Standard Tank Cleaning Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1972

197 N.L.R.B. 873 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

STANDARD TANK CLEANING CORP. 873
Standard Tank Cleaning Corporation and Oil Sales
and Processing Company and Paul Bass. Cases
29-CA-2388 and 29-CA-2443
June 22, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On February 23, 1972, Trial Examiner Herzel H. E.
Plaine issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
limited exceptions, a supporting brief, and a brief in
support of parts of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order, as modified herein.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of
the Act by refusing to reemploy Paul Bass, a
discharged employee, because of his activities on
behalf of the Union, and because he filed unfair
labor practice charges with the Board against
Respondent. While the Trial Examiner made factual
findings that during an April 23, 1971,' conversation
with Bass, Respondent's General Manager Berman
accused him of having tried to organize the nonunion
men and stated that if he took Bass back that he
(Berman) was not going to have Bass organize the
place, he made no findings that such conduct
independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.2
We find merit in the General Counsel's exceptions to
this omission by the Trial Examiner. Accordingly, we
find such statements constituted unlawful interroga-
tion; a warning to refrain from union activity, an
offer of reemployment conditioned upon the aban-
donment of Section 7 rights, and a threat of reprisal
if Bass was active on behalf of the Union, all in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and further
evidencing the union animus and discriminatory
motivation which resulted in Respondent's refusal to
reemploy Bass. Accordingly, we shall modify the
Order and notice.
2. The Trial Examiner recommended that Re-
spondent be ordered to reimburse Bass for wages lost
from April 23, 1971, the date of the discriminatory
refusal to reemploy, until June 29, 1971, the day on
which Bass was notified to report to work. General
Counsel has excepted to backpay being tolled as of
June 29.
The record reveals that around 10 a.m. on June 29,
Bass received Respondent's letter addressed to him
at Carle Place, New York, telling him to report for
work at 8 a.m. that morning at Bayonne, New Jersey.
Bass immediately telephoned Berman , telling him
that he had just received the letter, that he would
start for the jobsite later, but that it would be
impossible to arrive at the job until sometime in the
afternoon. Berman did not tell him to come in that
day. Bass then asked if he could start on the
following day (Friday). Berman said no because it
was a day for which Respondent would have to pay
Bass time and a half. When Berman refused to allow
Bass to start on Monday, July 5, on grounds it was a
double time day, he asked Bass if he would come in
on Tuesday, July 6. Bass agreed and began work on
that day. Thus, as Bass did not receive the report for
work notice until near midday on June 29, he was
clearly entitled to a reasonable period of time to
report to work. As he was prevented by Respondent
from reporting to work until July 6, we shall extend
the backpay period to that date and amend the Order
and notice accordingly .3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner as herein amended
and hereby orders that Respondent, Standard Tank
Cleaning Corporation, and Oil Sales and Processing
Company, Staten Island, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended
Order, as modified below:
1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(a) of the
Trial Examiner's recommended Order and renumber
the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(a) Interrogating, threatening, or warning its
employees about their union activities and condition-
ing their employment on the abandonment of union
activities."
2. In paragraph 2(a) substitute the date July 6,
1971, for the date June 29, 1971.
3. Substitute the attached notice for-the Trial
Examiner's notice.
All dates are in 1971
2 Berman admitted having asked Bass, "what 's the idea of the business
with the union here" and " . what are you doing with the union9"
3 Member Kennedy agrees with his colleagues that Respondent 's failure
to hire Bass on May 11, 1971. violated Sec 8(a)(4) of the Act Accordingly,
he would begin the backpay period on that date rather than April 23, 1971
197 NLRB No. 143
874
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found,
after a trial, that we violated the National Labor
Relations Act:
WE WILL NOT interrogate and threaten or warn
you about your union activities. Nor will we
condition your employment on your abandoning
union activities.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to hire or rehire you
because of your union sympathies, or because you
engage in union activities, or because you recruit
other employees to become members of the
Union, or because you have filed charges against
us under the National Labor Relations Act. ' 1
WE WILL NOT, in any like manner, discriminate
against you to discourage your membership in a
labor union or interfere with your right to join,
assist, or be represented by, a labor union, or
interfere with your other rights of self-organiza-
tion and mutual aid guaranteed by Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
Since the Board found that we failed to reemploy
Paul Bass in the period April 23-July 6, 1971,
because of his union activity, and because he filed
charges against us under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act,
WE WILL give him backpay with interest for
that period of time.
APPENDIX
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STANDARD TANK
CLEANING CORPORATION
AND OIL SALES AND
PROCESSING COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
I The first charge, of May 10, had alleged a discriminatory discharge of
Bass on January I and refusal to reemploy him, in violation of Sec 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act The Regional Director, on investigation, refused to issue
a complaint on the discharge portion of the charge but processed a
complaint, in Case 2388, on the failure-to-reemploy aspect Letter to Bass
June 30, 1971, Exh R-1 The action of the Regional Director was affirmed
Board's Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor,
Brooklyn, N. Y. 11241, Telephone 212-596-3535.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
HERZEL H. E. PLAINE, Trial Examiner: The question
presented was whether Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act) by failing to reemploy the Charging Party (Bass)
in the period April 23-June 29, 1971, because of his union
activities on behalf of Respondent's nonunion employees
and because he filed a charge with the Board against
Respondent on his own behalf.
Bass was an employee of Respondent, skilled in the
handling of ships, who was discharged on January 1, 1971,
allegedly for failing to report for duty. His job had been
pier "foreman" at Bayonne, New Jersey, assisting in the
cleaning out of oil and gas residues from tankers and from
the tanks of other ships engaged in the coastal traffic. On
April 23, 1971, he was told by Respondent that he would
be reemployed, not in his former job, but on the barge
Peter Frank, a boat specially outfitted for the cleaning of
oil and gas residues from ship tanks. Bass accepted, but
nevertheless was not put to work until July 6, 1971.
Respondent variously claimed that it was not ready to use
Bass, or that the barge was not ready for him, until the end
of June 1971, and that anyway it assumed that he had
renounced his interest in the new job by filing a Board
charge against Respondent on May 10, alleging, among
other things, that he had been discriminatorily fired from
his formerjob with Respondent.
The case was tried in Brooklyn, New York, October
18-19, 1971, resting on a charge filed May 10, 1971, in
Case 2388 and a charge filed June 29, 1971, in Case 2443.i
Only Respondent has filed a brief.
Upon the entire record of the case, including my
observation of the witnesses and consideration of Respon-
dent's brief, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Standard Tank Cleaning Corporation (Standard Tank) is
a corporation with its principal office and place of business
on Staten Island, New York, and its piers in New Jersey,
and is engaged in the business of cleaning the tanks and
performing other services for oceangoing ships, tankers,
and barges, engaged principally in the coastal trade of the
United States. The business performed by Standard Tank
includes the operation of boats and barges performing the
cleaning and other services. Standard Tank is owned and
controlled by Mr. Nathan Berman and Mrs. Evelyn Frank
(brother and sister), who are the secretary and president,
respectively, of the corporation and provide the active
management on a daily as well as overall basis, according
to their testimony.
by the General Counsel on August 10, 1971, Exh R-2 The second charge,
of June 29, underlying Case 2443, alleged that in violation of Sec. 8(a)(4),
since on or about May 12, Respondent refused to rehire Bass because he
filed the first charge of May 10 Both aspects of the refusal to reemploy are
embraced in the consolidated amended complaint
STANDARD TANK CLEANING CORP. 875
Oil Sales and Processing Company (Oil Sales) is a
corporation, with its offices and piers at the same locations
as Standard Tank, also wholly owned, controlled, offi-
cered, and managed by Mr. Berman and Mrs. Frank. Oil
Sales is engaged principally in the business of supplying
labor for ship tank cleaning services to Standard Tank and
to approximately 18 other corporations wholly owned and
controlled by Berman and Frank, as well as to some
nonowned and noncontrolled companies, variously en-
gaged in shipping in interstate commerce, ship cleaning
and repairing, and related enterprises. The labor supplied
by Oil Sales to Standard Tank is in addition to labor
directly employed by Standard Tank.
Notwithstanding the separate incorporations of Standard
Tank and Oil Sales, both constitute a single employer
within the meaning of the Act. In addition to the common
ownership, control, officers, directors, pier facilities, and
offices enjoyed by both corporations and provided by
Berman and Frank, the testimony of Berman and Frank
made it clear that Berman is the general manager for the
two companies (and others of the family owned group of
companies) and is in charge of labor relations for both,
including having the final if not initial say on the hiring
and firing of the employees of both corporations. More-
over, the operations of both corporations are interrelated in
the physical performance of jobs, and by the daily
decisions and direction of General Manager Berman in the
work to be done, the equipment to be moved or used, and
the interchange of employees.
Under the tests for "single employer" developed by the
Board, 21st Annual Report NLRB (1956), p. 14-15, restated
and approved in Sakrete of Northern California v. N.L.R.B.,
332 F.2d 902, 905-908 (C.A. 9, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S.
961, and by the Supreme Court in Radio and Television
Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast
Service of Mobile, 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965), the question is
whether the two enterprises are sufficiently integrated to
consider the business of both together in applying the
standards of the Act. The principal factors weighed in
deciding that sufficient integration exists include the extent
of (1) interrelation of operations, (2) centralized control of
labor relations, (3) common management, and (4) common
ownership or financial control. While none of the factors
has been held to be controlling, stress has been laid upon
the first three factors to show operational integration,
particularly centralized control of labor relations. Id.
Here, all four factors are present, as summarized above,
and the domination and control of Berman and Frank is so
complete as to constitute both corporations a single
enterprise, in applying the standards of the Act, N.L.R.B.
v. Deena Artware, 361 U.S. 398, 402 (1960).
Respondent in its pleading and at trial admitted that
Standard Tank derived revenues in excess of $200,000 per
annum from services performed for ships and ship
companies operating in interstate commerce. While Re-
spondent made no similar concession respecting Oil Sales, it
made no attempt by offer of evidence, or argument in its
brief, to dispute jurisdiction. Nonetheless, from Respon-
dent's status as a single employer, comprising Standard
Tank and Oil Sales, it follows that Respondent is well
within the Board's statutory and dollar amount jurisdic-
tion , and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Additionally it was admitted at trial that Local 1277,
Ship Maintenance Workers, International Longshoremen's
Association , AFL-CIO (the Union), of which the Charging
Party Paul Bass is a member , is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Failure to Reemploy Paul Bass
In its ship tank cleaning and related operations,
Respondent uses both unionmen and nonunionmen. Paul
Bass was and is a unionman, a member of Local 1277,
ILA. In his 1969-1970 job for Respondent, Bass worked on
the pier providing equipment, steam , and other aids for the
men who did the actual cleaning of the tanks of the ships
docked at the pier. These men are known as butterworthers
(who use machines for their part of the cleaning opera-
tions) and muckers (who use shovels for their part of the
work). According to President Evelyn Frank, Oil Sales
generally supplied the working force for the cleaning
operations and, according to Secretary and General
Manager Nathan Berman , while Oil Sales had some
unionmen on its payroll (five boilermen of Local 68,
Operating Engineers), about seven of Oil Sales regular
employees plus the muckers were not unionized. President
Frank, who was in charge of the books, testified that,
although Bass technically worked for Oil Sales, he was paid
by Standard Tank because he wanted to keep his union
status and his ILA union had a contract with Standard
Tank.
Prior to his discharge on January 1, 1971, Bass had
engaged in union activity, principally talking to the
nonunion employees of Oil Sales about joining the Union.
President Frank and General Manager Berman both
testified they had heard of Bass' organizing efforts. Both
Frank and Berman asserted at trial that they would have
welcomed a union since it would help them to get men
when needed, particularly the muckers, who do hard, dirty
physical labor. But there was no communication of this
thought to Bass at the time , indeed neither Berman nor
Frank gave any direct indication to Bass that they knew he
was attempting to organize for the Union until the question
of rehiring him in April 1971 arose.
Bass was fired by President Evelyn Frank on January 1,
1971, allegedly for not reporting for scheduled work. Mrs.
Frank, while conceding that all of the hiring was done by
her brother, General Manager Berman, claimed she had
rightfully fired Bass. At trial her brother agreed. (Of
course, this issue was not involved in the case, see In. 1,
supra.)
Thereafter, Bass did not get to see General Manager
Berman until April 23, 1971, after intercession by Union
Agent Collazo. After some parrying about why he was
fired, Berman told Bass that he had another job for him,
not his former job on the pier at Bayonne, but on the Peter
Frank, a barge, belonging to Standard Tank, specially
equipped for ship tank cleaning operations. Bass agreed to
the job, with the understanding on his part that he was to
start the following week.
876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At trial, the matter of when the job was to start became
the subject of dispute. On the one hand, according to Bass,
General Manager Berman told him in the conversation (on
Monday, April 23) that the barge, Peter Frank, was in
drydock, it should come out the next Monday or Tuesday
and Berman would call him in. In corroboration, John
McCole, Bass' brother-in-law , who was also present,
testified that Berman said the barge , Peter Frank, was in
drydock, that he would call Bass in 5 or 6 or 7 days at
home and Bass would be back working next week.
On the other hand, General Manager Berman offered
several versions of what he said to Bass. He first testified,
on direct , that he told Bass he would put him on the Peter
Frank but not now, it depended on the business coming in
and the inspection period, and that he would call Bass and
let him know when he (Berman) would be ready for Bass to
get the barge ready for the shipyard. (From Berman's
rambling explanation at trial this could have meant ready
for drydock or ready for Coast Guard inspection, at two
different dates in late June and late July, but it was clear
that he did not communicate this to Bass on April 23,
whether or not he actually spoke of Bass getting the barge
ready for the shipyard.) Later in his direct testimony,
Berman varied what he first said on direct by conceding
that, when he talked to Bass on April 23, he said maybe
we'd start the cleaning (of the barge) next week, explaining
(for the record, not to Bass) that it takes 6 weeks to get the
barge ready (for drydock or inspection), but that work kept
coming in and interfered with getting the barge cleaned up
and ready (for drydock or inspection). However, on cross-
examination, Berman conceded that in his affidavit to the
Board given on June 2 (about 5 weeks after the rehire
interview with Bass), he had told Bass that the Peter Frank
would be ready in about 1 week and he would call Bass.
Moreover, whereas Berman claimed at trial that he called
Bass twice between April 23 and May II to tell Bass that
he (Berman) was not ready for Bass, because he was not
ready to prepare the boat for drydock, Berman conceded
he said in his affidavit that he called Bass once, a few days
or a week after April 23, and told him the barge was not
ready because Berman did not have enough men for a
crew. Berman's earlier testimony (of June 2) gives credence
to the testimony of Bass.
Clearly Berman was telling contradictory stories in and
out of court , and he was not telling Bass the true situation
in the April 23-May I1 period, if his testimony in court
were to be believed. I find the explanation for this
deception in other conduct and testimony of General
Manager Berman. Bass, supported by McCole, had
testified that in the rehiring discussion of April 23 Berman
accused Bass of having tried to organize the nonunionmen
and stated that if he took Bass back he was not going to
have Bass organize the place. Berman admitted that after
offering Bass the job (indeed, giving it to him, said
Berman), he (Berman) mentioned the matter of the Union,
saying "I hear you're trying to organize the men," and,
"what is the idea of this business with the Union here?"
(Berman claimed he added, "Why don't you ask me, I'd
help you do it"; but I do not credit the addition.) Bass
admitted, but played down, his role in the attempted
organizing , when replying to Berman , claiming that the
employees came to him for help in getting into the Union.
As the discussion progressed , Bass told Berman he was
going to give him a week and if he was not put back to
work he'd take his case to the Labor Board . According to
Bass, Berman said not to worry and they shook hands.
As already indicated , Berman called Bass at least once
before May I 1 (Bass said he got only one call, and Berman
provided self-contradictory testimony as to whether it was
once or twice) putting off the start of his job on the barge,
Peter Frank . On May 10, Bass filed a charge with the
Board (Exh. GC- I(a)), accusing Respondent of both
discriminatorily discharging him on January 1 and discnm-
inatorily refusing to reemploy him thereafter, in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Respondent received a copy
of the charge on May 11, and by General Manager
Berman 's own admission treated the May 10 charge as a
renunciation by Bass of the new job agreed upon on April
23. I assumed , said Berman , that Bass was now "suing for
his first job . . . If he wanted the second job he should
have called me." None of these assumptions were commu-
nicated to Bass, notwithstanding Berman had committed
himself to Bass (at least three times , according to his own
testimony) to call Bass to report to work.
Moreover , testified General Manager Berman , he still
was not ready to put Bass on the job on May 11. Indeed,
Berman did not develop the readiness until June 28, 7
weeks later, when he learned of the second charge (Exh.
GC-1(g)) being filed with the Board by Bass, accusing
Respondent of failing and refusing to reemploy him, in
violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act, because Bass had
filed the charge of May 10 with the Board. At that point,
Berman sent Bass the notice to report to work (Exh.
GC-2). By mutual agreement, Bass reported on July 6,
1971, and has worked for Respondent since then.
Of General Manager Berman I have used the phrase,
"did not develop the readiness" to put Bass back to work,
because it was evident from the total testimony that there
was work for Bass on the Peter Frank at all times from
April 23 and that only the subjective reactions of Berman
kept Bass off the job. President Frank testified that there
was maintenance work to be done on the Peter Frank every
day, if her brother Nathan Berman wanted it done , it could
have been 40 hours a week from 8 to 4 daily, but she said it
was her brother 's judgment not hers when to do it.
Berman testified he was not ready for Bass between May
10 and June 28, and that it was hypothetical that there was
work to be done because there was not work "that I
wanted him to do." He was not ready for Bass , continued
Berman , because he (Berman) didn't have time for the
Peter Frank, he was more concerned with another boat, the
tanker , Allan Martin, that needed repair after a breakdown
on May 22, and the Peter Frank could wait since it didn't
function continuously through the year, said ' Berman.
However, the barge , Peter Frank, was in operation on
cleaning jobs that had started before April 23 and
continued thereafter until interrupted by the necessity in
early July to do the cleanup and repairs of the barge itself
for its periodic Coast Guard inspection that took place in
August. The job Berman offered Bass on April 23 was to
engage in the ship tank cleaning operations performed with
the barge , Peter Frank, and that was the job on which
STANDARD TANK CLEANING CORP. 877
Berman ultimately put him to work. Helping with the
cleanup of the barge for inspection was incidental to the
job and was not the job itself, as Berman attempted to
portray at trial as his reason for not being ready for Bass.
Additionally, Berman suggested that a further cause for the
delay in putting Bass on the job was the need for a period
of training for Bass; but Berman's other testimony made it
obvious that this was training by learning on the job as to
the location and handling of certain valves and pumps and
other devices-Bass learned by doing, said Berman.
Moreover, as Berman further testified, Bass was skilled in
the handling of boats and that was why he was hired and,
of course, he had several years experience in Respondent's
tank cleaning operations. Of the job itself, Bass testified
that, apart from taking part in the vacuuming work of the
Peter Frank, he spent a large part of his time in painting
and scraping and working on repairs and other work for
Respondent at other locations as well as on the barge.
an order for backpay for the period in which he was
discriminatorily denied reemployment by Respondent,
namely, April 23-June 29, 1971.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminatorily failing and refusing to reemploy
Paul Bass in the period April 23-June 29, 1971, because of
and to discourage his union organizing activity and to
discourage union affiliation by Respondent's nonunion
employees, and because Bass filed charges with the Board
against Respondent, Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the
Act.
2. The described unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
B. The 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) Findings
Respondent's conduct toward Bass between April 23 and
June 29, 1971,2 in telling him he was going back to work
and not putting him back to work can be explained only as
a form of retaliation against, and discouragement of, an
employee who had admitted to the employer that he had
gotten into the employer's labor relations with other
employees by trying to organize them for the Union and
who had the temerity to file charges with the Board in an
attempt to vindicate his right under the Act to have
engaged in union activity free from employer recrimina-
tion. Whatever the Respondent said about the availability
of the job in the April 23-June 29 period, and the proof
indicated that the job was available, it is unmistakable,
from Respondent's admission, that on May 11, when it
learned that employee Bass had filed his first charge
against Respondent with the Board, Respondent unilater-
ally and without notice to Bass decided not to put him
back to work, notwithstanding its earlier postponed
engagement to do so. Respondent did not change this
decision and call Bass to work until it appeared, at the end
of June, that legal action on his charges was imminent.
The failure and refusal of Respondent to reemploy Bass
after April 23, 1971, was because of and to discourage his
organizing activities on behalf of the Union, putting
Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. The misconduct was further compounded by Respon-
dent failing and refusing to reemploy Bass after May i1
because he filed a charge with the Board against Respon-
dent, putting Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of
the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Vacuum Platers, Inc., 374 F.2d 866,
867 (C.A. 7, 1967), also involving violations of all three
subsections of the Act on a failure to reemploy; and see,
Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 331 F.2d 176, 184-185
(C.A. 8, 1964), on the 8(a)(4) violation for refusal to hire.
Because Respondent has since terminated the unlawful
refusal to reemploy Bass on June 29, 1971, there is no need
for an order reinstating Bass to his job, but he is entitled to
29
2 It was stipulated that Bass received the notice to report to work June
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
It will be recommended that the Respondent:
(1) Cease and desist from its unfair labor practices;
(2) Give employee Bass backpay for the period April
23-June 29, 1971, with interest at 6 percent per annum, as
provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962); and
(3) Post the notices provided for herein.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, there is hereby issued the following recommended:3
ORDER
Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing or refusing to hire or rehire employees
because of their union sympathies, or engagement in union
activity or recruitment of other employees to become
members of the Union, or because they filed charges under
the Act.
(b) Discouraging membership of its employees in a union
or other labor organization by failing or refusing to hire or
rehire employees sympathetic to a union, or who engage in
union activities, or otherwise discriminating against them
as to their tenure and conditions of employment, or in like
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make employee Paul Bass whole, in the manner set
forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy," for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as
a result of the failure to reemploy him in the period April
23-June 29, 1971.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
conclusions , recommendations, and Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to ascertain the backpay due under the terms of
this Order.
(c) Post in its establishment at Staten Island, New York,
and Bayonne, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix "4 Immediately upon receipt of copies
of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional
Director for Region 29 (Brooklyn, New York), the
Respondent shall cause the copies to be signed by one of
its authorized representatives and posted, the posted copies
to be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director of Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
therewith 5
4 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a 5 In the event that the recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read the Regional Director of Region 29 , in writing, within 20 days from the date
"Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith"
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "