American Sign & Neon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 25, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 1049 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

AMERICAN SIGN & NEON CO. 1049 Homer Gale and Howard Gale, Co-Partners, d/b/a American Sign & Neon Company and Local Union No. 48, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 36-CA-1797 June 25, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND ZAGORIA On April 28, 1969, Trial Examiner Maurice Alexandre issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a supprting brief, and the Charging Party filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National 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 and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondents, Homer Gale and Howard Gale, Co-Partners, d/b/a American Sign & Neon Company, Portland, Oregon, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION MAURICE ALEXANDRE, Trial Examiner: This case was heard in Portland, Oregon, on December 3, 1968, upon a complaint issued on October 18, 1968,' alleging that Respondents have violated Sections 8(axl), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The issues presented are whether or not (1) Respondents unlawfully refused to execute a collective-bargaining contract agreed to by the Union and an employer-association, and (2) unlawfully refused to reinstate two striking employees. Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses, and the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Union, and the Respondents, I make the following: Findings and Conclusions' 1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Evidence Respondents Homer Gale and Howard Gale are brothers and co-partners doing business in Portland, Oregon, as American Sign & Neon Company, and are engaged in the manufacture, erection and maintenance of neon and interior illuminated plastic signs as well as all types of signs that are not illuminated. For about 20 years prior to 1968, Respondents and the Union engaged in direct bargaining negotiations and entered into a series of collective-bargaining agreements. For about 10 years prior to 1968, the Union and Association bargained with each other and entered into a series of collective-bargaining agreements covering the Association's employer-members. On April 26, 1968,3 the Union sent to Respondents and to the Association separate notices of its desire to modify their respective agreements scheduled to expire on July 1. Following a meeting of Association members in early May, two of the members invited Respondents and other nonmembers to attend an Association meeting scheduled for May 22. Respondent Homer Gale and two other nonmembers accepted the invitation and were present at the meeting on the latter date. Roscoe E. Watts, Counsel for the Association, testified that according to notes which he made at the meeting, Homer advised those present that the Association could speak for Respondents; and that Homer was present at the Association meetings held on June 25 and July 31. F. A. Woods, vice president of a corporate member of the Association, testified that most of the discussion at the May 22 meeting related to the possibility of a strike by the Union and to whether the employers would be able to stand fast; that Homer stated that he was "with" the group and would not yield and sign a separate agreement with the Union in the event of a strike; that although Homer attended two or three other Association meetings, he never heard Homer state that he "was authorizing Watts or the Association to represent him in the negotiations and to bind him." Neil Ellsworth, vice president of another corporate member of the Association, testified that all those present at the May 22 meeting agreed to be represented by the Association, but he could not recall whether Homer was present at the meeting. Homer testified that he attended several 'Based upon initial and amended charges filed on August 20 and October 17, 1968, by Local Union No . 48, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO (hereafter called the Union). 'No issue of commerce is presented . The complaint alleges , the answer admits, and the parties stipulated to facts which, I find, establish that the employer-members of Sign Contractors Association (hereafter called the Association ) are collectively engaged in commerce or in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act Cf. Service Roofing Co., 173 NLRB No. 44 . 1 further find that the Association is an employer-association existing, inter alio , for the purpose of bargaining with labor organizations concerning wages, hours and working conditions of employees employed by Association members and by employers authorizing the Association to represent them . I also find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 'All dates referred to hereafter relate to 1968 unless otherwise stated. 176 NLRB No. 147 1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Association meetings ; that at the first of such meetings, the date of which he could not recall, those present discussed the possibility of all members and nonmembers acting jointly in negotiating with the Union for a new contract; that he and other nonmembers stated that they wished to discuss the matter among themselves; and that at the next Association meeting, he and three other nonmembers "agreed to negotiate together . . . with the Association." On further interrogation, Homer testified as follows: TRIAL EXAMINER: All right. Now, again, roughly what was said? A. Well, we agreed that we would go along and negotiate together and that we would work to help give strength to the group. TRIAL EXAMINER: Did you speak at that meeting? A. No. TRIAL EXAMINER: You didn't? A. Oh, I suppose I had a few words, sure. TRIAL EXAMINER: Do you remember what you said? A. Just talked amongst the different sign men about this and about that. TRIAL EXAMINER: Well, how did anybody know what you had agreed to do if you didn't say anything? A. Well, we agreed that we would go along and negotiate with the group; that we wouldn't sign sweetheart agreements or - and that's when Heath pulled out and signed a sweetheart agreement. TRIAL EXAMINER: How did you make your agreement known to the group? A. Verbally. TRIAL EXAMINER: What did you say? A. That we would negotiate with them. With the understanding that we could withdraw at any time; not that we would join the Association. TRIAL EXAMINER: Did you say that or - ( interrupted) A. Yes. TRIAL EXAMINER: - or did somebody else say it for you? A. It could have been Mr. Davis that said that we would negotiate with them and not - and wouldn't join. TRIAL EXAMINER: That you would go along and have the Association negotiate for you but you would not join as members? A. And that we wouldn't - we agreed that we wouldn ' t sign an agreement until the strike was settled. TRIAL EXAMINER: We have a problem of semantics here. You can't recall what language was used by Davis, can you? A. No, sir. Homer further testified that he never authorized anyone to bind Respondents to a contract. His testimony on cross-examination by the General Counsel was as follows: Q. Do you recall my interviewing you on or about September 4th, taking an affidavit? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would you examine this and see if this is the affidavit that you signed at that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. I call your attention to statement here near the bottom of the page, it reads: "The next meeting I attended , which I believe was also in June, 1968, 1 told Watts that we were going to go along with the group." A. That' s right. Q. Wasn't that a true statement? A. Well, that's a true statement - "to go along" - I mean to negotiate with the group; and so help me God, I didn't know up until it was all over that I wouldn't get a separate contract to sign. Wes Davis didn't know he wouldn't get a separate contract to sign. We didn't know that Watts was signing for us. I don't give anybody permission to sign for me. Q. And you also said that - is this part of your statement? "When I told Watts that we would go along with the Association, I told him that we would go along with the understanding that ii final negotiations, we as new members had a right to withdraw if we wanted to"? A. Yes, sir. Q. So you went in there with the understanding, did you not, that you could join in and participate in the negotiations with the group, but that at any time you wanted to, you could withdraw out of that? A. Yes, sir. Finally, Homer testified that he asked Watts on numerous occasions whether Respondents would be bound by the negotiations and whether they could withdraw therefrom at any time, and that Watts replied that they could so withdraw. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Watts and Union representatives Bouder' and Teeple, at a bargaining session held on May 29, at which time Respondents were not present, Watts informed the Union that the Association spoke not only for the employers who were parties to the reopened Association contract, but also for Respondents and certain other employers. Bouder testified that according to his understanding, Watts stated that Respondents and another company had become Association members and that Watts would represent them.' The Union raised no objection and thereafter made no attempt to bargain separately with Respondents, as it had in the past. The Association and the Union met again on June 7 and 17, but there is insufficient evidence to show that Respondents attended those meetings. Towards the end of June, probably on June 25, Homer attended an Association meeting at which a proposed offer to the Union was agreed upon. Homer raised no objection. The Association and the Union then met again on June 27. Union representative Bouder testified that he could not recall whether Homer attended that meeting. Union representative Teeple testified that he felt sure that Homer was at the June 27 meeting, that the parties were separated at first, but that they then met at the meeting. Watts testified that his notes refer to a negotiating meeting on June 28, but he gave conflicting testimony as to whether Respondents and any employers other than the Association negotiating committee members were present. Homer testified that prior to the strike which began July 1, he attended one negotiating session in late June, at which a federal mediator was present, but that he did not remember "ever being together with the Union." At the `fhe record refers to him as Bowder , but the Union's brief states that his name was misspelled. 'Watts testified that it was his understanding that Respondents had become Association members . It is undisputed , however , that they never joined the Association. AMERICAN SIGN & NEON CO. meeting, the Association presented its offer to the Union. The offer was submitted to the Union membership on June 28 , but it was rejected . The Union called a strike on July 1 and posted pickets on July 2 at the place of business of each struck employer , including Respondents. Thereafter , Homer attended several Association meetings. On or about July 18 , a number of the struck employers, including Respondents , joined in placing a newspaper advertisement which listed their respective establishments as having job openings because of the strike. On August 16, the Union , the Association ' s negotiating committee , a number of Association members and Homer went to the office of Federal Mediator McClellan. The parties met briefly, at which time Homer was seen by the Union representatives , and they were then housed in separate rooms . After some discussion among themselves, the employers reached agreement upon an offer to be made to the Union . At the time he signified his agreement , Homer stated that Respondents could not agree to any higher offer . The offer was then transmitted to the Union caucus . About 30 minutes later , two Union representatives entered the room housing the Association representatives and made a counterproposal . The Union representatives left and , after some discussion, the employers decided to accept the Union ' s offer. Homer voiced no objection . Watts then informed the Union representatives of the employers' decision .' During a private conversation as they were leaving , one of the employers , Woods, remarked to Homer that the latter had not said anything about the Union 's counterproposal, and asked how Homer felt about it. Homer replied that he did not think that Respondents would agree to the proposal. In the elevator , Homer made a similar statement to D.W. Davis, Jr ., another employer. On the following day, August 17, the Union membership ratified the agreement. Richard Lincke, a striker who had been employed by Respondents, telephoned Homer later that day and asked him if there would be work for him on the following Monday. Homer replied that he would let Lincke know after he talked to his brother , Howard. Shortly thereafter , Donald Kaufman , another striker who had been employed by Respondents , telephoned Homer , who gave him the same response . Failing to hear from Homer , Lincke telephoned him again that night, at which time Homer stated that he did not know whether Respondents "were going to go non-Union or go along with the contract ." When Lincke insisted that he had to know whether or not he was going to work on Monday , Homer replied that Respondents "wouldn ' t go along with the contract ." Lincke thereupon told him that he "would be down Monday morning to pick up [his] tools." On Monday, August 19, Lincke and Kaufman went to Respondents ' shop and picked up their tools . Before Lincke left , he held a conversation with Homer but they did not discuss the latter's job . Before Kaufman left, he held a conversation with Howard Gale, but the subject matter thereof is not a matter of record since neither appeared as a witness . Homer testified that he and his brother had decided , prior to the arrival of the two strikers , "not to put Mr . Kaufman and Mr. Lincke to work under the terms of the new agreement"; that he did not talk to Kaufman on August 19; but that he " imagine *It is undisputed that the agreement was subject to ratification by the Union membership . It is also undisputed that the parties further agreed that the strikers would be reinstated on the following Monday , August 19, but that such agreement was not to be included in the written contract to be executed by the parties. 1051 [d]" that Howard told Kaufman on that day that Respondents "weren ' t going along with the contract." Homer also testified that at the time of the two conversations on August 19, Lincke and Kaufman had not been replaced. On the same day, Lincke and Kaufman went to the Union 's office and informed Bouder that Respondents had refused to honor the agreement reached on August 16. Bouder told Watts by telephone that Respondents had refused to reinstate the two men, asked for an explanation , inquired whether or not Watts represented Respondents , and expressed the opinion that Respondents should be included among the contract signatories. Watts replied that Respondents were bound by the agreement. He then called Homer and asked whether it was true that he had refused to put the two men back to work and did not intend to sign a contract . Homer replied that it was true. When Watts expressed the opinion that Homer was obligated to sign , Homer reminded him of his assurances that Respondents could withdraw at any time. Later that week, Bouder went to see Watts in connection with the mimeographing of the contracts, and asked him whether Respondents were members of and represented by the Association. At first, Watts answered that they were members and were bound by the agreement. However , upon ascertaining from his secretary that Respondents had not paid any dues in response to the bill which Watts had sent them , he informed Bouder that he was not certain regarding their membership. On August 19, a written contract was signed by the Union and by the Association acting on behalf of its members . Watts informed Bouder that three non -member employers did not wish to be included with the Association members in the contract . Accordingly , Bouder obtained their signatures on separate contracts which were identical with the master contract, except that each signatory employer was referred to as an "Independent." The Union, however, did not request Respondents to sign a contract, and Respondents did not sign one. B. Analysis and Conclusions 1. The refusal to bargain Section 8(d) of the Act expressly defines the duty "to bargain collectively" to include "the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party." See also H. J. Heinz Company v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 526. The same requirement applies to a multiemployer agreement reached with a union by an authorized representative of the employer, acting on his behalf . N.L.R.B. v. Sheridan Creations, Inc., 357 F.2d 245, 247 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 385 U.S. 1005; N.L.R.B. v. Jeffries Banknote Company, 281 F.2d 893, 896 (C.A. 9). Where the employer attempts to withdraw from the multiemployer unit before such agreement is reached, his bargaining obligation depends on a determination whether the attempted withdrawal was timely . And absent unusual circumstances , and attempted withdrawal following the commencement of negotiations on a multiemployer basis is not timely . Service Roofing Co., 173 NLRB No. 44. The General Counsel and Charging Party contend that Respondents authorized the Association to represent them at the group negotiations; that since Respondents ' attempt to withdraw from the multiemployer unit took place after the negotiations had begun and, in fact , after the Association and the Union had reached agreement , such attempt was untimely; that 1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondents were accordingly obligated to execute a contract embodying the agreement reached ; and that their failure to do so violated their statutory obligation. Respondents contend that although they agreed to permit the Association to negotiate for them , they did not authorize it to bind them ; that an employer 's inclusion in a multiemployer unit must be based on his intent and consent to bind himself to a course of group bargaining and to accept the obligations and benefits of such bargaining ; that Watts mistakenly , though honestly, believed that Respondents had become members of the Association , that they neither gave such consent nor indicated such intent; and hence that they are neither bound by nor obligated to execute the agreement. I find that Respondents violated their statutory obligation to bargain. It is undisputed , and I find , that Homer, in the presence of a number of Association members and Watts, authorized the Association to speak for Respondents at the multiemployer negotiations with the Union . Although Homer testified that he did not give such authorization until the second Association meeting which he attended, i.e., in June , I find that his authorization was given at the first meeting on May 22 .' It is also undisputed, and I further find , that Homer informed Watts privately that the authorization was subject to Respondents ' right to withdraw from the unit and reject the final agreement if it was not satisfactory to Respondents ; and that Watts assured ban that he could do so .' The record , however, does not disclose exactly when Homer communicated this limitation of authority . I am inclined to the view that he did so on May 22 in view of his affirmative response to the inquiry of the General Counsel, on cross-examination, as to whether "he went in there" with the understanding that he could withdraw at any time . But whether Homer imposed the limitation of authority before or after the Association and the Union began their negotiations on May 29, Respondents are bound by the agreement reached by the parties . If the limitation was imposed after May 29, i .e., after Watts had told the Union that he spoke for Respondents and after negotiations had begun, it was untimely , and Respondents ' subsequent withdrawal from the multiemployer unit was ineffectual .' Service Roofing Co., supra. As stated in N.L. R.B. v. Sheridan Creations , Inc., supra , "A shift in membership after negotiations have begun has lively possibilities for disrupting the bargaining process . . . [and] justif [ies] the Board in adopting a uniform rule for all cases that withdrawal is not timely once bargaining has begun." On the other hand , even if the limitation of authority was imposed before May 29, the subsequent withdrawal from the multiemployer was equally ineffectual." The record shows that the limitation was a private one and that Homer did not reveal its existence to the Union or, 'Although Homer testified in an honest and forthright manner, his memory was not reliable , and Watts' testimony that the date was May 22 was corroborated by Woods , a witness for Respondents. 'There is no basis for the General Counsel ' s suggestion that Homer's testimony may be interpreted as meaning that he merely retained a mental reservation respecting the right to withdraw , which was not communicated to Watts. Since Homer testified without contradiction that Watts assured him that Respondents could withdraw , it is clear that the limitation on authority was communicated to Watts. 'Respondents stipulated , and I fmd , that the following employees constitute an appropriate bargaining unit . "All employees of employer-members of the Association and of employers who have authorized the Association to bargain for them in the Portland , Oregon, area , excluding supervisors as defined in the Act " indeed, to anyone other than Watts. Since Watts was acting within the scope of his apparent authority when he told the Union that the Association represented Respondents and erroneously stated that they were Association members , the Union could reasonably assume and rely upon the existence of Association authority to bind Respondents . Moreover , the existence of apparent authority was reinforced by Homer's presence at two subsequent negotiating meetings between the Association and the Union on June 27 and August 16, and by the listing of Respondents , along with the other struck employers , in a newspaper advertisement . That the Union assumed and relied upon such authority is clear from its failure to seek separate negotiations with Respondents. Had the Union been aware of the limitation on Watts' authority under which Respondents could reject the final agreement , it could have promptly sought separate negotiations with Respondents . In addition , it might not have been willing to accept the terms of the agreement ultimately reached with the Association. To adopt a rule permitting an employer in these circumstances to withdraw from a multiemployer unit and to refuse to be bound by the agreement reached would create the same "lively possibilities for disrupting the bargaining process" as exist where an employer with unrestricted membership in a multiemployer unit makes an untimely attempt to withdraw. It is true that Respondents, who did not attend the May 29 meeting, were not aware that Watts had overstated the extent of his authority. But that circumstance does not mitigate the fact that Watts, as agent for the Association , was thus the agent of Respondents; that Respondents failed to disclose to the Union the private limitation on his authority; and that they relied upon Watts to inform the Union regarding the scope of his authority. In such circumstances, I find that Respondents are estopped from relying either upon their private restriction upon such authority or upon Watts' mistake as a basis for withdrawing from the multiemployer unit and for refusing to be bound by the agreement reached between their agent and the Union. Cf. Quiel Bros. Electric Sign Service Co., Inc., 153 NLRB 326." The record also establishes that at the time the Association members agreed to accept the Union's counteroffer at the August 16 meeting, Homer voiced no objection. I find that such silence on his part amounted to a tacit ratification of the agreement reached by the Association and the Union negotiators on August 16 and ratified by the Union membership on August 17. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Coletti Color Prints, Inc., 387 F.2d 298 (C.A. 2). For all of these reasons, I find that Respondents are bound by the agreement negotiated on their behalf by the Association, and that their failure to execute the agreement constituted a violation of Sections 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.'I "That Respondents were not formal members of the Association would not alter this conclusion . Town & Country Dairy, 136 NLRB 517 "See also City Transfer Co, Ltd. 166 NLRB No. 34, in which the Trial Examiner stated : "True , a principal might be bound to a third person if he secretly limits his agent 's authority and if the agent acts within his known authority, but exceeds the secret limitation." "The Union 's failure to make an express request to Respondents to sign the contract is immaterial in view of Homer 's repeated statements that Respondents did not intend to sign Service Roofing Co., supra AMERICAN SIGN & NEON CO. 1053 2. The refusal to reinstate It is hornbook law that an economic striker continues to be an employee under the Act and that where he has not been replaced , he is entitled to reinstatement to his former or an equivalent job upon his unconditional application therefor . It is also settled that where an employer unlawfully refuses to sign a collective-bargaining agreement , may be required to pay to his employees the benefits which would have been paid to them had he signed the contract . N.L.R.B. v. Strong Roofing & Installation Co., 393 U.S. 357. It follows that a striker who is entitled to reinstatement to his job with such an employer is also entitled to be made whole for any benefits he would have received had his employer signed the contract . There is no reason why the contract benefits should not be extended to such a striker as well as to nonstriking employees. Here , the two strikers , Lincke and Kaufman, unconditionally applied on August 17 for reinstatement to their jobs on August 19; i.e., the date on which the Association and the Union executed their contract. Homer ' s final reply to Lincke that night was that Respondents would not honor the contract. This response, I find , constituted a rejection of Lincke's application, and thus was a refusal to reinstate violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Based upon Homer 's testimony that Respondents had decided , prior to the arrival of Kaufman at the shop on August 19, not to put him to work under the terms of the new agreement , and Homer ' s further testimony that it was his impression that his brother so informed Kaufman on that date , I find that Respondents similarly rejected Kaufman ' s application for reinstatement , thereby violating Section 8 (a)(3) and (1). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By their failure to sign and abide by the collective-bargaining agreement signed by the Association and the Union on August 19, Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 2. By refusing to reinstate Employees Lincke and Kaufman on August 19, Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY I shall recommend that Respondents cease and desist from their unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action which I deem necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, I shall recommend that Respondents forthwith sign the collective-bargaining agreement signed by the Association and the Union on August 19, that they give retroactive effect to the terms and conditions of that agreement, and that they make whole their employees for any loss of wages or other employment benefits they may have suffered as a result of Respondents' failure to sign the agreement. I shall further recommend that Respondents offer to' Lincke and Kaufman immediate and full reinstatement to the positions which they held at the time of the discrimination against them or to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and that Respondents make each of them whole for any loss of earnings suffered because of the discrimination against them, by paying to each a sum of money equal to that which would have been paid by Respondents, had they duly signed the agreement and reinstated him, from the date of the discrimination against him to the date on which Respondents offer reinstatement as aforesaid, less his net earnings, if any, during the said period. The loss of earnings under the order recommended shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondents , their agents , successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Failing or refusing to sign the collective -bargaining agreement signed on August 19, 1968 , by Sign Contractors Association and Local Union No. 48, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. (b) Unlawfully refusing to reinstate any strikers entitled to reinstatement , or otherwise unlawfully discriminating in regard to their hire , tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Forthwith sign the agreement described in paragraph 1(a). (b) Upon execution of the aforesaid agreement, give retroactive effect to the provisions thereof and, in the manner set forth in the section herein entitled "The Remedy," make whole their employees for any losses they may have suffered by reason of Respondents ' failure to sign the agreement. (c) Offer to Richard Lincke and Donald Kaufman immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , and make each whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of Respondents ' discrimination against him , in the manner set forth in the section herein entitled "The Remedy." (d) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces. (e) 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 and the right of reinstatement under the terms of this Recommended Order. (f) Post at their place of business in Portland , Oregon, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" "In the event that this Re'ommended Order be 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 be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, shall , after being signed by Respondents' representatives , be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing , within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order , what steps have been taken to comply herewith." "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 the Respondents have taken to comply herewith." 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 National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL forthwith sign the collective-bargaining agreement signed on August 19,' 1968 , by Sign Contractors Association and Local Union No. 48, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. WE WILL give retroactive effect to the terms and conditions of said agreement , and we will make whole our employees for any losses they may have suffered by reason of our failure to sign the said agreement. WE WILL offer to Richard Lincke and Donald Kaufman immediate and full reinstatement to their old jobs and pay them for all back earnings lost as a result of the discrimination against them and our failure to sign the above agreement. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign the above agreement. WE WILL NOT unlawfully discriminate against Richard Lincke, Donald Kaufman or any other striker. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. Dated By HOMER GALE AND HOWARD GALE, CO-PARTNERS D/B/A AMERICAN SIGN & NEON COMPANY (Employer) (Representative) (Title) Note : Notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting , and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office , 310 Six Ten Broadway Building , 610 SW . Broadway, Portland , Oregon 97204, Telephone 226-3361.