Wimpey Minerals USA

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1995

316 N.L.R.B. 803 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

803
316 NLRB No. 132
WIMPEY MINERALS USA, INC.
1 We leave to the compliance stage of this proceeding the issue of
whether the employees excluded from campaign meetings held out-
side of their regular work hours should be awarded backpay cal-
culated on a ‘‘straight time’’ or ‘‘overtime’’ basis.
Member Cohen notes that the violations found here involve both
an announced policy of excluding union supporters from meetings
and the implementation of this policy. The policy resulted in a loss
of benefits to those union supporters. Thus, this case is governed by
Delchamps, Inc., 244 NLRB 366, 367 (1979). The cases cited by the
Respondent that hold that an employer may exclude union supporters
from meetings held during working time are inapposite. Id. at 367
fn. 8. In addition, Member Cohen recognizes that union opponents
were also excluded from the meetings. However, the policy was ex-
plained to employees solely in terms of the exclusion of union sup-
porters. In these circumstances, the explanations and the meetings
sent a message that would tend to interfere with Sec. 7 rights.
Member Stephens also notes that finding a violation here is not
inconsistent with his dissenting opinion in Comet Electric, 314
NLRB 1215, 1216 (1994), in which he concluded that the employ-
er’s conduct of an antiunion meeting during overtime hours without
compensating all employees for attending was not objectionable con-
duct. In that case, neither attendance at the after-hours meeting nor
compensation for overtime during the meeting was linked in any
way to union sentiments.
Members Stephens and Truesdale agree with Member Cohen that
the cases cited by the Respondent concluding that an employer may
exclude union supporters from meetings held during working time
are inapposite. Delchamps, Inc., supra.
1 The Regional Director noted in his report on challenged ballots
and objection, dated August 12, 1993, that on June 16, 1993, follow-
ing the representation election, the intervening labor organization
Continued
Wimpey Minerals USA, Inc. and United Steel-
workers of America, AFL–CIO–CLC. Cases 4–
CA–21675, 4–CA–22085, and 4–RC–18062
March 21, 1995
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, COHEN, AND
TRUESDALE
On April 18, 1994, Administrative Law Judge Frank
H. Itkin issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Gen-
eral Counsel filed a brief in opposition to the excep-
tions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
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 briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order.1
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Wimpey Minerals USA,
Inc., Annville, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on
May 21, 1993, in Case 4–RC–18062 is set aside and
that this case is severed and remanded to the Regional
Director for Region 4 for the purpose of conducting a
new election.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from publica-
tion.]
Timothy J. Brown, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Stephan J. Boardman, Esq., for the Respondent.
John B. Gabrick, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
FRANK H. ITKIN, Administrative Law Judge. Unfair labor
practice charges and amended charges were filed in the
above proceeding on May 5 and September 15, 1993, and on
January 24, 1994. A consolidated unfair labor practice com-
plaint issued on February 18, 1994. Thereafter, on February
22, 1994, the Regional Director for Region 4 of the Board
issued an order in related Case 4–RC–18062, concluding that
Petitioner Union’s objection and the challenged ballots filed
in that representation proceeding raise substantial and mate-
rial issues of fact to be resolved at a hearing; the issues
raised in the representation proceeding are common to and
closely track the issues raised in the above unfair labor prac-
tice proceeding; and therefore the two proceedings should be
consolidated for hearing, ruling, and decision. The parties
have since resolved by stipulation various issues raised in the
consolidated unfair labor practice and representation proceed-
ings and, as stipulated, the only issues now remaining for de-
cision are whether or not Respondent Employer violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by
telling an employee during mid-April 1993 that he was not
permitted to attend ‘‘a campaign meeting’’ because of his
union sympathies and by denying overtime benefits to em-
ployees Robert Paine, Robert Tonini, and Robert Weinzierl
on some three to six occasions from mid-April to May 21,
1993, because they supported and assisted the Union; and,
further, whether the Employer, by this conduct, also inter-
fered with the holding and conducting of a fair and free elec-
tion in the related representation case. (See Tr. 5–18, and
G.C. Exh. 5, received in evidence by stipulation.)
A hearing was held on the issues thus raised in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, on March 9, 1994, and on the entire record in
these consolidated proceedings, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent Wimpey Minerals is admittedly an employer
engaged in commerce and the Charging Party Union is ad-
mittedly a labor organization as alleged. The Union filed a
representation petition in Case 4–RC–18062 on March 17; a
Stipulated Election Agreement was approved by the Regional
Director on March 31; and a Board-conducted election was
held on May 21, 1993. Of approximately 145 eligible unit
voters, 51 votes were cast for the Union, 10 votes were cast
for an intervening labor organization,1 and 70 votes were
cast against the participating labor organizations.
804 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
‘‘disclaimed interest in representing the employees in the unit’’ and
‘‘will no longer be considered a party to this proceeding.’’ (See G.C.
Exhs. 1(L) and 5.)
2 On cross-examination Paine explained that he ‘‘would have re-
ceived overtime had he gone to the [initial] meeting’’ because he
was ‘‘working a 12-hour shift’’ and would thus receive ‘‘overtime’’
for the time ‘‘beyond the 12-hour shift.’’ Counsel for the Employer
asserted (Tr. 32):
The employee [Paine] was not invited to several of the meet-
ings, although he was invited to one of the meetings. And he
also was not present at work during the course of one of the
series of meetings.
3 Tunini apparently did attend the last Employer meeting. See Tr.
45–46.
Robert Paine, employed by Respondent Employer from
1988 to 1993 and previously employed at the same location
by Bethlehem Steel and Broyhill & Associates from 1973 to
1988, testified, by way of background, that he had been in-
volved there in a prior unfair labor practice case. He had
been unlawfully discharged while employed by Broyhill &
Associates and was ‘‘returned to work . . . when Wimpey
was in control.’’ See Broyhill & Associates, 296 NLRB 904
(1989). He noted that ‘‘most of the Management . . . were
common’’ in the transition from Broyhill & Associates to
Wimpey Minerals. In addition, Paine also noted that he had
been involved in union organizational efforts during the
1988, 1992, and 1993 union campaigns at the facility. He
‘‘was the representative from the Steelworkers on [the] plant
site . . . trying to get the vote.’’
Paine recalled that during April 1993, he became aware
that the Employer ‘‘was holding campaign meetings with its
employees.’’ His ‘‘foreman, Ron Popp, told [him] that they
[the Employer] were going to have a meeting, but I [Paine]
was not allowed to attend. Everybody else was mandatory,
but for me, I wasn’t allowed to go.’’ Paine explained:
[His coworkers] went to the meetings and I [Paine]
went home. And, of course, they sort of poked fun at
the idea that I wasn’t permitted to go.
This ‘‘meeting’’ was held ‘‘after [his] shift’’; unlike cowork-
ers who attended this meeting, he was not ‘‘paid overtime
for that day.’’ ‘‘More such campaign meetings’’ were held
by the Employer and
[coworkers] were told each time when the meetings
were to be held. And I [Paine] was told that I was not
permitted to attend.
There were about four to six such meetings and he was not
‘‘paid for the time that any of the meetings were held.’’2
Kenneth Wanamaker, an employee, testified that he at-
tended about three ‘‘such campaign meetings’’ at the Em-
ployer’s facility. The Employer ‘‘posted the names of the
employees that were to attend at specific times’’ at or near
‘‘the time clock.’’ Separate ‘‘posted lists’’ of employees,
dated April 21 and 22, 1993, stated: ‘‘Some team members
are not on this list as they were not invited by [Company
Vice President Robert] Furlong. If you have any questions
see me.’’ (See G.C. Exhs. 3 and 4.)
In addition, Wanamaker recalled that ‘‘at one meeting’’ an
employee ‘‘asked’’ Company Vice President Furlong,
why Bob Paine and some of the others weren’t allowed
to attend the meetings, and Mr. Furlong said that he felt
it wasn’t necessary for them to be there, because he
knew which way they were going to vote during the
election, and there was no sense trying to persuade
them any differently.
Robert Tunini, an employee, testified that he has been a
member of the Union for some 23 years and was involved
in union organizational efforts at the Employer’s facility dur-
ing 1988, 1989, and 1990. He has also been chairman of the
Union’s grievance committee, its shop steward, chairman of
its job evaluation committee, chairman of its productivity
committee, and has engaged in ‘‘several other’’ union-related
activities. His Employer was informed of his ‘‘past Union of-
fices.’’ He admittedly did not ‘‘have a role’’ in the 1993
union organizational campaign.
Tunini recalled that during April 1993,
I [Tunini] was approached by my foreman [who] ex-
plained that they [the Employer] were going to be hold-
ing meetings, and for a reason that [he did not know]
. . . I would not be allowed to go to the meetings.
Later, after the second or third such meeting, Tunini was told
by his foreman that he ‘‘would be allowed to come out and
work while the meetings were going on.’’ There were subse-
quently ‘‘two more meetings’’ and Tunini was given ‘‘per-
mission’’ to attend but he chose not ‘‘to come out for the
overtime for those two meetings.’’ Tunini claimed that ‘‘if
permission [had been] granted’’ for him to attend the first
two meetings he ‘‘would have been paid overtime.’’3
Robert Weinzierl, an employee, testified that he was ‘‘ac-
tive’’ during the Union’s 1992 organizational effort at the
Employer’s facility. He served as an observer for the Operat-
ing Engineers in that election. He recalled that during April
1993, his foreman, after having a conversation with his line
supervisor, said to him: ‘‘Ed Banefield called and said that
we [the Employer] were having a meeting and that you
[Weinzierl] were not invited.’’ Weinzierl asked ‘‘why he
wasn’t invited,’’ and was told by his supervisor that ‘‘he
didn’t have no idea.’’ Later, as Weinzierl further testified, he
spoke with Company Vice President Furlong, and they had
the following conversation:
Mr. Furlong came in and said to me [Weinzierl] . . .
that he heard that I wanted to be invited to his meeting,
[and] I told him I never said that. . . . [A]ll I wanted
to know was why I wasn’t invited to the meeting. And
he told me that he knew that I was for the Union and
the way I was [and] he didn’t think he could change
my mind. So why should he pay me to go to the meet-
ing when he couldn’t change my mind. . . . [H]e asked
about the Union, why I think we would need a Union.
. . . I said about the fairness. Then he asked me if I
wanted to go to the meeting. I said to him that he made
the decision the first time, he could make it the second
time.
There were some five or six such meetings which he did not
attend. He was not ‘‘paid for the time other employees were
805WIMPEY MINERALS USA, INC.
4 On cross-examination, Weinzierl recalled that ‘‘we were on 12-
hour shifts on the days of the meetings.’’ Weinzierl also recalled that
‘‘after [his] meeting with Mr. Furlong,’’ his supervisor, Banefield,
‘‘told [him] that [he] could attend’’ the Employer’s meetings. He
added: ‘‘It was after the second or third [meeting]. I’m not sure.’’
He later explained that he was ‘‘allowed’’ by the Employer to attend
‘‘after the second’’ meeting and he ‘‘chose not to attend the others
because [he] didn’t want to get involved with it.’’ As noted above,
he in fact did attend the ‘‘last meeting.’’
5 Furlong explained that ‘‘for the three people . . . involved’’ in
these proceedings’’ ‘‘overtime’’ would be ‘‘over 12 hours in a day
or over 40 hours in a week.’’
6 The evidence of record recited above, insofar as pertinent to a
resolution of the issues raised here, is essentially uncontroverted and
undisputed. Further, the testimony of Paine, Wanamaker, Tunini, and
Weinzierl, as detailed above, is in significant part mutually corrobo-
rative and is also substantiated in significant part by admissions or
acknowledgments of Furlong. And, relying also on demeanor, I find
the above testimony of Paine, Wanamaker, Tunini, and Weinzierl to
be complete, reliable, and trustworthy. On the other hand, I find the
testimony of Furlong to be at times incomplete and unclear. Insofar
as the testimony of Furlong conflicts with the above testimony of
Paine, Wanamaker, Tunini, and Weinzierl, I am persuaded that the
testimony of the latter witnesses more completely and reliably re-
flects the pertinent sequence of events.
attending.’’ He did in fact attend ‘‘the last meeting’’ and was
‘‘paid overtime’’ for attending.4
Robert Furlong testified that he was vice president of pro-
duction for Broyhill & Associates and he later became exec-
utive vice president, chief executive officer, and senior vice
president of Respondent Employer. He has since resigned ef-
fective March 14, 1994. He recalled that in the past 4 or 5
years there have been four representation elections at the
Employer’s facility, the last one being on May 21, 1993. The
Employer, during the 1993 representation campaign, held
‘‘five series of meetings’’ with its employees. Employees at-
tending these meetings were paid their ‘‘normal hourly rate’’
or ‘‘overtime’’ if they were on ‘‘overtime hours.’’5 In addi-
tion, Furlong recalled that ‘‘the positions of various employ-
ees regarding the question of unionization’’ were ‘‘fairly
well known.’’ Furlong had decided during the 1993 represen-
tation campaign that those employees ‘‘who had expressed
views favoring and those who had expressed views oppos-
ing’’ union representation would not be ‘‘invited’’ to the
meetings. According to Furlong, ‘‘For those employees that
had already expressed very strong opinions either way, I
didn’t feel I should spend my time with them.
Respondent’s Exhibit 1 assertedly contains ‘‘the postings’’
for ‘‘Company meetings’’ and shows which employees were
invited to attend. Employee Weinzierl was admittedly ‘‘not
invited’’ ‘‘to the first meeting.’’ Following the ‘‘first meet-
ing,’’ Furlong spoke with Weinzierl. According to Furlong,
Mr. Weinzierl wanted to know why he had not been in-
vited to the meeting. I told [him] that his position was
well known and that I didn’t see any reason that I
should spend my time talking to him about the Union,
and that was the reason I was not inviting him to the
meeting. . . . He said it was unfair that I had not in-
vited him to the meeting. . . . I told him that if he real-
ly felt it was unfair he could just come to future meet-
ings. . . . He was invited to the next meeting but did
not show up for that meeting. Therefore, he was left off
of the two meetings because he didn’t want to come.
Then he was directed to show up at the fifth meeting.
Respondent Exhibit 2 is assertedly a ‘‘list of the names of
people at the plant that have made their position known as
far as . . . having or not having a Union’’ and ‘‘shows
whether they were or were not invited to the meetings.’’ In
addition, Furlong acknowledged that ‘‘the statement was
made at different meetings,’’ ‘‘when somebody would ask,’’
that various employees ‘‘weren’t invited because I didn’t feel
I had to spend time talking to them because I knew where
they stood.’’ Furlong did not, however, then explain to the
employees that this ‘‘policy’’ ‘‘was being applied to both
pro-Union and anti-Union position people.’’6
Discussion
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act guarantees
employees the ‘‘right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection,’’ as well as the right ‘‘to
refrain from any or all such activities.’’ Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer ‘‘to
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of’’ their Section 7 rights. The ‘‘test’’ of ‘‘interference, re-
straint, and coercion under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act does
not turn on the employer’s motive or on whether the coer-
cion succeeded or failed . . . [t]he test is whether the em-
ployer engaged in conduct, which it may reasonably be said,
tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights
under the Act.’’ See NLRB v. Illinois Tool Works, 153 F.2d
811, 814 (7th Cir. 1946). And, Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
in turn, forbids employer ‘‘discrimination in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization.’’
Under Section 7, an employee clearly has the right to pub-
licly commit himself or herself in favor of or against union
representation. Consequently, where an employer, as here,
admittedly treats employees in a disparate manner with re-
spect to their terms and conditions of employment because
they have publicly committed themselves in favor of or
against union representation, the employer thereby engages in
conduct which tends to impinge on employee Section 7
rights. Further, an employer, by this disparate conduct, also
engages in proscribed discrimination with respect to terms
and conditions of employment to encourage or discourage
union activities of employees. Accordingly, Respondent Em-
ployer, in the instant case, by admittedly engaging in such
conduct, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as al-
leged.
However, the credible and essentially undisputed evidence
of record here provides a broader basis for finding proscribed
coercive and discriminatory conduct. Thus, employee
Weinzierl, a known union supporter, credibly testified that,
when he asked management ‘‘why’’ he ‘‘wasn’t invited’’ to
the Employer’s meetings opposing union representation, he
was apprised that management ‘‘knew that [he] was for the
Union and . . . didn’t think [it] could change [his] mind.’’
The Employer therefore declined to ‘‘pay’’ him ‘‘to go to the
806 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7 As noted infra, Respondent Employer will be directed to make
whole employees Paine, Tonini, and Weinzierl for any loss of earn-
ings they may have sustained by reason of Respondent Employer’s
coercive and discriminatory conduct as found above. Consequently,
I need not determine here whether the above employees were in fact
denied straight time or overtime benefits on the particular dates of
the scheduled meetings or, further, on how many occasions such un-
lawful conduct occurred resulting in a loss of such benefits. These
are matters which are best deferred to, if necessary, compliance pro-
ceedings.
8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended 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 purposes.
meeting.’’ Likewise, employee Paine, a known union sup-
porter, credibly explained:
[His coworkers] went to the meetings and I [Paine]
went home. And, of course, they sort of poked fun at
the idea that I wasn’t permitted to go.
Employee Tunini, another known union supporter, was simi-
larly denied an ‘‘invitation.’’ And, employee Wanamaker
credibly recalled that ‘‘at one meeting’’ an employee
‘‘asked’’ management,
why Bob Paine and some of the others weren’t allowed
to attend the meetings, and [Company Vice President]
Furlong said that he felt it wasn’t necessary for them
to be there, because he knew which way they were
going to vote during the election, and there was no
sense trying to persuade them any differently.
Management concededly made no attempt to explain fully to
its assembled employees that it was applying this disparate
treatment equally to both known prounion and antiunion em-
ployees.
The plain message to the Employer’s work force from this
gambit was that only those employees who management felt
could be persuaded to vote against the Union would be af-
forded this opportunity for additional compensation. Such
conduct plainly tends to interfere with employees’ freely ex-
ercising their rights under the Act, in violation of Section
8(a)(1). Further, such disparate treatment of employees also
runs afoul of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. In sum, I find and
conclude that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act by telling an employee that he was not
permitted to attend a campaign meeting because of his union
sympathies and by denying benefits to employees Paine,
Tonini, and Weinzierl because they supported and assisted
the Union, as alleged.7 In addition, I find and conclude that
the Employer, by this coercive and discriminatory conduct,
prevented the holding of a fair and free representation elec-
tion in Case 4–RC–18062 and therefore the Union’s objec-
tion is sustained and the election held on May 21, 1993,
should be set aside.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Charging Party Union is a labor organization and
Respondent Employer is an employer engaged in commerce
as alleged.
2. Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act by telling an employee that he was not permitted
to attend a campaign meeting because of his union sym-
pathies and by denying benefits to employees Paine, Tonini,
and Weinzierl because they supported and assisted the Union
as alleged.
3. The unfair labor practices found above affect commerce
as alleged.
4. Respondent Employer, by the above coercive and dis-
criminatory conduct, prevented the holding of a fair and free
representation election in Case 4–RC–18062 and therefore
the Union’s objection is sustained and the election held on
May 21, 1993, is set aside.
REMEDY
To remedy the unfair labor practices found above, Re-
spondent Employer will be directed to cease and desist from
engaging in the conduct found unlawful or like or related
conduct and to post the attached notice. Affirmatively, Re-
spondent Employer will be directed to make whole employ-
ees Paine, Tonini, and Weinzierl for any loss of earnings
they may have sustained by reason of Respondent Employ-
er’s coercive and discriminatory conduct as found above,
with interest, as provided in New Horizons for the Retarded,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987). Further, Respondent Employer will
be directed to preserve and make available to the Board or
its agents on request all payroll records and reports and all
other records necessary to determine backpay and compli-
ance under the terms of this decision and Order. Finally, with
respect to the consolidated representation proceeding, the
election held in Case 4–RC–18062 will be set aside and the
Regional Director will conduct a new election when he
deems the circumstances permit the fair and free choice of
a bargaining representative.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended8
ORDER
The Respondent, Wimpey Minerals USA, Inc., Annville,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Telling employees that they are not permitted to attend
representational campaign meetings conducted by the Em-
ployer because of their union sympathies, and discrim-
inatorily denying benefits to employees because they sup-
ported and assisted the Union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole employees Robert Paine, Robert Tonini,
and Robert Weinzierl for any loss of earnings they may have
sustained by reason of its coercive and discriminatory con-
duct, with interest, as provided in the remedy section of this
decision.
(b) Preserve and, on 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 Order.
807WIMPEY MINERALS USA, INC.
9 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
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.’’
(c) Post at its facility in Annville, Pennsylvania, copies of
the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’9 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
4, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENEDED that the election held in
Case 4–RC–18062 be set aside and the Regional Director
conduct a new election when he deems the circumstances
permit the fair and free choice of a bargaining representative.
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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that they are not per-
mitted to attend representational campaign meetings con-
ducted by the Employer because of their union sympathies.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily deny benefits to our em-
ployees because they supported and assisted the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole employees Robert Paine, Robert
Tonini, and Robert Weinzierl for any loss of earnings they
may have sustained by reason of our coercive and discrimi-
natory conduct, with interest.
WIMPEY MINERALS USA, INC.