T. C. Bakas & Sons

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 571 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

T. C. BAKAS AND SONS
T. C. Bakas and Sons, Inc. and Antonio P. Silva.
Case 13-CA-15416
September 29, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On June 9, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Julius
Cohn issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a
brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge'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
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge, to modify his remedy,2 and to adopt his
recommended Order.
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 Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, T. C. Bakas and
Sons, Inc., Lombard, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In accordance with our decision in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977). we shall apply the current 7-percent rate for periods prior
to August 25. 1977. in which the "adjusted pnme interest rate" as used by
the Internal Revenue Service in calculating interest on tax payments was at
least 7 percent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JULIUS COHN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was
heard at Chicago, Illinois, on November 8 and 9, 1976.
' At the hearing, pursuant to notice, the General Counsel amended the
complaint so as to allege that Silva and Garcia had engaged in union
activities as well as protected concerted activities and further alleged an
additional refusal by Respondent to reinstate Silva because he had engaged
232 NLRB No. 93
Upon a charge filed on May 5, and served on May 6, 1976,
and an amended charge filed on June 28, and served on
June 29, 1976, the Regional Director for Region 13 issued a
complaint on July 8, 1976. The complaint alleged that T. C.
Bakas and Sons, Inc., herein called Respondent or the
Company, violated 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, by laying off Antonio P.
Silva, the Charging Party herein, and Sabino S. Garcia,
because they engaged in protected concerted activity and,
further, because it refused to reinstate Silva by reason of
his filing an unfair labor practice charge under the Act.'
Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of
unfair practices.
Issues
Whether Respondent laid off Silva and Garcia because
they concertedly protested the failure of Respondent to pay
them at the proper contract rate rather than because of the
lack of work.
Whether Respondent refused to reinstate Silva because
he filed a grievance with respect to his layoff.
Whether Respondent since May 5, 1976, continued to
refuse to reinstate Silva because he had filed charges under
the Act.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. The General
Counsel and Respondent submitted briefs which have been
carefully considered.
On the entire record 2 in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Respondent, an Illinois corporation, has its principal
office and place of business in Lombard, Illinois, where it
has been continuously engaged in the business of railway
construction and maintenance. During the past calendar
year, Respondent purchased and caused to be shipped
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, directly
from points located outside the State of Illinois, to its
Illinois location. The complaint alleges, Respondent
admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Laborers' International Union of North America, Local
Unions 1274 and 96, herein called Local 1274 and Local
96, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
in union activities on December 5. 1975, by filing a grievance with the
Union.
2 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
571
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
Respondent is primarily engaged in the maintenance of
existing railway track, but approximately 20 percent of its
business is involved with the construction of new tracks
and sidings for private customers. Gregory Bakas is the
president and sole owner of the Company. Respondent has
collective-bargaining agreements with Local 1274 which
covers maintenance work and with Local 96 covering
construction work. Both agreements provide that wages
and fringes shall be paid in accordance with area standards
as set forth in applicable local agreements in the area where
the work is to be performed. Neither agreement contains
provision for seniority.
Commencing about September 1975, Respondent began
construction of a railroad siding in Bensenville, Illinois, in
addition to its regular maintenance work. At that time, Joe
Allen, a business agent of Local 96, visited that jobsite and
made a card check of Respondent's crew, during which
Antonio Silva joined the Union. The prevailing wage for
construction during that period was $7.20 per hour while
the maintenance rate was $5.25 per hour. Silva began
working for Respondent in 1963 and he was continuously
employed from 1969 until his layoff. Sabino Garcia, a
longtime member of another Laborers' local union, was
also employed as a laborer commencing July 1975.
During the week of November 10 through November 14,
1975, Silva and Garcia worked at the Bensenville construc-
tion job for either 2 or 3 days and the remainder at a
maintenance job. They were paid for the week's work on
the following Tuesday, the normal payday, November 18,
Garcia stated that when he received his paycheck he
noticed that he had not been paid the correct amount of
money as it appeared that the total amount reflected a
payment on the basis of the $5.25 maintenance rate. Garcia
and Silva, with two other employees, were driven to and
from work by their foreman, Fausto Hernandez. On the
way home in the car that evening Silva stated that his check
looked short and Garcia said that he was going to compare
this check with his previous pay stubs and then make a
claim with Bakas for the additional amount. In so doing he
determined that he had been paid at the $5.25 rate for 40
hours rather than having received the $7.20 rate for the 2 or
3 days of work at the construction site. In the car the
following morning, November 19, Silva said that he had
examined his stubs and his check was short and that he
would have to talk to Bakas. Garcia agreed, saying that
they would have to have a chance to talk to Bakas. After
arriving at the yard of Respondent, 3 at 7 a.m., Garcia
noticed Hernandez talking to Bakas. Later that morning at
the Bensenville site Garcia saw Bakas at or about 9:30 a.m.
and told him his paycheck and that of Silva's were not
correct, stating they had not been paid at the union scale
for the Bensenville work. Bakas said that he would check
this out with the foreman. Bakas testified that he immedi-
ately went to Hernandez and asked where Garcia and Silva
had been working at the time and acknowledged that there
had indeed been an error in their paychecks. At lunch that
day Silva told other employees that Bakas had come to the
3 The employees reported in to a yard at Respondent's office and place
of business and from there would ride with trucks and equipment to their
particularjobsite.
jobsite but no one had spoken to him. Hernandez was
present at this conversation and Garcia said that he himself
had spoken to Bakas about the shortage in the checks.
In the afternoon Bakas came back to the Bensenville site
and was observed in his car talking with Roberto Garza
and Trinidad Lopez, two other foremen. Toward the end of
the workday on November 19, Garza gave Garcia his final
paycheck for the 3 days of the current week and the
amount due for the previous week. Garcia stated that
Garza wanted to know what he had said to Bakas and what
he told Bakas about the Union. Garcia told him that his
check had been short because he had not received the
union rate of $7.20. Then, according to Silva, Garza came
over to him and asked what he had talked about with
Bakas. Silva replied that he did not have a chance to talk to
him and Garza then gave him his check and said there is no
more work. No one else was laid off on that day.
There is no dispute with regard to the above account up
to the point of the delivery of the final paychecks to Silva
and Garcia. Hernandez stated that he was the one who
gave these checks to them while Garza denied it. I credit
Silva and Garcia rather than Garza and Hernandez as to
this conflict. Both Silva and Garcia testified in a direct and
straightforward manner and corroborated one another. On
the other hand, Garza and Hernandez, particularly the
latter, were halting, evasive, and demonstrated poor
recollection except as to this particular fact. Hernandez,
with regard to other events, contradicted himself especially
as to the allegation that Silva had refused to work overtime
several times. He could not give any definite testimony on
this and the records reveal that Silva did, in fact, work
overtime on occasion. Moreover, it could make no
difference to Silva and Garcia as to who gave them their
checks. It does matter to Respondent as Garza questioned
them as to what they said to Bakas about their pay while
Hernandez states he said nothing to Silva. Even if
Hernandez gave Silva the check, I do not find it plausible
that he said nothing to him in view of the fact that this
action involved the layoff of a man with whom he had
worked for a couple of years, driving him to and from work
every day.
In late November or early December, Silva filed a
grievance with Local 96. Bakas acknowledges receiving a
telephone call from Frank Reilly of Local 96 who asked
him about Silva's layoff. Bakas states that he told Reilly
that Silva had been laid off because he was out of work at
the construction site except for some finishing touches
desired by the railroad. He also told Reilly that there had
been a discrepancy in Silva's pay which had been corrected
and that Garcia, not Silva, was the one who complained
about it. Finally, he said he had no objections to hiring
Silva again in the spring if there was work and he was
contacted by Silva. Bakas stated that he did not rehire Silva
in the spring and that Silva never asked for work.
572
T. C. BAKAS AND SONS
Rodrigo Silva, Antonio's son, called Bakas in late
November or early December and spoke to him about
taking his father back to work.4 This was after Silva went
to the Union and received no reply. Bakas told him he had
no work for Silva at that time but he should call back
again. Rodrigo then went with his father to legal aid where
it was suggested that he call Bakas again. About 3 weeks
after his first call, Rodrigo again called Bakas and was
informed by a lady who answered the phone that Bakas
was not in and work was slow. He called again 3 or 4 weeks
later and received the same response. Bakas denied
receiving these phone calls. However, two of the calls he
would not have personally received in any event, according
to the testimony of Rodrigo Silva. In addition, areas of
Bakas' testimony reveal inconsistencies which will be
hereafter discussed in connection with the defenses set
forth by Respondent. Respondent also alleged with respect
to the telephone calls of Rodrigo that the home phone
number of Bakas was changed when he moved about
December 27. But it appears that at least one, and perhaps
two, of the calls were made prior to that date and there is
the distinct possibility that the third call could have been
made at a time when the operator would transfer the call to
the new phone number. Rodrigo Silva testified in a sincere
manner and I credit him with regard to the telephone calls.
An employee witness, Canuto Perez, testified to a
conversation he had while at work with Hernandez. This
occurred about December 27 when Perez asked Hernandez
what had happened with Silva and Garcia. Hernandez
replied that, while he was not too aware of what occurred,
he thought they were claiming something about union scale
pay. Hernandez then told Perez that he better not say
anything about these matters because the same thing could
happen to him. Perez stated that Hernandez said this with
a "kind of joking attitude." The testimony of Perez is
undenied in the record.
Respondent has set forth several defenses. As to Garcia,
who had only been employed since July 1975, Respondent
asserts that there no longer was any work on November 19
and, as Garcia was a new employee whom Bakas did not
know very well, he determined to let Garcia go. The
defenses are a little more varied with respect to Silva.
Bakas said that Silva was let go in November because of
lack of work and he was selected for layoff because (a) he
usually went to Mexico in the wintertime anyway, (b) Silva
refused to work overtime which was essential in the winter
when the work consisted mainly of emergency mainte-
nance, and (c) Silva, after his layoff, never asked Bakas or
the supervisors for his job back, particularly in the
following spring, there being no objection to his returning
to work.
The construction of the railway siding at Bensenville was
completed on October 9. Following that, as is the
procedure, Respondent received a so-called punch list
which is a report from the railroad indicating what
corrections or additions must be made to that job.
Respondent then returned to Bensenville in November and
completed the items on that list in about 2 weeks. This was
done by November 19, the day Silva and Garcia were laid
4 Antonio Silva does not speak English and consequently his son, who
does, makes telephone calls for him.
off. The balance of the crew now reduced to five, excluding
foremen, did not work on the following day, November 20.
However, there was work for them thereafter either
cleaning up at the construction site or the normal
maintenance work performed by Respondent. Indeed, the
payroll records show that the five laborers continued
through the end of December and that the week ending
December 27 showed an additional two laborers for a
complement of seven. The records further show that,
beginning the week ending November 29, no laborers
received more than $5.25 an hour, indicating there was no
longer any new construction work.
While the payroll records show that Silva did not work
during the latter portion of the winter, the details indicate
that, in 1972, Silva was laid off in December and in the
succeeding years it was in January, not November as in this
case. The payroll records also reveal that Silva worked a
certain amount of overtime and in the period subsequent to
his layoff none of the employees worked any overtime.
Finally, a word should be said concerning the mode in
which Respondent obtains its employees. Its work force
consists of Latin American workers who reside, together
with Respondent's foremen, in the same neighborhood or
area. When Bakas decides that he needs additional
workers, he tells his foremen to bring in whatever number
he himself determines to be necessary. The foremen then
recruit this number of people from their friends, neighbors,
relatives, etc. While it is urged that seniority is not
followed, and the collective-bargaining agreements in
effect do not provide for seniority, it is clear that certain
employees work on a consistent basis, as is the case with
Silva who was employed since 1963 and regularly since
1969.
Discussion and Analysis
Clearly, by questioning the hourly rate for which he and
Silva were paid for the week of November 10 through
November 14, and bringing the matter to the attention of
Bakas, Garcia was engaged in protected concerted activi-
ties on the morning of November 19. Moreover, since the
wage rate is pegged to specific provisions of the collective-
bargaining agreements, Garcia was also engaged in union
activity, so that a discharge based on his inquiry would be
discriminatory and violative of Section 8(aX3) as well as
Section 8(aXI) of the Act. The question is then that of
Respondent's motivation in laying off Silva and Garcia on
November 19.
While it is undoubtedly true that the construction work
at Bensenville was completed to all intents and purposes on
November 19, except for possibly a day or two of cleanup
work, the remaining five employees continued to work for
a considerable period of time at normal maintenance work
in which the Company was always engaged. As Respon-
dent did have work for at least five employees, and even
seven employees during I week in December, and as
Respondent does not follow any seniority system either in
layoff or hiring, it would appear in all the circumstances
that the selection of Silva and Garcia was discriminatorily
573
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
motivated. In view of the timing of the layoffs, just hours
after the protected activity of which it was aware, it is
incumbent upon Respondent to provide an explanation,
and the reasons it sets forth for the selection of Garcia and
Silva I find to be inconsistent and unpersuasive.
At first Bakas testified that he had determined on the
evening of November 18 that he was going to lay off
Garcia and Silva. He then modified this position by stating
that his decision was subject to an inspection of the jobsite
at Bensenville the following morning. He did this at 9:30
a.m., which was the time when he was confronted by
Garcia with the discrepancy in the payroll checks received
by him and Silva. I deem it to have been too rare a
coincidence that the two men whom he had tentatively
selected for layoff on the night before are the very two who
complained about a discrepancy in their paychecks the
following morning. Then, all of Respondent's witnesses,
particularly Bakas, stated that seniority is not followed in
any manner by the Company and, indeed, the collective-
bargaining agreements provide no such protection for its
employees. However, Respondent appears to play this
seniority policy both ways. Thus, with regard to Garcia,
Bakas stated he had only been employed since July, that he
had less time than the others, and as he, Bakas, was not
really familiar with Garcia or his work, he decided that he
should be let go. Yet, Foreman Hernandez described
Garcia as a good man and a dedicated worker. Absent a
seniority policy, such an employee would merit retention.
On the other hand, despite the lack of a policy of seniority,
Silva was in fact employed year after year with regularity.
Since Silva was therefore no stranger to Bakas, other
reasons were found for his layoff.
Bakas said that he was aware, or at least believed, that
Silva wintered in Mexico and was therefore a good
candidate for layoff. While it may be true that Silva did go
away in prior winters, the records reveal that he was
usually laid off in January and never as early as November.
In fact, for at least 2 months after the layoff, Silva
attempted, with the assistance of his son, to be recalled to
work. Another reason assigned for the layoff of Silva was
his alleged refusal to work overtime in face of the need for
a maintenance crew which had to be available at all times
for emergency work. While this appears to be a valid
reason, it is not supported by the evidence which shows
that Silva had worked some overtime, and that the
employees who remained after he was laid off were not
called on to worovertime. The necessity alleged by
Respondent, therefore, is not established by the record.
Finally, Bakas maintained that he was not averse to
rehiring or reemploying Silva, but Silva had not sought
work as he usually did. With regard to the period
immediately following his termination, I find this not to be
true because, as noted previously, Silva did attempt to be
reinstated and was turned down by Bakas himself during
the first phone call made by Rodrigo Silva and thereafter
indirectly in two later calls when Bakas did not respond.
Months later in the springtime when the work force is
increased, Bakas states that Silva again did not apply. This
brings into question the mode in which Respondent hires
laborers. Respondent contends that it is Silva and other
employees who seek out the foremen and indicate to them
their readiness to return to work if it is available. However,
the testimony of Foreman Garza goes both ways on this
point. As it is clear that all these employees live together in
the same area and see one another all the time, Garza
stated that he would see Silva and let him know when work
was available. He also stated that on occasion Silva and his
son would seek him out and inquire. Noting that no
question has been raised concerning Silva's ability as an
employee and in view of his long experience with
Respondent, it is difficult to understand why Garza did not
seek him out at some time in the spring of 1976, when
Respondent needed additional employees.
The testimony of Canuto Perez throws light on Respon-
dent's motivation. It will be recalled Perez testified that,
several weeks following the termination of Silva and
Garcia, he spoke with Foreman Hernandez who told him
that he believed Silva and Garcia were terminated because
they were claiming something about union scale pay.
Hernandez went on to say, "Better don't say anything. The
same thing won't happen to you." Perez went on to testify
that Hernandez said this with "a kind of joking attitude."
His testimony is undenied in the record as Hernandez, who
thereafter testified on behalf of the Respondent, did not
allude to it. In any event, I credit Perez who testified under
subpena and is still employed by Respondent. While
Respondent would have us believe that the statement
attributed to Hernandez by Perez was just a joke, many a
true word has been said in jest. Finally, the credited
testimony of Garcia and Silva shows Garza questioning
them as to what they told Bakas about the union scale, a
further indication of Respondent's motive.
In sum, I find that the General Counsel has made aprima
facie case of violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
by Respondent's precipitous termination of Garcia and
Silva just hours subsequent to their involvement in
concerted as well as union activity. I further find the
various reasons advanced by Respondent for its action to
be pretextual. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated
Section 8(aXl1) and (3) of the Act by its layoff of Garcia
and Silva on November 19, 1975, and that it further
violated Section 8(aX3) by its refusal, in the spring of 1976,
to recall Silva to employment as it did in former years.
The complaint also alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(aX4) of the Act because of its refusal to reinstate
Silva subsequent to his filing an unfair labor practice
charge on May 5, 1976. No evidence has been submitted to
show that any refusal on the part of Respondent to
reinstate Silva was based on his filing of the charge as
alleged, rather than for the reasons already ascribed to
Respondent. I therefore shall dismiss such portion of the
complaint as alleges violation of Section 8(aX4) of the Act.
The same is true with respect to the allegation that
Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(3) by refusing to
rehire Silva because he filed a grievance.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
574
T. C. BAKAS AND SONS
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 5
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily laid off
the employees set forth above, I shall recommend that
Respondent be ordered to offer immediate and full
reinstatement to Antonio Silva and Sabino Garcia to their
former positions, or if no longer available, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole
for any loss of earnings or other monetary loss each may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them,
less interim earnings, if any, plus interest at 6 percent per
annum. Any backpay due is to be determined in accor-
dance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Locals 96 and 1274 are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging or otherwise discriminating against
Antonio Silva and Sabino Garcia because of their concert-
ed and/or union activities, Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(4 ) of the
Act as alleged in the complaint.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 6
The Respondent, T. C. Bakas and Sons, Inc., Lombard,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment, or of any terms and
conditions of employment, of any of its employees because
of their concerted and/or union activities.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Antonio Silva and Sabino Garcia immediate
and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights previous-
ly enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay due to
the violation against them in accordance with the manner
set forth in the section of this decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Lombard, Illinois, office and yard copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix," 7 in English and
in Spanish. Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by
the Company's authorized representative, shall be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Company to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act.
5 As the employees apparently are mainly Sparunish-speaking. I shall
recommend that the notice posted be in Spanish and English.
6 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.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall he
deemed waived for all purposes.
I In the event that his Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted b) Order
of the National 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
NoTIncE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides had a chance to give
evidence the National Labor Relations Board has found
that we, T. C. Bakas and Sons, Inc., violated the National
Labor Relations Act and we have been ordered to post this
notice.
WE WILL NOT in any manner discharge or discrimi-
nate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment or
of any term or condition of employment of any of our
employees because of their concerted and/or union
activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Antonio Silva and Sabino Garcia
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to a substantially
equivalent job, without prejudice to their seniority or
575
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other rights, and WE WILL make them whole for any
loss of pay or any benefits they may have suffered by
reason of our discrimination against them.
T. C. BAKAS AND SONS,
INC.