers Local No. 15. Cases 18–CA–18966 and
18–CA–19001
July 2, 2009
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case on the ground that the Respondent has withdrawn its
answers to the complaint and consolidated complaint.
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed on February
5 and March 5, 2009, respectively, in Case 18–CA–
18966, and a charge filed on March 16, 2009, in Case
18–CA–19001, by Plumbers Local Union No. 15 (the
Union), the General Counsel issued an order consolidat-
ing cases and consolidated complaint on April 8, 2009,
against Standard Plumbing & Appliance Co., Inc. (the
Respondent) alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(5),
(3), and (1) of the Act. The Respondent filed answers to
the complaint and the consolidated complaint. However,
on May 5, 2009, the Respondent withdrew its answers.
On May 21, 2009, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Default Judgment with the Board. On May 26, 2009,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to
the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion
should not be granted.1 The Respondent filed no re-
sponse. The allegations in the motion are therefore un-
disputed.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment2
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the allegations in the complaint shall be

1 On May 28, 2009, an Order correcting the Notice to Show Cause
was issued. The Respondent filed no response.
2 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act. See Snell Island SNF LLC v. NLRB, __ F.3d
__, 2009 WL 1676116 (2d Cir. June 17, 2009); New Process Steel v.
NLRB, 564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed __
U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. May 27, 2009) (No. 08-1457); Northeastern Land
Services v. NLRB, 560 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2009), rehearing denied No.
08-1878 (May 20, 2009). But see Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake
Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 2009), petitions for re-
hearing denied Nos. 08-1162, 08-1214 (July 1, 2009).
deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days
from service of the complaint, unless good cause is
shown. In addition, the complaint and consolidated com-
plaint separately and affirmatively stated that the answers
must be received by the Regional Office on or before
March 24 and April 22, 2009, respectively. Although the
Respondent filed separate answers to the complaint and
consolidated complaint, it subsequently withdrew those
answers at the hearing held on May 5, 2009. The with-
drawal of an answer has the same effect as a failure to
file an answer, i.e., the allegations in the complaint and
consolidated complaint must be considered to be true.3
Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel’s Motion for
Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a Minnesota
corporation with an office and place of business in St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, has been a plumbing contractor
for residential customers. During the 12-month period
preceding the issuance of the consolidated complaint, the
Respondent, in conducting its business operations de-
scribed above, purchased and received at its St. Louis
Park, Minnesota facility goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 from SPS Companies Inc., located in
St. Louis Park, Minnesota, which in turn received these
goods and materials directly from points located outside
the State of Minnesota. During the 12-month period pre-
ceding the issuance of the consolidated complaint, the
Respondent, in conducting its business operations de-
scribed above, derived gross revenue from the sale of
goods and services in excess of $500,000.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act and that Plumbers Local No. 15 is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals held
the positions set forth opposite their respective names
and have been supervisors of the Respondent within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act:
Derek Judkins - Owner and Chief Executive Officer
Ollie Ness - Owner

3 See Maislin Transport, 274 NLRB 529 (1985).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
The following employees of the Respondent (the unit)
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive-bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All journeymen, foremen, general foremen and appren-
tices employed at Respondent’s 8015 Minnetonka
Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota facility; exclud-
ing all other employees including administrative and
office clerical employees, and guards and supervisors
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
On a date not precisely known by the General Counsel
but prior to December 31, 2006, the Respondent, an em-
ployer engaged in the building and construction industry,
agreed to be bound by the collective-bargaining agree-
ments between the Union and Metro Association of
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors, Inc. (PHCC).
At all material times prior to April 30, 2008, the Re-
spondent was bound to collective-bargaining agreements
between the Union and PHCC, including an agreement
effective from May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2008.
By the conduct described above, at all material times
prior to April 30, 2008, the Respondent recognized the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of a multiemployer collective-bargaining unit with-
out regard to whether the majority status of the Union
had ever been established under the provisions of Section
9(a) of the Act.
In about January 2007, PHCC expelled the Respondent
from membership in the PHCC.
On about May 1, 2008, the Respondent, by adopting
the collective-bargaining agreement described below,
recognized the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the unit
without regard to whether the majority status of the Un-
ion had ever been established under the provisions of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
At all material times, based on Section 9(a) of the Act,
the Union has been the limited exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit.4

4 The consolidated complaint alleges that Respondent is a plumbing
contractor and an employer engaged in the building and construction
industry. Since the Respondent withdrew its answer to the consolidated
complaint denying the allegation that it is not an employer engaged in
the building and construction industry, the withdrawal of the answer
has the same effect as a failure to file an answer, i.e., the allegations in
the consolidated complaint must be considered to be true. See Maislin
Transport, supra. Further, the consolidated complaint alleges that the
Respondent granted recognition to the Union without regard to whether
the Union had established majority status. Accordingly, we find that
the relationship was entered into pursuant to Sec. 8(f) of the Act and
that the Union is therefore the limited 9(a) representative of the unit
On about May 1, 2008, the Union and the Respondent
reached complete agreement on the terms and conditions
of employment of the unit when the Respondent adopted
the collective-bargaining agreement between the Union
and PHCC effective from May 1, 2008, to April 30, 2011
(the 2008–2011 Agreement). In about November 2008,
the Union requested the Respondent to execute a written
contract containing the 2008–2011 Agreement.
1. Since about November 2008, the Respondent, by
Derek Judkins, has failed and refused to execute the
2008–2011 Agreement.
2. In about November 2008, the Respondent notified
the Union that it was withdrawing recognition from the
Union as the limited exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the unit effective immediately or in the
alternative, no later than on January 1, 2009.
3. In about November 2008, but no later than January
1, 2009, the Respondent withdrew recognition from the
Union as the limited exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the unit.
4. In November 2008, the Respondent ceased making
contributions to the Union’s medical, pension, appren-
ticeship, and training funds, as required by the 2008–
2011 Agreement.
5. Effective January 1, 2009, the Respondent imple-
mented wage rates and other terms and conditions of
employment inconsistent with the terms and conditions
of the 2008–2011 Agreement.
The subjects set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5 relate to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the unit and are mandatory subjects for the
purposes of collective bargaining, and the Respondent
engaged in the conduct without prior notice to the Union.
By the conduct described above in paragraphs 4 and 5,
the Respondent failed to continue in effect the terms and
conditions of the 2008–2011 Agreement, and thereby
modified the 2008–2011 Agreement without the Union’s
consent.
6. On about January 1, 2009, the Respondent caused
the termination of its employee Carl Mayfield by requir-
ing him either to quit or to agree to the terms and condi-
tions of employment the Respondent unilaterally imple-
mented.
The Respondent engaged in the conduct described in
paragraph 6 because Mayfield and other employees sup-
ported or assisted the Union, and to discourage employ-
ees from engaging in those activities.

employees for the period covered by the contract. See, e.g., A.S.B.
Cloture, Ltd., 313 NLRB 1012 (1994).
STANDARD PLUMBING & APPLIANCE CO. 3
7. Since about November 2008, the Respondent, by
Derek Judkins, engaged in the following acts and con-
duct.
(a) In about November 2008, at the Respondent’s St.
Louis Park, Minnesota facility, Judkins threatened an
employee that the Respondent intended to be nonunion
and to no longer abide by the 2008–2011 Agreement.
(b) In about December 2008, at the Respondent’s St.
Louis Park, Minnesota facility, Judkins informed an em-
ployee that the employee would receive benefits different
from those described in the 2008–2011 Agreement, in
spite of the fact that the Agreement had not expired.
(c) On about March 9, 2009, in a telephone call, Jud-
kins threatened and interrogated an employee concerning
the employee’s role with respect to an investigation con-
ducted by the Board.
By engaging in the conduct described in paragraph 7,
the Respondent has interfered with, restrained or coerced
its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described in paragraphs 1 through
5, the Respondent has been failing and refusing to bar-
gain collectively with the limited exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees within the
meaning of Section 8(d) of the Act, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. By the acts and conduct
described in paragraphs 4 and 5, the Respondent has
failed to continue in effect all the terms and conditions of
the 2008–2011 Agreement, and thereby modified the
Agreement without the Union’s consent.
2. By the conduct described in paragraph 6, the Re-
spondent has been discriminating in regard to the hire or
tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its em-
ployees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
3. By the conduct described in paragraph 7, the Re-
spondent has been interfering with, restraining, and co-
ercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent de-
scribed above affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) by laying off Carl Mayfield on about January 1,
2009, we shall order the Respondent to offer Mayfield
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed. Further, the Respondent shall
make Mayfield whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
him. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F.
W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest
as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987). The Respondent shall also be re-
quired to expunge from its files any and all references to
the unlawful layoff of Carl Mayfield, and to notify him
in writing that this has been done and that the unlawful
layoff will not be used against him in any way.
In addition, having found that the Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing since
about November 2008, to execute a written contract con-
taining the 2008–2011 Agreement, we shall order the
Respondent to execute and implement a written contract
containing the 2008–2011 Agreement and give retroac-
tive effect to its terms. We shall also order the Respon-
dent to make the unit employees whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits they may have suffered as a
result of the Respondent’s refusal to execute the 2008-
2011 Agreement, in the manner set forth in Ogle Protec-
tion Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502
(6th Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed in New Hori-
zons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).5
Further, having found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to continue in effect all
the terms and conditions of the 2008–2011 Agreement by
withdrawing recognition from the Union since November
2008, but no later than January 1, 2009, and unilaterally
implementing wage rates and other terms and conditions
of employment inconsistent with the terms and condi-
tions of the 2008–2011 Agreement, we shall order the
Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union,
rescind the unilateral changes, restore the status quo ante,
and make the unit employees whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits attributable to its unlawful con-
duct. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with
Ogle Protection Service, supra, with interest as pre-
scribed in New Horizon for the Retarded, supra.
Finally, having found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to continue in effect all

5 In the consolidated complaint, the General Counsel seeks com-
pound interest computed on a quarterly basis for any backpay or other
monetary awards. Having duly considered the matter, we are not pre-
pared at this time to deviate from our current practice of assessing
simple interest. See, e.g., Glen Rock Ham, 352 NLRB 516 fn. 1 (2008),
citing Rogers Corp., 344 NLRB 504 (2005).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
the terms and conditions of the 2008–2011 Agreement by
failing, since November 2008, to make the contractually-
required contributions to the Union’s medical, pension,
apprenticeship, and training funds pursuant to the Agree-
ment, we shall order the Respondent to make all required
benefit fund contributions that have not been made since
November 2008, including any additional amounts appli-
cable to such funds as set forth in Merryweather Optical
Co., 240 NLRB 1213, 1216 fn. 7 (1979).6 Further, the
Respondent shall reimburse unit employees for any ex-
penses ensuing from the Respondent’s failure to make
the required contributions to the funds, as set forth in
Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn. 2 (1980),
enfd. mem. 661 F. 2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981). Such amounts
are to be computed in the manner set forth in Ogle Pro-
tection Service, supra, with interest as prescribed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, supra.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Standard Plumbing & Appliance Co., Inc.,
St. Louis Park, Minnesota, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to execute a written contract
containing the collective-bargaining agreement between
the Plumbers Local No. 15, the limited exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the
unit below, and Metro Association of Plumbing-Heating
Cooling Contractors, Inc. (PHCC), effective from May 1,
2008 to April 30, 2011 (the 2008–2011 Agreement). The
unit is:
All journeymen, foremen, general foremen and appren-
tices employed at Respondent’s 8015 Minnetonka
Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota facility; exclud-
ing all other employees including administrative and
office clerical employees, and guards and supervisors
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
(b) Failing and refusing since November 2008, but no
later than January 1, 2008, to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the Union by withdrawing recognition
from the Union, as the limited exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit.
(c) Failing to continue in effect all the terms and con-
ditions of the 2008–2011 Agreement by failing, since

6 To the extent that an employee has made personal contributions to
a benefit or other fund that have been accepted by the fund in lieu of
the Respondent’s delinquent contributions to the funds during the pe-
riod of the delinquency, the Respondent will reimburse the employee,
but the amount of such reimbursement will constitute a setoff to any
amount that the Respondent otherwise owes the funds.
November 2008, to make the contractually-required con-
tributions to the Union’s medical, pension, apprentice-
ship, and training funds.
(d) Unilaterally implementing wage rates and other
terms and conditions of employment inconsistent with
the terms and conditions of the 2008–2011 Agreement
without prior notice to the Union and without affording
the Union an opportunity to bargain with respect to this
conduct and the effects of this conduct.
(e) Causing the termination of employees by requiring
them to either quit or agree to the terms and conditions of
employment the Respondent unilaterally implemented
because the employees supported or assisted the Union
and to discourage employees from engaging in those
activities.
(f) Threatening employees that the Respondent in-
tended to be nonunion and to no longer abide by the
2008–2011 Agreement.
(g) Informing employees that they would receive bene-
fits different from those described in the 2008–2011
Agreement.
(h) Threatening and interrogating employees concern-
ing their role with respect to an investigation conducted
by the Board.
(i) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Execute and implement a written contract contain-
ing the 2008–2011 Agreement, and give retroactive ef-
fect to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
(b) Make the unit employees whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits they may have suffered as a
result of the Respondent’s unlawful refusal to execute the
2008–2011 Agreement, with interest, in the manner set
forth in remedy section of this decision.
(c) Recognize and bargain in good faith with the Union
as the limited exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the unit employees.
(d) Rescind the unilateral implemented wage rates and
other terms and conditions of employment inconsistent
with the terms and conditions of the 2008–2011 Agree-
ment.
(e) Restore the status quo ante of the 2008–2011
Agreement, and make the unit employees whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits attributable to this
unlawful conduct, with interest, in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of this decision.
(f) Continue in effect all the terms and conditions of
the 2008–2011 Agreement by making all the required
benefit fund contributions to the Union’s medical, pen-
STANDARD PLUMBING & APPLIANCE CO. 5
sion, apprenticeship, and training funds that have not
been made since November 2008, with interest, in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(g) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Carl Mayfield full reinstatement to his former job or, if
that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(h) Make Carl Mayfield whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the Respon-
dent’s unlawful conduct, with interest, in the manner
section forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(i) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files all references to the unlawful termination of
Carl Mayfield, and within 3 days thereafter, notify him in
writing that this has been done and that the unlawful ter-
mination will not be used against him in any way.
(j) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(k) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”7 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 18, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facil-
ity involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no-
tice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time since November
2008.
(l) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-

7 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. July 2, 2009
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to execute a written con-
tract containing the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Plumbers Local No. 15, the limited exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the unit below, and Metro Association of Plumbing-
Heating Cooling Contractors, Inc. (PHCC), effective
from May 1, 2008, to April 30, 2011 (the 2008–2011
Agreement). The unit is:
All journeymen, foremen, general foremen and appren-
tices employed at our 8015 Minnetonka Boulevard, St.
Louis Park, Minnesota facility; excluding all other em-
ployees including administrative and office clerical
employees, and guards and supervisors as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively
and in good faith with the Union by withdrawing recog-
nition from the Union, as the limited exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the unit.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
WE WILL NOT fail to continue in effect all the terms
and conditions of the 2008–2011 Agreement by failing to
make the contractually-required contributions to the Un-
ion’s medical, pension, apprenticeship, and training
funds.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally implement wage rates and
other terms and conditions of employment inconsistent
with the terms and conditions of the 2008–2011 Agree-
ment, without prior notice to the Union and without af-
fording the Union an opportunity to bargain with respect
to such conduct and the effects of such conduct.
WE WILL NOT cause the termination of employees by
requiring them to either quit or agree to the terms and
conditions of employment we unilaterally implemented
because the employees supported or assisted the Union
and to discourage employees from engaging in those
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that we intended to
be nonunion and to no longer abide by the 2008–2011
Agreement.
WE WILL NOT inform employees that they would re-
ceive benefits different from those described in the
2008–2011 Agreement.
WE WILL NOT threaten and interrogate employees con-
cerning their role with respect to an investigation con-
ducted by the Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL execute and implement a written contract
containing the 2008–2011 Agreement and give retroac-
tive effect to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
WE WILL make the unit employees whole for any loss
of earnings and other benefits they may have suffered as
a result of our unlawful refusal to execute the 2008–2011
Agreement, with interest.
WE WILL recognize and bargain in good faith with the
Union, as the limited exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit employees.
WE WILL rescind the unilateral implemented wage
rates and other terms and conditions of employment in-
consistent with the terms and conditions of the 2008–
2011 Agreement.
WE WILL restore the status quo ante of the 2008–2011
Agreement, and make the unit employees whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits attributable to this
unlawful conduct, with interest.
WE WILL continue in effect all the terms and condi-
tions of the 2008–2011 Agreement by making all the
required benefit fund contributions to the Union’s medi-
cal, pension, apprenticeship, and training funds that have
not been made since November 2008, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order,
offer Carl Mayfield full reinstatement to his former job
or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equiva-
lent job, without prejudice to his seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Carl Mayfield whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
Respondent’s unlawful conduct, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order,
remove from our files all references to the unlawful ter-
mination of Carl Mayfield, and WE WILL, within 3 days
thereafter, notify him in writing that this has been done
and that the unlawful termination will not be used against
him in any way.
STANDARD PLUMBING AND APPLIANCE CO.,
INC.