Wittock Supply Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1968

171 N.L.R.B. 201 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

WITTOCK SUPPLY COMPANY 201
Wittock supply Company and Teamsters Local
Union No. 328, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases
30-CA-594 and 30-CA-634
May 2, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On January 23, 1968, Trial Examiner William J.
Brown issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint and recommended that
those allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision together with a supporting brief,
and both the Respondent and Charging Party filed
cross-exceptions and briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-ex-
ceptions, and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner as
herein modified.
1. Although the Trial Examiner found Section
8(a)(5) and (1) violations of the Act in the
Respondent's unilateral elimination of a Christmas
bonus and its unilateral change in lunch hours and
starting time for warehouse employees, which
reduced the number of hours worked, he made no
such findings regarding the unilateral reduction in
working hours of the two truckdrivers. We see no
distinction between the Respondent's failure to bar-
gain over the reduction of hours for the
warehousemen and its failure to bargain regarding
the reduction of hours worked by the truckdrivers.
As was the case wiui me warehouse employees,
the working hours of the two unit truckdrivers,
Grunlund and Burkman, were unilaterally reduced
after January 1, 1967. In fact, not only did they lose
their overtime hours, but each was laid off 1 day
per week without notice to or consultation with the
Union. In the 3 months prior to January 1, 1967, as
was the case with the employees in the warehouse,
the two truckdrivers had worked a substantial
amount of overtime, Grunlund averaging 11.6
hours per week and Burkman about 15.9 hours per
week. Moreover, no reason was given at the time
for their reduction in the workweek, which was ap-
parently announced in each case by the posting of a
new schedule. This was the first time that Grun-
lund, Respondent's most senior employee with
some 10 years of service, had been reduced to a 4-
day working week. This was also true of Burkman
who had worked for Respondent since April 1965.
It is also clear that one of the principal causes of
this reduction in working hours was the Respon-
dent's admitted unilateral action in completely
eliminating the Kohler pickup runs in early January
1967 and contracting this work out to Prefab
Trucking Company, an independent carrier.
Although it is true that Respondent had utilized
primarily common carriers to transport incoming
materials from three of its four major suppliers, it
had in the past almost exclusively used its own
trucks in the semimonthly hauling of plumbing sup-
plies from Kohler, some 157 miles each way. How-
ever, commencing early in January 1967, Respon-
dent completely ceased using its own trucks for the
Kohler run and thereafter used exclusively the ser-
vices of Prefab Trucking Company to deliver these
materials. It is thus clear that Respondent's conduct
in this regard was a significant departure from
previously established operating practices.'
Furthermore, the Respondent did not afford the
Union an opportunity to bargain over the decision
to eliminate the truck route prior to its actual im-
plementation by entering into arrangements with
Prefab Trucking Company to haul the incoming
materials from Kohler.
Regardless of the Respondent' s motivation in
eliminating these unit work opportunities , as in the
case of the elimination of the Christmas bonus and
the change in working times which reduced hours
of work in the warehouse, the Union had the statu-
tory right to be notified in advance of the proposed
seven 1-day per week layoff and the elimination of
the Kohler pickup run and given an opportunity to
bargain over the decision to make these contem-
' Cf Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Mansfield Plant), 150 NLRB
1574, 1576
171 NLRB No. 33
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plated operational changes and the effects of that
decision upon the work opportunities for the bar-
gaining unit employees involved .' Accordingly, we
find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act by unilaterally laying off the two unit
truckdrivers 1 day per week and by unilaterally
eliminating the Kohler pickup truck runs, all of
which reduced the number of hours worked and
eliminated regularly scheduled overtime work.
2. The complaint alleges that on or about May
17, 1967, certain of Respondent's employees
ceased work and went on strike, that the strike con-
tinued since that date , and that it was caused and
prolonged by Respondent's unfair labor practices.
The Trial Examiner found that this allegation was
not properly before him on the ground that there
were "no allegations of specific unfair labor prac-
tices in connection with any treatment accorded
the strikers," and, accordingly, he made no findings
as to the character of the strike here involved. We
disagree.
Although Respondent has contended that the
strike was based on economic factors , it is well set-
tled that if the strike was motivated because of un-
fair labor practices in addition to economic or
other factors, it is an unfair labor practice strike.3
Moreover, and contrary to the Trial Examiner, the
Board has uniformly issued prospective reinstate-
ment orders for unfair labor practice strikers
without regard to the existence of issues concerning
discriminatory treatment accorded strikers or a
refusal to reinstate.' For example, in Buffalo Arms,
Inc.,' we adopted the following finding made by the
Trial Examiner:
As noted, the Respondent's employees
struck on June 14, 1954, in consequence of its
refusal to bargain with the Steelworkers. At the
hearing , counsel for the General Counsel and
the Steelworkers requested the Trial Examiner
to find, as alleged in the complaint, that the ex-
isting strike is an unfair labor practice strike
and that the striking employees are therefore
unfair labor practice strikers. While the Trial
Examiner expressed doubt as to the efficacy or
propriety of such findings in this proceeding, in
the belief that they were beyond the scope of
the refusal to bargain issue implicit in the Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) ... violation alleged in the com-
plaint, reference to pertinent Board precedents
reveals not only the necessity here for these
findings but recommendation of an appropriate
order pursuant thereto. Accordingly, as it has
been found that the Respondent's refusal to
bargain with the Steelworkers was an unfair
labor practice, it follows that the strike which
was caused and prolonged thereby is an unfair
labor practice strike, and hence that the strik-
ing employees are unfair labor practice
strikers, and it is so found."
More recently, in Louisville Chair Company, Inc.,7
we adopted the Trial Examiner's finding that the
strike involved was caused by Respondent's viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act in refusing to
bargain and rejected Respondent 's contentions re-
garding the propriety of the unfair labor practice al-
legation which are very similar to the reasons ad-
vanced by the Trial Examiner in the present in-
stance for his failure to make a determination of
the character of the strike involved:
Respondent contends that these allegations
[that the strike was caused and/or prolonged
by Respondent's unfair labor practices] are not
proper for consideration in this case because
Respondent has not been charged with dis-
criminatorily refusing to reinstate any striker
or any other violation of the Act to which the
nature of the strike has any relevance.... I am
satisfied that the allegations pertaining to the
strike are properly considered herein and may
be the basis of an appropriate order as part of
the remedy for the unfair labor practices, if the
strike was an unfair labor practice strike."
Thus, while the Trial Examiner in the present case
refused to make a finding concerning the nature of
the strike on the ground that he has no authority to
do so, it is clear that he does possess such authority.
His authority under Section 10(c) of the Act is to
prescribe and recommend remedies for unfair labor
practices, and the underlying purpose of a prospec-
tive reinstatement order for unfair labor practice
strikers speaks to the question of remedy. Ac-
cordingly, if the instant strike were caused in part
by Respondent's unfair labor practices, the custom-
ary prospective reinstatement order is clearly
warranted to restore, to the extent possible, the
status quo as it existed prior to the commission of
' Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 147 NLRB 788, modified 361 F.2d 512, cert.
denied 385 U.S 935, Aircraft Specialties, Inc., 148 NLRB 1127, enfd. 360
F 2d 600 (C A. 6), Cloverleaf Cold Storage Co., 160 NLRB 1484; M. Snack
Iron and Steel Co., 146 NLRB 1068
' Louisville Chair Company , Inc., 161 NLRB 358. The Little Rock
Downtowner , Inc, 145 NLRB 1286, 1311-12 , enfd as modified 341 F.2d
1020(C.A 8)
1 See , e g , Louisville Chair Company, Inc., supra; Schill Steel Products,
Inc, 144 NLRB 69, 78, enfd. 340 F.2d 568 (C.A. 5); National Furniture
Manufacturing Company, Inc., 130 NLRB 712; Buffalo Arms, Inc., 110
NLRB 816 , 824, enforcement denied on other grounds 224 F.2d 105 (C.A.
2).
' Supra, fn. 4
s Id at p. 824
v Supra, in 3.
" Id. at 376.
WITTOCK SUPPLY COMPANY 203
those unfair labor practices. We believe, and so
find, that the allegation of an unfair labor practice
strike in the complaint is sufficient to permit the
Trial Examiner to exercise his authority in this re-
gard.
Moreover, the record amply supports a finding
that the strike was in fact caused and prolonged by
the Respondent's unfair labor practices. Following
the Union's certification, Respondent engaged in
numerous acts of unlawful conduct, including Sec-
tion 8 (a)(1) violations for interrogating an em-
ployee about his own union activity and that of
others, for interfering with employees' protected
activities by promising to assist employees in
withdrawing from the Union, and by threatening
employees with the destruction of their majority
under the proposed 1-year contract by hiring
management relatives to vote the Union out at the
end of the contract period, as well as Section
8(a)(5) violations for the unilateral reduction of
working hours and the elimination of a Christmas
bonus. On May 16, 1967, the employees held a
meeting to take a final strike vote. At the meeting
and prior to voting, the employees discussed,
among other things, the Employer's unfair labor
practices. Both employees Mercier and Grunlund
testified that the discussion preceding the strike
vote concerned the Employer's unfair labor prac-
tices in addition to any economic considerations.
Specifically, it is uncontroverted that the men com-
plained of the reduction of working hours and the
Employer's threat to hire relatives to vote out the
Union's majority at the termination of the proposed
1-year contract, both of which have heretofore
been found as violations of the Act. Moreover,
when the strike commenced at least two of the
Union's picket signs identified the strike as being
directed specifically toward Respondent's unfair
labor practices. It is also clear that these problems
were not resolved up to and including the time of
the hearing in this case. Thus the causal connection
between the unfair labor practices and the pro-
longed strike is clear. Accordingly, we believe, and
so find, that the strike from its inception has been
an unfair labor practice strike.
THE REMEDY
Although the Trial Examiner found that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
unilaterally eliminating employee Christmas
bonuses and by unilaterally changing starting and
shift times and regularly scheduled overtime,
thereby reducing total weekly hours of work, he
failed in his recommended remedy to fashion a
make-whole provision based on these findings for
the employees involved. We believe that the Trial
Examiner's failure to prescribe such a remedy, in
these circumstances, is contrary to well-established
Board policy. As we have stated:
It is the Board's customary policy to direct a
respondent-employer to restore the status quo
where he has taken unlawful unilateral action
to the detriment of his employees. Such an
order is warranted to prevent the wrong-doer
from enjoying the fruits of his unfair labor
practices and gaining an undue advantage at
the bargaining table.'
There are many cases specifically involving, as in
the instant case, the unilateral withholding of a
Christmas bonus where the Board has followed this
customary policy and prescribed a make-whole
remedy.10 Similarly, such remedies have been
fashioned for a unilateral reduction in working
hours. As in the present case, restitution of lost pay
has been ordered by the Board where truckdrivers
were unilaterally laid off 1 day per week" and in
another instance where loss of pay was suffered as
result of a 1-hour per week unilateral reduction in
working time.l2
In the present case the unilateral actions of the
Respondent in eliminating the bonus and reducing
the working hours of the warehouse employees as
well as the working hours of the two truckdrivers
took place in an atmosphere permeated with union
animus, coupled with several unfair labor practices.
Although the record reveals that Respondent was in
a period of declining sales at the time, Respon-
dent's profit for the fiscal year ending February
1967 was one of its highest. The record further
reflects that during the several month period
preceding January 1967, Respondent had granted
wage increases to its employees, many of which ex-
ceeded those given theretofore. In these circum-
stances we do not believe that Respondent should
be permitted to benefit from its unlawful conduct at
the expense of the employees whose interests in the
decisions were denied the protection afforded them
by the bargaining process. Accordingly, we shall
order the Respondent to make its employees whole
9 Herman Sausage Company, Inc., 122 NLRB 168, 172 , enfd 275 F.2d
229 (C.A. 5).
10 See , e.g., Gravenslund Operating Company, 168 NLRB 513, Beacon
Journal Publishing Company. 164 N LRB 734, Exchange Parts Company,
139 NLRB 710, enfd 339 F.2d 829 (C A 5)
" Cloverleaf Cold Storage Co , supra
12 Aircraft Specialties, Inc, supra
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the monetary loss suffered by them as a result of
the unlawful withholding of the 1966 Christmas
bonus, the amount of the loss to be determined by
the method used in making bonus payments in
previous years with interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum , to be computed in the manner set forth
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. We
shall also order the Respondent to make whole its
warehouse employees for any loss of pay they in-
curred as a result of Respondent 's unilateral change
in working hours by the payment to them of a sum
of money equal to that which they normally would
have earned before the reduction in hours from the
date, in each instance, when the particular hours
were reduced until the occurrence of any of the fol-
lowing events: ( 1) reaching mutual agreement with
the Union regarding the subjects which Respondent
is ordered to bargain about; (2) bargaining to a
bona fide impasse; (3) the failure of the Union to
commence negotiations within 5 days of the receipt
of the Respondent's notice of its desire to bargain;
or (4) the failure of the Union to bargain thereafter
in good faith. Such loss of pay shall be computed in
the manner established by the Board in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum in ac-
cord with the decision in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., supra.
Furthermore, having found that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by implementing
1-day per week layoffs and by contracting out the
Kohler pickup runs, thereby eliminating hours
worked by unit truckdrivers without first giving a
bargaining opportunity to the Union, we shall order
the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom, and
from like and related conduct. We shall also order
the Respondent to undo the specific violation found
by offering now to bargain with the Union, not only
about the effects on the employees involved in this
action, but also about the resumption of the opera-
tion. Moreover, it is clear that if the Respondent
had honored its statutory bargaining obligation, the
truckdrivers affected would not have suffered a
reduction in hours worked without the protection
afforded them through collective bargaining about
the proposed action . In any event , it may be
presumed, they would not have lost hours worked
until Respondent had fulfilled its bargaining obliga-
tion by negotiating to a bona fide impasse. Ac-
cordingly, we shall further order that the Respon-
dent shall make the truckdriver employees whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a
result of the Respondent's unfair labor practice by
a payment to them of a sum of money equal to that
which they would have earned from the date of the
unfair labor practice to the occurrence of the earli-
est of one of the following events: (1) reaching mu-
tual agreement with the Union relating to the sub-
jects which Respondent is herein required to bar-
gain about; (2) a bona fide impasse in such bargain-
ing; (3) the failure of the Union to commence
negotiations within 5 days of the receipt of the
Respondent's notice of its desire to bargain with the
Union; or (4) the failure of the Union to bargain
thereafter in good faith. Of course, if the Respon-
dent desires to eliminate the layoff and reinstate the
Kohler pickup run under the same or substantially
equivalent conditions as previously existed,
backpay shall not run beyond the date it does so.
The loss of pay shall be computed in the manner
established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Com-
pany, supra, with interest thereon at the rate of 6
percent per annum in accord with Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., supra.
In addition, it having been found that at the time
of the hearing Respondent's employees were en-
gaged in a strike caused and prolonged by Respond-
ent's unfair labor practices, the striking employees
are therefore entitled to reinstatement upon applica-
tion, whether or not their positions have been filled
by the hire of replacements. As Respondent asserts
in its brief, however, that it has recently reinstated
the striking employees upon their abandonment of
the strike, we believe it unnecessary at this time to
issue a prospective reinstatement and make-whole
order. Nevertheless, we reserve the right to modify
this order if the strikers have not been or are not in
fact timely reinstated to their prior positions upon
application.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Renumber the Trial Examiner's Conclusion of
Law 10 as 12.
2. Renumber Conclusion of Law 9 as 10.
3. Add the following:
"9. By reducing employee work opportunities
and regularly scheduled overtime by implementing
a 1-day per week layoff for truckdrivers and by
eliminating a regularly scheduled truck pickup run,
all without notice to or consultation and bargaining
with the Union, the Company has engaged in unfair
labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act."
"11. The strike engaged in by employees in the
aforesaid appropriate bargaining unit which com-
menced on May 17, 1967, was an unfair labor
practice strike."
ORDER
WITTOCK SUPPLY COMPANY 205
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Wit-
tock Supply Company, Iron Mountain, Michigan,
its officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as herein modified.
1. Renumber paragraph 1(f) of the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Recommended Order as 1(g).
2. Add the following paragraph, to be numbered
1(f), to the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order:
"Refusing to bargain with the Union by laying off
unit truckdrivers 1 day per week and by eliminating
regularly scheduled truck pickup runs without
notice to or consultation with the Union, thereby
unilaterally eliminating customary overtime and
hours worked."
3. Renumber paragraph 2(d) of the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Recommended Order as 2(f) and para-
graph 2(e) as 2(g).
4. Add the following to paragraph 2 of the Trial
Examiner 's Recommended Order:
"(d) Upon request, bargain collectively with the
Union with respect to the 1-day week layoff of the
unit truckdrivers and the reinstitution of the truck
pickup runs to the Kohler Company, and embody
any understanding reached as a result of such bar-
gaining in a signed memorandum of agreement."
"(e) Make whole the unit warehouse and
truckdriver employees for any loss of pay suffered
by them in the manner and under the conditions
and circumstances set forth in the section of the
Board 's Decision entitled `The Remedy."'
5. After the subparagraph contained in the fifth
indented paragraph of the "Appendix", insert the
following:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the
above-named Teamsters local by implementing
layoffs and eliminating regularly scheduled
truck routes and customary overtime without
notice to and bargaining with the aforesaid
Teamsters local and WE WILL upon request
bargain with the Teamsters on these and other
matters of collective bargaining.
6. After the sixth indented paragraph of the
"Appendix", insert the following:
WE WILL make whole the warehouse and
truckdriver employees for any loss of pay suf-
fered by them as a result of our failure and
refusal to bargain with the aforenamed Union
concerning the aforementioned layoffs and the
elimination of the Christmas bonus, regularly
scheduled truck routes, and customary over-
time.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
WILLIAM J. BROWN, Trial Examiner: This
proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter
referred to as the "Act," came on to be heard at
Iron Mountain, Michigan, on September 19
through 22, 1967. The original charge of unfair
labor practices was filed May 18, 1967, by the
above-indicated Charging Party, hereinafter
referred to as the "Union" and the original com-
plaint in Case 30-CA-594 issued July 7, 1967, by
the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board acting through the Board's Regional
Director for Region 30. Thereafter charges were
filed and a complaint issued in Case 30-CA-634
and the cases were consolidated by order of the Re-
gional Director on September 8, 1967. The com-
plaints allege, in addition to jurisdictional matter,
the commission of unfair labor practices defined in
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, on the
part of the above-indicated Respondent, hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the "Company." The
Company's duly filed answers admit the jurisdic-
tional allegations of the complaints and the status
of the Charging Party as a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act; they deny
the commission of the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices.
At the hearing the parties appeared and par-
ticipated as noted above with full opportunity to
present evidence and argument on the issues; sub-
sequent to the close of the hearing briefs were
received from the General Counsel and the Com-
pany and they have been fully considered. On the
entire record herein and on the basis of my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
The pleadings and evidence indicate and I find
that the Company is a wholesale supplier of plumb-
ing and heating supplies, industrial pipe, valves, and
fittings. Its office and warehouse is in Kingsford,
Michigan,' and its customers, contractors, industri-
al accounts, municipalities, and retailers are located
throughout the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and in
the northeastern counties of Wisconsin. During the
calendar year preceding issuance of the complaints
' The Company maintains its post office address in Iron Mountain,
Michigan
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein the Company purchased and received in in-
terstate commerce from points outside the State of
Michigan products valued in excess of $50,000. I
find, as the Company concedes, that it is an em-
ployer en aged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The pleadings and evidence establish that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction and Summary of Events
In the conduct of its wholesaling operations the
Company has employed at material times a total
work force of some 30 employees of whom 10 com-
prise the driver-warehouseman category involved in
the present case.2 The employees work under the
supervision of Jack Wittock, secretary-treasurer
and manager ; James Wittock and Frank McKinnon,
vice presidents; and Joseph Rahoi, warehouse su-
perintendent.
Sometime in September 1966, Grunlund commu-
nicated with Union Business Agent Kenneth Davis
looking to union organization of company em-
ployees . Meetings were held in Grunlund's home
any a number of employees signed union authoriza-
tion cards. On October 3 and 4, 1966, the Union,
by telegram and letter , demanded recognition in a
unit of drivers and warehousemen and on October
5 filed a representation petition with the Board's
Regional Office. A Board-conducted election was
held December 7 resulting in a vote of seven to
three in favor of union representation; the Union
was certified as bargaining representative of the
driver-warehousemen unit on December 15.
Bargaining sessions thereafter failed to produce
an agreement and on May 8, 1967, the Michigan
State Labor Mediation Board conducted a strike-
vote election by secret ballot on the issue of ac-
ceptance of the Company's proposed agreement or
rejection and strike. The company proposal was re-
jected and the seven supporters of the Union went
on strike on May 17, 1967. They were still on strike
as of the time of the hearing in this case . The un-
contradicted testimony of Davis is that the strikers
picketed the company premises with signs bearing
the legends "On Strike," "Wittock Supply on
Strike" and "Wittock Supply Company Charged
2 Employees in the driver-warehouseman bargaining unit are Holger
Grunlund and Bruce Burkman , truckdrivers , and Walter Bilsky , Theophil
DeNeve, Marvin Mercier , Robert Freeman , Kenneth Hamby , Lloyd Peter-
son, George Servia, and Ronald Struebing , warehousemen.
' General Counsel's brief urges that , as alleged in paragraph 10 of the
complaint and denied in the Company's answer , the strike which com-
menced on May 17, 1967, and continued at least throughout the hearing,
be found to be an unfair labor practice strike There are, however, no al-
with Federal Violations."3
The case presents the question as to whether, as
alleged by the General Counsel and denied by the
Respondent, the Company engaged in unfair labor
practices by:
(1) McKinnon's questioning of Bilsky on
December 23, 1966, concerning his union activi-
ties;
(2) McKinnon's soliciting employees on
December 23, 1966, to abandon their support of
the Union, while offering assistance in formation of
an independent union;
(3) Jack Wittock's threatening Grunlund with
discharge and creating an impression of surveil-
lance of employee union activities in March 1967;
(4) Jack Wittock's threat on May 1 and 3, 1967,
to hire relatives and vote the Union out after 1
year;
(5) The elimination of a Christmas bonus in
December 1966;
(6) The change of shift and lunch hours and
other reduction of employee hours of work dis-
criminatorily and without consultation with the
Union in December 1966;
(7) The elimination of pickup truck runs in
December 1966 without consultation with the
Union; and
(8) The layoff of employees Hamby and Nygard
on January 3 and May 21, 1967, respectively.
B. Interrogation Respecting Employee Union
Activity
The testimony of both Bilsky and McKinnon
establishes that McKinnon called Bilsky to the of-
fice on the morning of December 23, 1966. McKin-
non testified that his purpose in summoning Bilsky
to the office was to inquire into the reasons why
employees were dissatisfied with the Company. He
did not deny Bilsky's testimony, which I credit, that
-in the course of their conversation he asked Bilsky
if he were a union member and if the employees
were paying dues to the Union. This questioning of
Bilsky concerning his union activity and that of
other employees occurring in circumstances plainly
lacking in assurances of innocence of purpose in
the inquiry constituted an unfair labor practice
defined in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. Suggested Formation of Independent Union
The complaint alleges that McKinnon, at an em-
ployee meeting on December 23, 1966, solicited
legations of specific unfair labor practices in connection with any treat-
ment accorded the strikers In the circumstances it appears that the allega-
tion that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike is not properly before
the Examiner for determination at this stage. The Examiner's authority
under the statute and regulations (see Board's Rules, Section 102.35) is to
hear and determine allegations rejecting specific unfair labor practices, not
to issue advisory opinions or declaratory judgments Accordingly, I make
no findings as to the character of the strike here involved
WITTOCK SUPPLY COMPANY
employees to abandon the Union and offered help
in their withdrawal from the Union and the forma-
tion of an independent union. The evidence
establishes that , in accordance with longstanding
custom , the Company provided several bottles of
liquor in the conference room toward the latter
part of the workday immediately preceding the
Christmas holiday. All employees of the bargaining
unit were present except for the two truckdrivers.
There was some extended discussion among em-
ployees with respect to whether or not they should
continue their support of the Union. In the course
of the discussion, employees Peterson, Struebing,
and Servia spoke up in favor of supporting the
Company as against the Union. No decision was
reached, however, because of the absence of the
two drivers. The evidence indicates that after the
employee discussion McKinnon was called into the
meeting . While Bilsky's account is somewhat con-
fusing as to occurrences on this occasion, the ac-
counts of Mercier and Freeman are credible in my
judgment and are to the effect that when McKin-
non was called into the meeting and informed that
the employees were going to continue their support
of the Union, he offered a blank check to pay for
the services of a lawyer in setting up an independ-
ent union. McKinnon's account of the incident is
that when he was called into the meeting Bilsky
inquired as how employees could withdraw from
the Union if they felt that they had erred in joining
and supporting it. McKinnon , according to his ac-
count , stated that a legal document would be neces-
sary and, although he could make no commitment,
possibly the Company would pay the fee for such
an attorney . The evidence clearly establishes that
McKinnon made either a firm commitment respect-
ing company payment of an attorney fee for ser-
vices in connection with employee withdrawal from
the Union or an intimation that the Company
would seriously consider such a payment. In either
event his statements on the occasion plainly con-
stitute interference with the right of employees to
make their own decisions respecting union
representation.
Respondent 's reliance on Frito-Lay, Inc., 151
NLRB 28, and N.L.R.B. v. Reeves Broadcasting and
Development Corporation, 336 F.2d 590 (C.A. 4), is
misplaced. I find and conclude that in the course of
the December 23 afternoon meeting McKinnon of-
fered to pay the attorney's fee necessary to effectu-
ate employee withdrawal from the Union and
thereby interfered with the employees' rights under
Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.4
D. Threat of Discharge and Creation of Impression
of Surveillance
Holger "Hack" Grunlund, a truckdriver, is the
senior employee in the bargaining unit and was the
' At a subsequent meeting on December 27 all 10 unit employees met in
the lunchroom with Jack Wittock who asked their decision regarding for-
207
leader in organizational activity on behalf of the
Union. He testified that sometime in March 1967
he was called in to Jack Wittock's office and told
that he was being warned for interference with
work on the dock, that the Union had been notified
of the warning, and that if it happened again he
would be laid off. Grunlund also testified that in
this meeting Wittock accused him of being out to
get the Company and of being the leader. Wittock's
testimony is that the warning was based on Grun-
lund's gathering of the warehousemen about the
dock during working hours. The evidence plainly
fails to make out a case of threat to discharge for
union activity. With respect to the creation of the
impression of surveillance it cannot be said in the
circumstances of this case that, assuming Wittock
made the statement that Grunlund was the leader
of the union activity, that would constitute the
creation of an impression of surveillance particu-
larly in view of the indications that some union ac-
tivity was openly carried on by Grunlund on com-
pany premises.
E. Threat To Hire Relatives
The complaint alleges, and the Company denies,
that on or about May 1 and 3, 1967, Jack Wittock
threatened to hire his relatives to vote the Union
out after a 1-year contract. About a week prior to
the State Mediation Board election respecting em-
ployee acceptance or rejection of the Company's
proposed agreement employees were given copies
of the company proposal which was for a 1-year
term. Bilsky testified that on this occasion he asked
Wittock why he resented the union shop and that
Wittock replied that it really made no difference in
a 1-year contract and said, "What's to stop me
from hiring eight or ten of my relatives, and putting
this vote in my favor in the next election, and that
would be the end of the union." Burkman testified
to a substantially identical conversation with Wit-
tock on May 3.
Wittock testified that on that day he talked to
employees individually about their status under the
company profit-sharing plan and also the Com-
pany's final contract proposal. His account is that
Bilsky stressed the employees' desire for a union
shop and in that connection Wittock replied that
the Company could, either under a union shop or
an open shop, hire friends and relatives to ensure a
procompany majority but that it had not done so in
the December election and he couldn't see why it
would happen later.
I credit the testimony of Bilsky and Burkman as
against that of Wittock and find that in May 1967
prior to the State Board election Wittock interfered
with employees' self-organization by impliedly
threatening to hire relatives to vote the Union out
after a 1-year contract.
matron of an independent union and was told that the employees were
committed to the Teamsters.
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. Elimination of the Christmas Bonus
The evidence reveals that for some 8 or 10 years
prior to the 1966 Christmas season the Company
had sponsored Christmas parties for all employees
and their wives and for the years 1963, 1964, and
1965 all employees received $50 cash bonuses. No
cash bonuses were distributed to employees (both
those in and outside the bargaining unit) at the
December 1966 Christmas party which was held
December 10, 1966, at the Hollywood Supper Club
and was somewhat more pretentious and expensive
than those immediately preceding it. The General
Counsel contends that the failure to pay a Christ-
mas bonus on the occasion of the 1966 Christmas
party was both discriminatory within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(3) and a refusal to bargain within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Since
the evidence clearly indicates that the withholding
of a cash bonus in December 1966 affected not
only those employees who supported the Union but
those in the unit who did not as well as all of the
larger number of nonunit employees and in view of
the lack of specific indications of union animus in
the departure from precedent, I conclude that the
evidence does not preponderate in favor of the con-
clusion that the 1966 withholding of a cash bonus
constituted discriminatory treatment within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a)(3) of the Act.
The refusal to notify and consult with the Union
concerning the departure from precedent, however,
stands on different footing. I conclude that in the
circumstances of a 3-year practice of paying a
uniform cash bonus of $50 at Christmas time to
employees, the departure from that practice follow-
ing the Union 's securing representative status con-
stituted a unilateral alteration of a term or condi-
tion of employment. The circumstance that there
might have been justification in the departure from
precedent does not justify management's failure to
notify and on request discuss the situation with the
bargaining representative. By its unilateral
withholding of the Christmas bonus in 1966 from
employees in the bargaining unit, the Company has
engaged in an unlawful refusal to bargain within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. New Or-
leans Board of Trade, Ltd., 152 NLRB 1258.
G. Discriminatory and Unilateral Reduction in
Hours of Work
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that
the Company engaged in unfair labor practices in
the nature of refusal to bargain and discrimination
by company action in December 1966 and
thereafter by unilaterally and discriminatorily
reducing employee worktime through changes in
shift and lunch periods , starting times, and other
methods.
The contentions respecting changes in shift and
lunch hours relate to employees DeNeve, Freeman,
Bilsky, and Hamby. DeNeve, who had worked in
the pipe shop since sometime in 1965 , testified that
after some 2 to 3 months in the pipe shop his work-
ing hours were changed from 8 to 5 to 7 to 5, with
an unpaid lunch hour . Sometime after the
December 27 meeting in the lunchroom Rahoi
changed his hours to the 8 to 5 schedule resulting
in the loss of 5 hours' weekly overtime at rate and
one-half.
Freeman testified that sometime in January 1967
his hours of work were changed by increasing the
length of his unpaid lunch period by one-half hour
with resultant loss of regular weekly overtime. It
appears, however, as both the General Counsel and
Company point out in their briefs, that Freeman
erred in placing the change as occurring in January
and that in fact it occurred in December . Bilsky
and Hamby also testified to a similar increase of
one-half hour in their unpaid lunch periods about
January 1, 1967.
In addition to the foregoing the General Counsel
alleges a discriminatory and unilateral reduction in
generally reducing the overtime hours of the
warehousemen and truckdrivers . It is also alleged
that the reduction of overtime was less in the case
of nonunion employees Servia , Struebing, and
Peterson ; but the record indicates that Peterson
and Struebing were possessed of special qualifica-
tions in that Peterson was the only unit employee
qualified to do layout work and billing and that
Struebing was a trainee salesman . It also appears
that Servia possessed relatively superior qualifica-
tions since he apparently bypassed the usual initial
stage of loading work and was immediately engaged
on hire in regular warehouse work.
Jack Wittock testified that in mid-December
1966, he instructed Rahoi to cut back on labor
costs in view of declining sales and a relatively un-
favorable cash position. The documentary evidence
establishes that the Company was experiencing a
substantial decline in sales. Furthermore the ratio
of direct labor costs to sales was running substan-
tially higher than in prior years. The evidence also
indicates that whereas in prior years some effort
had been made to furnish make-work employment,
that was not feasible in the winter of 1966-67
because of a relatively unsatisfactory cash position
as compared to prior years. Jack Wittock' s uncon-
tradicted testimony also establishes that in the
winter of 1966-67 office employees were also cut
back as to overtime work.
The changes in shift times, lunch periods, and
overtime work effected in the winter of 1966-67 by
the Company are not shown by a preponderance of
the testimony to have been discriminatorily
motivated. The evidence clearly establishes, how-
ever, that there was no notice to or consultation
with the Union respecting changes in established
hours of work and regularly scheduled overtime. I
conclude that, while there has been no unfair labor
practice in the nature of discrimination under Sec-
WITTOCK SUPPLY COMPANY 209
tion 8 (a)(3) of the Act, the Company engaged in
an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act by its failure to notify and consult on
request with the Union concerning the changes in
existing practice as to starting and shift times and
regularly scheduled overtime. Stevenson Brick and
Block Company, 160 NLRB 198.
H. Elimination of Pickup Truck Runs
The complaint alleges and the Company denies
an unlawful refusal to bargain in the unilateral
elimination of employee truck routes. The evidence
reveals that prior to January 1, 1967, the company
drivers, Grunlund and Burkman , did most of their
driving on outbound runs over somewhat well-
established schedules and routes. It also indicates
that incoming materials were mainly transported
from suppliers to the Company by common carrier
but that incoming materials from the Company's
principal supplier, Kohler, of Kohler, Wisconsin,
were generally hauled by the Company's own
equipment and drivers on semimonthly pickup runs
to Kohler. It is clear that sometime in January 1967
the Company ceased making pickup runs from Ko-
hler and arranged for the transportation of incom-
ing material from Kohler by Prefab Trucking Com-
tany. In this regard I credit the testimony of drivers
urkman and Grunlund that they made no pickup
runs from Kohler after January 1, 1967, up to the
commencement of the strike. I also credit
testimony of Jack Wittock that the decision to uti-
lize Prefab services resulted from a combination of
circumstances : the aging of company equipment,
need of substantial overhaul of such equipment
coupled with a lack of funds to make required over-
haul at the time, and a 50-percent concession
respecting a minimum weight limitation on the part
of Prefab in December 1966.
There appears to be no question but that the
decision to change from company equipment to
Prefab hauling was economically and not dis-
criminatorily motivated. Neither can there be any
question but that change to Prefab constituted a
significant impairment of the earnings of the drivers
since the distance involved (some 157 miles each
way) is such that the elimination of the run either
deprived the drivers of substantially a whole day's
work or of the loss suffered due to a lower rate if
they were put on warehouse work. The evidence in-
dicates, however, that the Company had utilized
the services of common carriers in pickups from
Kohler and its other major suppliers on previous
occasions . It does not appear that the Company has
disposed of any of its hauling equipment, nor unlike
Adelson, Inc., 163 NLRB 407, does it appear that
the Union ever requested bargaining on the matter.
Under all the circumstances set forth above I con-
clude that the Company's action in increasing its
use of Prefab in pickup hauls from Kohler did not
amount to an unfair labor practice.
1. The Discriminatory Layoffs
1. Kenneth Hamby
Kenneth Hamby was hired October 1, 1966, as a
warehouseman and at all material times was the jun-
ior employee in point of service with the Com-
pany. He was laid off January 3, 1967, his first
workday after the holidays, when Rahoi told him he
was laid off due to slack work. No mention was
made as to the probable duration of the layoff.
Hamby had signed a union authorization card, paid
dues, and attended one meeting but does not ap-
pear to have been otherwise active for the Union
and certainly not as active as Grunlund and, ap-
parently, Mercier. Under all the circumstances of
this case, however, including the relatively small
size of the warehouse operation and the testimonyy
which I credit that on election day Jack Wittock
referred to Hamby, along with Bilsky and Freeman,
as a union supporter, I conclude that the Company
knew of his support of the Union.
Hamby was, however, the junior employee in the
unit and the evidence indicates that the Company
was experiencing not only a decline in sales but also
a substantial impairment of its cash position. Also
there was an economically motivated decision to
eliminate certain make-work projects which had
been furnished employees in the slack seasons of
prior years. Rahoi appears to have been the one to
select Hamby for layoff and I credit his testimony
that the decision was on the basis that Hamby was
the junior employee.
While there is no doubt of the Company's op-
position to the Union and of its knowledge that
Hamby was a union supporter, the record indicates
that his layoff as the junior employee was based on
economic considerations and clearly does not pre-
ponderate in favor of the conclusion that he was
laid off in reprisal for his relatively insignificant
union activity.
2. Emil Nygard
Nygard, father-in-law of Grunlund, the employee
leader of union organizational efforts, was hired by
S Hamby was offered recall by company letter dated March 14, 1967
Sometime in January 1967 Hamby encountered McKinnon and Jack Wit-
tock at a supper club. On that occasion Jack Wittock apparently expressed
his surprise that Hamby had been a union supporter The General Counsel
urges that a violation , unalleged in the complaint , be found in the contents
of this casual conversation it does not appear, however, that this was
litigated as a violation nor does it appear that any questioning of Hamby
was not attributable solely to one Moss whose connection or capacity with
the Company is unexplained
210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Company in 1959 as a maintenance employee,
transferred 1 year later to the pipe shop job in the
warehouse , and on January 1, 1966, voluntarily
reduced his hours to 3 per day , spent mainly in
sweeping and minor maintenance work, to retain
social security eligibility . As a part-time employee
he was not among the eligible voters in the union
election . On the first day of the strike, May 17,
1967, Jack Wittock asked him what Grunlund was
going to do and Nygard replied that he had nothing
to do with Grunlund and the boys. On the following
day Jack Wittock, according to both Nygard and
Jack Wittock , offered him full-time employment
but Nygard demurred at taking on more than his 3-
hour employment . On the night of Sunday , May 19,
Jack Wittock called and told him that there was
trouble at the gate and that Nygard should not re-
port until further notice . No further notice was ever
received , and Nygard was replaced by Berg, also a
social security retiree.
Jack Wittock testified that Nygard was laid off
because of his relationship to Grunlund, and,
somewhat remotely , to Burkman , and his apprehen-
sion that Nygard would furnish information to the
strikers as to the routing of company trucks par-
ticularly in view of a union letter of May 15, 1967,
to company customers intimating that they might
undergo union picketing of company trucks at their
premises . Wittock also testified that he had a report
from Peterson of Nygard's communicating with
pickets at the company fence . Peterson testified to
the giving of such report to Wittock on the second
day of the strike after he saw Nygard near the com-
pany fence and near Grunlund and other union sup-
porters . While the contention is also made that the
,layoff of Nygard was also motivated by consider-
ations of economy, I discount this assertion in view
of his replacement by Berg who performed substan-
tially the same work.
Nygard testified that, although he exchanged
"Good mornings " with the strikers through the
fence, he did so at a distance of some 100 feet and
never furnished them information as to delivery
routes . I found him a thoroughly credible witness. It
is also noted that Wittock never questioned Nygard
concerning any leaking of information to the
strikers nor does it appear that Nygard was in any
position to acquire such information . On all the
evidence I conclude that the only reason for the
layoff of Nygard was his relation to Grunlund, one
of those active for the Union . His discharge con-
stituted an unfair labor practice within the scope of
Section 8(a)(3). Golub Bros . Concessions, 140
NLRB 120.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section
III, above , and there found to constitute unfair
labor practices , occurring in connection with the
o erations of the Company as set forth in section I,
above, have a close, intimate , and substantial rela-
tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing such commerce and the
free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of the findings set forth above to the ef-
fect that the Company has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce , it will be recom-
mended that it be required to cease and desist from
such unfair labor practices and take appropriate af-
firmative action including the offering of reinstate-
ment to Emil Nygard with backpay computed in ac-
cordance with the remedial principles set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716. Since the
layoff of Nygard has been found to be in reprisal
for employees ' participation in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in the Act, the cease -and-desist
provisions recommended should be appropriately
broad . ,N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d
532 (C.A. 4).
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this case , I make the fol-
lowing:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating an employee respecting
whether he and other employees were paying dues
to the Union in connection with an offer of finan-
cial assistance in withdrawal from the Union and by
such offer of financial assistance , the Company has
engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By threatening employees with the hiring of
relatives of company officials as a means of
destroyirg the Union's majority status, the Com-
pany has engaged in unfair labor practices defined
in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By laying off and refusing to recall employee
Emil Nygard because of his relationship to the em-
ployee leader of concerted activities on behalf of
the Union, the Company has engaged in unfair
labor prac' ces defined in Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
6. All truckdrivers and warehousemen employed
by the Company , excluding the warehouse super-
visor , office clerical employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining.
7. At all times since December 7, 1966, the
Union has been the exclusive representative for
WITTOCK SUPPLY COMPANY 211
purposes of collective bargaining of employees in
the aforesaid unit.
8. By eliminating a customary Christmas bonus
and by reducing employee work opportunities and
regularly scheduled overtime by changing shift and
lunch periods , all without notice to or consultation
and bargaining with the Union , the Company has
engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
10. Except as specifically found herein, the
Company has not engaged in unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law , and upon the entire record
in this case, it is recommended that the Company,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning whether
they are paying dues to the Union for the purpose
of including their withdrawal from the Union.
(b) Offering employees financial assistance in
connection with their withdrawing from member-
shi in the Union.
(c) Threatening employees with the hiring of
relatives of company officials as a means of dis-
sipating the Union 's representative status.
(d) Laying off and refusing to recall employees
because of their relationship to other employees ac-
tive in concerted activities protected under the Act.
(e) Refusing to bargain with the Union by uni-
laterally and without notice to or consultation with
the Union eliminating a customary bonus and
customary regularly scheduled overtime.
(f) In any 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 and appropriate to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer Emil Nygard immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or a substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make him whole for loss
of earnings in accordance with the provisions of
this Decision above entitled "The Remedy. "6
(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 or appropriate to
analyze and give effect to the backpay require-
ments hereof.
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with the
Union with respect to customary bonuses, shift
starting and ending hours, and duration of lunch
periods, and embody any understanding reached as
a result of such bargaining in a signed memoran-
dum of agreement.
(d) Post at its premises copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 30, after being duly signed by the Company's
authorized representative, shall be posted im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
thereafter for 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to em-1
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps'
shall be taken by the Company to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply,
with the terms hereof.8
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint
be dismissed with respect to those allegations of un-
fair labor practices not herein found to have been
committed.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board,
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT question employees as to
whether they are paying dues to Teamsters
Local Union No. 328, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
WE WILL NOT offer employees financial
assistance in connection with replacement of
the above-named Teamsters local by any other
union.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with the
destruction of the above-named Teamsters lo-
cal's majority status by the hiring of numbers
of relatives of company officials.
' Since Nygard is approaching the age of 69 years, no provisions are
recommended herein respecting the possibility of his service in the Armed
Forces.
r In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order"
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read - " Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
353-177 0 - 72 - 15
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT lay off employees because they
are relatives of other employees who are
leaders in activities on behalf of the above-
named Teamsters local.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the
above-named Teamsters local by eliminating
Christmas bonuses and customary overtime
without notice to and bargaining with the
aforesaid Teamsters local and WE WILL on
request bargain with the Teamsters on these
and other matters of collective bargaining. The
appropriate unit for collective bargaining is:
All truckdrivers and warehousemen em-
ployed by the Company, excluding the
warehouse supervisor , office clerical em-
ployees and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
WE WILL offer Emil Nygard immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or a substan-
tially equivalent position and make him whole
for loss of pay as a result of our discriminating
against him.
All our employees are free to join or assist the
Teamsters Local No. 328.
WITTOCK SUPPLY
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, Second Floor Commerce Building, 744
North Fourth Street , Milwaukee , Wisconsin 53203,
Telephone 272-3861.