Eckert Fire Protection Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 28, 1999

329 N.L.R.B. 920 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 920
Eckert Fire Protection Company and Indiana State
Pipe Trades Association, United Association of
Plumbers and Pipefitters, AFL–CIO and Road
Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A.,
AFL–CIO a/w United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe-
fitting Industry of the United States and Can-
ada, AFL–CIO. Case 25–CA–26184
October 28, 1999
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX,
LIEBMAN, HURTGEN, AND BRAME
Upon a charge filed by the Unions on August 20,
1998, and amended charges filed November 16 and De-
cember 15, 1998, respectively, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint
on December 29, 1998, against Eckert Fire Protection
Company, the Respondent, alleging that it has violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act. Copies of the charge, amended charges and com-
plaint were properly served on the Respondent. On Feb-
ruary 9, 1999, the Respondent faxed to the Region a one-
page memorandum purporting to be an answer to the
complaint.
On June 24, 1999, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment with the Board. On June 25,
1999, the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the
motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed no
response. The allegations in the motion are therefore
undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations provide that the allegations in the complaint
shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within
14 days from service of the complaint, unless good cause
is shown. In addition, the complaint affirmatively notes
that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of service,
all the allegations in the complaint will be considered
admitted. Further, the undisputed allegations in the Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment disclose that the Region, by
letter dated January 28, 1999, notified the Respondent
that unless an answer were received by February 8, 1999,
a Motion for Summary Judgment would be filed.
On February 9, 1999, the Respondent’s president faxed
a memorandum, dated February 8, 1999, to the Region,
stating that “[a]fter talking with my attorney, I have the
following response to the charges: I deny any and all
charges referenced above. As you know and we dis-
cussed on the phone, I have closed my business. There is
not an operating enterprise or any assets.”
The Motion for Summary Judgment also states without
contradiction that the Region, on May 27, 1999, sent a
letter to the Respondent advising that the February 8,
1999 memorandum was an insufficient response to the
complaint. The letter again set forth the requirements of
Section 102.20 of the Rules and Regulations and en-
closed a copy of Sections 102.20 and 102.21. Finally,
the letter advised the Respondent that a sufficient answer
should be filed by June 9, 1999, and that failure to do so
would result in the filing of a Motion for Summary
Judgment. No further answer was filed.
We find that the Respondent’s memorandum, dated
February 8, 1999, does not constitute a proper answer to
the complaint allegations under Section 102.20 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations because it fails to address
any of the factual or legal allegations of the complaint,
and therefore is legally insufficient under the Board’s
Rules. See American Gem Sprinkler Co., 316 NLRB
102, 103 (1995) (respondent’s apparently pro se answer
stating that it does not “agree with the Union’s position”
too vague to constitute an acceptable answer).1
Our dissenting colleagues emphasize that the Board
accepts answers that specifically deny individual para-
graphs of a complaint. Of course, the reason why the
Board does so is that such answers are in full compliance
with Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules, which states
that the “respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or
explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint.” By
contrast, as we have taken pains to point out above, the
Respondent’s answer here fails to specifically deny any
of the complaint allegations.
In addition, our dissenting colleagues suggest that the
Board would accept a boilerplate answer that mechani-

1 Because the Respondent’s president, Wayne Bennett, filed the Feb-
ruary 8, 1999 answer himself, it appears that the Respondent is not
represented by counsel, despite Bennett’s reference to “talking with my
attorney.” We have therefore evaluated the Respondent’s answer under
the more lenient standard applicable to pro se respondents. See, e.g.,
American Gem, supra, 316 NLRB at 103 fn. 5. However, even under
that standard, the Respondent’s answer is still inadequate because it
fails to specifically address the substance of any complaint allegations.
Id. Accord, Triple H Fire Protection, 326 NLRB 463 (1998) (even
assuming that the respondent was proceeding pro se, its letter stating
that it “den[ies] any and all accusations” still does not constitute a
proper answer because it does not specifically deny any of the com-
plaint allegations).
In Triple H Fire, the Board cited the following additional cases
which further support our decision: Breeden Painting Co., 314 NLRB
870 (1994) (respondent’s apparently pro se answer stating that it “de-
nies the complaint” not sufficient); Parisian Manicure Mfg. Co., 258
NLRB 203 (1981) (respondent’s apparently pro se answer stating that
“we deny the allegations stated in the notice you sent us” not suffi-
cient); Lloyd’s Laundry & Dry Cleaning, 250 NLRB 1369 (1980) (re-
spondent’s apparently pro se answer stating that it “protest[s] that all
allegations filed in this complaint are false” does not comport with the
Board’s rule); Pipeline Construction Workers Local 692 (Fulhgum
Construction Corp.), 248 NLRB 1315 (1980) (respondent union’s
apparently pro se answer stating that it does “not find any basis for a
charge as per Section 8(b), Subsections 1(A) and (2) of the National
Labor Relations Act” not in compliance with the Board’s rule).
329 NLRB No. 79
ECKERT FIRE PROTECTION CO. 921
cally denies each and every allegation of the complaint.
We disagree. Denials must be reasonably based on fact
and not simply mechanical. Under Section 102.21 of the
Board’s Rules, an answer must be signed; “to the best of
[the] knowledge, information, and belief” of the individ-
ual signing the answer, there must be “good ground to
support it”; and the answer must “not [be] interposed for
delay.” An answer “signed with intent to defeat the pur-
pose of this section” may be stricken “as sham and
false.” Thus, under the Board’s rule, a respondent cannot
answer a NLRB complaint by arbitrarily writing the
word “denied” 10 times on a piece of paper.
Finally, there is no merit in our dissenting colleagues’
claim that the result we reach “elevate[s] form over sub-
stance.” In promulgating the specificity requirement of
Section 102.20, the Board was clearly concerned with the
substantive rights of the parties. As the Board explained
in Fulhgum Construction, supra, “The reasons [for the
rule] are as manifest here as in other judicial and admin-
istrative proceedings: viz, to facilitate the joining of is-
sues and reduce the area of litigation, and in order that
the rights of parties may be more quickly established and
wrongs sooner rectified.” 248 NLRB at 1316. In sum,
our dissenting colleagues’ position is inconsistent with
the plain language of Section 102.20 of the Board’s
Rules and established precedent.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail-
ure to file a sufficient answer, we grant the General
Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation,
with an office and place of business in Indianapolis,
Indiana, has been engaged in the design, installation,
inspection, maintenance and service of fire protection
systems. During the 12 months preceding issuance of the
complaint, the Respondent, in conducting its business
operations, purchased and received at its Indianapolis,
Indiana facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points located outside the State of Indiana.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act and that the Unions, Indiana State Pipe
Trades Association, United Association of Plumbers and
Pipefitters, AFL–CIO, and the Road Sprinkler Fitters
Local Union No. 669, U.A., AFL–CIO a/w United Asso-
ciation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL–CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent, by its president, Wayne Bennett, at
its facility: about mid-May 1998, and again on May 26,
1998, threatened its employees with plant closure if they
selected the Unions as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative; about April or May 1998, informed its em-
ployees that the Respondent would cease its practice of
lending money to employees if they selected the Unions
as their collective-bargaining representative; about May
26, 1998, threatened its employees with adverse changes
in their terms and conditions of employment, including a
reduction in wages, cessation of the Respondent’s prac-
tice of lending money to employees, elimination of paid
holidays, and elimination of personal use of the Respon-
dent’s vehicles, if they selected the Unions as their col-
lective-bargaining representative; and about June 1998,
informed its employees that it would not consider em-
ployees for raises until after the outcome of the union
election.
About July 1998, the Respondent, through its Vice
President Kevin Douthitt, at the Respondent’s facility,
informed employees that adverse changes were being
made in their working conditions, including a stricter
enforcement of the Respondent’s attendance policy,
stricter enforcement of employees’ breaktime and lunch-
times, cessation of the Respondent’s practice of lending
money to employees, and elimination of personal use of
the Respondent’s vehicles, because of their support for
and activities on behalf of the Unions.
From about June 1997 to June 9, 1998, from about
April 10 to June 9, 1998, and from about June 2 – 9,
1998, certain employees of the Respondent employed at
the Respondent’s facility ceased work concertedly and
engaged in a strike. About June 9, 1998, by letter, the
Unions, on behalf of the following employees who had
engaged in the strikes described above, made an uncon-
ditional offer for the following individuals to return to
their former positions of employment: Richard Alexan-
der, Mike Brooks, Brad Henry, Marvin Howard, Richard
Klementowicz, Lance Lambrith, Allen Liby, Steve
Miller, Eric Scott, and Ronald J. Whitman. Since about
June 9, 1998, the Respondent has failed and refused to
reinstate or offer to reinstate these employees to their
former positions of employment.
The Respondent has refused to hire or consider for hire
the following applicants on the following dates: since
about April 1998, Scott Duncan and Paul Knott Jr.; since
about April 10, 1998, Bradley Hutchins, Rodney Smith,
Lee Thompson, and Jack Neal Jr.; since about April 14,
1998, Kenneth Cheatham, Brian Currie, Mark Gray, Paul
Key, and Larry Shepard; since about April 16, 1998,
Todd Johnson and Mike Schellar; since about May 1998,
Dillo Bush and William Kriech; and since about June
1998, Keith Myron Harris.
About April 11, 1998, the Respondent increased the
wages of its employee Robert Green, and about April 17,
1998, the Respondent increased the wages of its em-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 922
ployee Joseph Sherman. About July 1998,2 the Respon-
dent changed its work rules by: more strictly enforcing
its attendance policy; more strictly enforcing its policy
on lunchtime and breaktimes; ceasing its policy of loan-
ing money to employees; and prohibiting the use of the
Respondent’s vehicles for personal use. The Respondent
engaged in this conduct because its employees formed,
joined, and assisted the Unions and engaged in concerted
activities and to discourage other employees from engag-
ing in these activities.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Respon-
dent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
by Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. In addition, by failing and refusing to reinstate
the above named striking employees upon their uncondi-
tional offer to return to work, by refusing to hire or con-
sider for hire the above named applicants, by increasing
employees’ wages and by changing its work rules, the
Respondent has been discriminating in regard to the hire
or tenure or terms and conditions of employment of its
employees and applicants for employment, thereby dis-
couraging membership in a labor organization, violating
Section 8(a)(1)and (3) of the Act.
By the conduct described above, the Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) by failing and refusing to reinstate certain strik-
ing employees upon their unconditional offer to return to
work, we shall order the Respondent to offer the dis-
criminatees, and, upon their application, any other strik-
ers, full reinstatement to their former jobs, or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed, and to make them whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them. Backpay shall
be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co.,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The
Respondent shall also be required to remove from its
files any and all references to the unlawful failure to re-
instate, and to notify the discriminatees in writing that
this has been done.

2 This date was inadvertently referred to in complaint par. 7(i) as
July 1997.
Further, having found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by refusing to hire or consider for
hire the individuals named above, we shall order the Re-
spondent to offer them immediate employment to the
jobs they would have had, but for the unlawful discrimi-
nation against them, and to make them whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
the discrimination against them. Backpay shall be com-
puted in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., supra,
with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Re-
tarded, supra. The Respondent shall also be required to
expunge from its files any and all references to the un-
lawful refusal to hire or consider for hire, and to notify
the discriminatees in writing that this has been done.
In addition, having found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by changing its work rules, we
shall order the Respondent to rescind these changes.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Eckert Fire Protection Company, Indianapo-
lis, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening its employees with plant closure if
they select the Unions as their collective-bargaining rep-
resentative.
(b) Informing its employees that it would cease its
practice of lending money to employees if they selected
the Unions as their collective-bargaining representative.
(c) Threatening its employees with adverse changes in
their terms and conditions of employment if they selected
the Unions as their collective-bargaining representative.
(d) Informing its employees that it would not consider
employees for raises until after the outcome of the union
election.
(e) Making adverse changes in its employees’ working
conditions, including a stricter enforcement of its atten-
dance policy, stricter enforcement of employees’ break-
time and lunchtime, cessation of its practice of lending
money to employees, and elimination of personal use of
its vehicles, because of employees’ support for and ac-
tivities on behalf of the Unions.
(f) Failing and refusing to reinstate to their former po-
sitions of employment or offer reinstatement to striking
employees Richard Alexander, Mike Brooks, Brad
Henry, Marvin Howard, Richard Klementowicz, Lance
Lambrith, Allen Liby, Steve Miller, Eric Scott, and
Ronald J. Whitman upon their unconditional offer to
return to work.
(g) Refusing to hire or consider for hire applicants
Scott Duncan, Paul Knott Jr., Bradley Hutchins, Rodney
Smith, Lee Thompson, Jack Neal Jr., Kenneth Cheatham,
Brian Currie, Mark Gray, Paul Key, Larry Shepard, Todd
Johnson, Mike Schellar, Dillo Bush, William Kriech, and
Keith Myron Harris.
ECKERT FIRE PROTECTION CO. 923
(h) Increasing the wages of employees, thereby dis-
criminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms and
conditions of employment, and discouraging membership
in a labor organization.
(i) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the adverse changes in its employees’
working conditions, including a stricter enforcement of
its attendance policy, stricter enforcement of employees’
breaktime and lunchtime, cessation of its practice of
lending money to employees, and elimination of personal
use of its vehicles.
(b) Within 14 days of this Order, offer full reinstate-
ment to Richard Alexander, Mike Brooks, Brad Henry,
Marvin Howard, Richard Klementowicz, Lance Lam-
brith, Allen Liby, Steve Miller, Eric Scott, and Ronald J.
Whitman to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed.
(c) Make employees whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful
failure to reinstate and the unlawful refusals to hire, in
the manner set forth in the remedy section of this deci-
sion.
(d) Accord all striking employees from the strike
which began in June 1997 the rights and privileges ac-
corded to strikers, including, on their unconditional ap-
plication, offering strikers not heretofore reinstated im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and making
them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the unlawful failure to reinstate, in
the manner set forth in the remedy section of this deci-
sion.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Scott Duncan, Paul Knott Jr., Bradley Hutchins, Rodney
Smith, Lee Thompson, Jack Neal Jr., Kenneth Cheatham,
Brian Currie, Mark Gray, Paul Key, Larry Shepard, Todd
Johnson, Mike Schellar, Dillo Bush, William Kriech, and
Keith Myron Harris immediate employment in the same
positions they would have had but for the unlawful dis-
crimination against them or, if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions.
(f) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful refusals to
reinstate and unlawful refusals to hire or consider for
hire, and within 3 days thereafter notify the employees
and applicants in writing that this has been done and that
the unlawful refusals to reinstate and unlawful refusals to
hire or consider for hire will not be used against them in
any way.
(g) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make
available to the Board or its agents for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of back-
pay due under the terms of this Order.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Indianapolis, Indiana, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since April 1998.
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.

MEMBERS HURTGEN AND BRAME, dissenting.
We would deny the General Counsel’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. The unrepresented employer has
acknowledged receipt of the papers and timely re-
sponded. In response to the complaint, the pro se Re-
spondent said that it denied any and all of the allegations.
The Respondent clearly puts the General Counsel’s alle-
gations in issue, and we believe that this is a sufficient
denial to put the General Counsel to his proof at a hear-
ing.
Our colleagues assert that the answer is not sufficiently
specific. However, we note that it is not unusual for a
respondent, represented by able counsel, to file an an-
swer which simply says “denied” with respect to individ-
ual paragraphs of a complaint. Such answers are rou-
tinely accepted.1 Accordingly, if the Respondent in this
case had said “denied” 10 times (to the 10 paragraphs of
the complaint), that would have been acceptable.2 Our

3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
1 Our colleagues do not quarrel with this assertion.
2 Our colleagues say that if a respondent arbitrarily says “denied” 10
times, that answer would be stricken as sham and false. However, the
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 924
colleagues concede that such an answer would be spe-
cific, but they assert that the instant denial of “any and all
charges” is not specific. In our view, our colleagues
have elevated form over substance. We would particu-
larly decline to do this with respect to a pro se Respon-
dent.
Our colleagues also say that answers which are inter-
posed for delay, and those which are signed with a ma-
levolent purpose, may be stricken. However, there is no
allegation or evidence that Respondent here is guilty of
any such conduct.
Based on the above, we would not foreclose this pro se
Respondent from an opportunity to defend itself.3

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with plant clo-
sure if they select the Unions as their collective-
bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees that we will cease
our practice of lending money to employees if they select
the Unions as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with adverse
changes in their terms and conditions of employment if
they select the Unions as their collective-bargaining rep-
resentative.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees that we will not
consider employees for raises until after the outcome of
the union election.
WE WILL NOT make adverse changes in our employees’
working conditions, including a stricter enforcement of
our attendance policy, stricter enforcement of employees’
breaktime and lunchtime, cessation of our practice of
lending money to employees, and elimination of personal
use of our vehicles, because of employees’ support for
and activities on behalf of the Unions.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to reinstate to their for-
mer positions of employment employees Richard Alex-
ander, Mike Brooks, Brad Henry, Marvin Howard, Rich-
ard Klementowicz, Lance Lambrith, Allen Liby, Steve
Miller, Eric Scott, and Ronald J. Whitman upon their
unconditional offer to return to work.

proponent of the motion to dismiss (the General Counsel) must estab-
lish that a denial is arbitrary, sham, and false. There is no such show-
ing here. Indeed, the General Counsel argues only a lack of specificity.
3 See Member Hurtgen’s dissent in Triple H Fire Protection, 326
NLRB 463 (1998), in which he indicated his disagreement with the
cases cited therein, to the extent that they are inconsistent with his
views set forth there and here.
WE WILL NOT refuse to hire or consider for hire appli-
cants Scott Duncan, Paul Knott Jr., Bradley Hutchins,
Rodney Smith, Lee Thompson, Jack Neal Jr., Kenneth
Cheatham, Brian Currie, Mark Gray, Paul Key, Larry
Shepard, Todd Johnson, Mike Schellar, Dillo Bush, Wil-
liam Kriech, and Keith Myron Harris.
WE WILL NOT increase the wages of our employees,
thereby discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or
terms and conditions of employment, and discouraging
membership in a labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the adverse changes in our employ-
ees’ working conditions, including a stricter enforcement
of our attendance policy, stricter enforcement of employ-
ees’ breaktime and lunchtime, cessation of our practice
of lending money to employees, and elimination of per-
sonal use of our vehicles.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer full reinstatement to Richard Alexander,
Mike Brooks, Brad Henry, Marvin Howard, Richard
Klementowicz, Lance Lambrith, Allen Liby, Steve
Miller, Eric Scott, and Ronald J. Whitman, to their for-
mer jobs, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL accord all striking employees from the strike
which began in June 1997, the rights and privileges ac-
corded to strikers, including, on their unconditional ap-
plication, offering strikers not heretofore reinstated im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and making
them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the unlawful failure to reinstate.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer applicants Scott Duncan, Paul Knott Jr.,
Bradley Hutchins, Rodney Smith, Lee Thompson, Jack
Neal Jr., Kenneth Cheatham, Brian Currie, Mark Gray,
Paul Key, Larry Shepard, Todd Johnson, Mike Schellar,
Dillo Bush, William Kriech, and Keith Myron the jobs
they would have had but for our unlawful discrimination
against them or, if those jobs no longer exist, substan-
tially equivalent ones.
WE WILL make employees whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the unlaw-
ful failure to reinstate and the unlawful refusals to hire,
with interest.

ECKERT FIRE PROTECTION CO. 925
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of this Order,
remove from our files any reference to the unlawful re-
fusals to reinstate and unlawful refusals to hire or con-
sider for hire, and within 3 days thereafter notify the em-
ployees and applicants in writing that this has been done
and that the unlawful refusals to reinstate and unlawful
refusals to hire or consider for hire will not be used
against them in any way.

ECKERT FIRE PROTECTION COMPANY