Hub City Iron Store

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 7, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1346 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above -named Union , as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below, with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other conditions of employment , and, if an understanding is reached , embody such an understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All driver-salesmen employed at our Miami, Florida , plant, excluding production and maintenance employees , employees in the vending depart- ment , advertising employees , merchandise employees , professional employ- ees, office clerical employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. PEPSI-COLA BOTTLERS OF MIAMI, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) 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 pro- visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Resident Office, Room 826, Federal Office Building, 51 SW. First Avenue , Miami, Florida, Telephone No. 350-5391. Hub City Iron Store and Local Lodge #862, International Asso- ciation of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 18-CA-1886. July 7, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On March 30, 1965, Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. 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 the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner.' 1 The Board, although agreeing with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent had prior knowledge of Fredrickson's union activities, does not rely on the Trial Examiner's con- clusion that a telephone call from Union Representative Obermeyer to the Respondent on the day of the discharge, requesting the negotiation of a contract for store employees, indicated such prior knowledge, inasmuch as the record indicates that the call was made after Fredrickson's discharge Member Jenkins finds sufficient evidence apart from the relatively small number of employees in the store for inferring such knowledge 153 NLRB No. 104. HUB CITY IRON STORE 1347 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, as modified herein, and orders that Respondent, Hub City Iron Store, Aberdeen, South Dakota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial. Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified : 1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b) to the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, the present paragraph 2(b) and those subse- quent thereto being consecutively relettered : "(b) Notify the above-named employee if 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 of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces." 2. In the ninth line of the third substantive paragraph of the Appen- dix to the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, insert a period after the work "activities" and delete all of the ensuing language in the paragraph. 3. The telephone number for Region 18, appearing at the bottom of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, is amended to read : Telephone No. 334-2618. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed on July 17, 1964, by Local Lodge # 862, International Asso- ciation of Machinists , AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union , the General Counsel issued a complaint on August 26, 1964, against Hub City Iron Store, herein called the Company or the Respondent , alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended . All parties participated fully in the hearing before Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders , and both the General Coun- sel and the Respondent submitted briefs. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of South Dakota. At all times material herein Respondent has maintained its principal office and place of business in the city of Aberdeen, State of South Dakota . During the past year Respondent in the course and conduct of its business operations purchased products valued in excess of $400,000 , of which products valued in excess of $400 ,000 were purchased from points directly outside the State of South Dakota. The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce as defined by the Act. IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local Lodge # 862, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. 1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Respondent operates a wholesale auto parts store and a service department wherein motor rebuilding and machine shop custom work is done. Both are under the supervision and management of Elmer Schlagel . The store employees are the only people involved in this proceeding . They are not covered by any collective- bargaining agreement , although the service department is included in a collective- bargaining agreement between Respondent and the Union covering an affiliate corporation. The store has eight employees who are engaged predominantly in receiving and filling orders for the wholesale sale of auto parts and supplies. In May 1964, the Company and the Union entered into a renewed contract for the service department employees, and shortly thereafter the store employees started their organizational activities. A. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Dale Fredrickson Fredrickson was hired on May 19, 1958, and worked continuously for the Respond- ent until his discharge on July 13, 1964.1 Fredrickson began his employment by doing work in shipping and receiving, and in early 1961 started his training for the position of a counterman. In late 1961 he was given the job of pricing and inventory clerk and worked at this position until his discharge. This record establishes that the position of pricing and inventory clerk is considered one of the most important and responsible positions in the store. It is the duty of this employee to price each item from the inventory cards and maintain a perpetual inventory on the cards. Speed and accuracy are essential in the job. In addition to these duties, the record shows that Fredrickson frequently took telephone orders from customers and aslo waited on customers at the counter. The Respondent contends that Fredrickson was dis- charged for cause. Fredrickson testified that in September 1962 he had a discussion with Respondent Manager Schlagel, and was then informed by Schlagel that he was not doing enough work. Fredrickson explained to Schlagel on this occasion that he answered many telephone calls and these calls interrupted his invoicing.2 Fredrickson also related in his testimony that in October 1963 he asked Manager Schlagel for a raise in pay, and that Schlagel replied that he did not feel Fredrickson was applying himself and that he was not doing enough work. Manager Schlagel testified that in September 1962 he discussed three faults of Fredrickson with him- (1) activity among fellow employees, (2) low productivity, and (3) his general attitude. Schlagel stated that he then gave Fredrickson a 5-cent pay raise which was effective October 1, 1962, and admitted that Fredrickson showed evidence of having ability and aptitude in the Respondent's type of work. Schlagel further testified that in June or July 1962 he started receiving complaints through the Respondent's salespeople of Fredrickson's arrogance and arrogant attitude toward customers as he waited on them over the telephone and at the store counter. Schlagel also related that shortly after his talk with Fredrickson in September 1962, he then made the decision that there was no future for Fredrickson with the Company, and had also decided then to eventually discharge him. Schlagel testified that about April 1964 he decided to discharge Fredrickson as soon as the heavy vacation period was over with.3 Schlagel stated that before leaving on his own vacation he had informed Supervisor DeWalt to keep "an eye" on Fredrickson while he was gone, and if he "needed" to be discharged during this time to tell Paul Green. On July 13, 1964, according to Schlagel, he arrived at his office between 8.15 and 8:20 a.m. and asked Fredrickson to come into his office wherein Schlagel then told Fredrickson that he was discharged. Schlagel agreed that in the final analysis he discharged Fredrickson for the following reasons- Unsatisfactory customer contacts, low pro- ductivity, his agitation among fellow employees, a bad attitude toward the Company, and because he had a personality trait of unnecessarily harassing other employees to a point where it frequently developed into bickering, resentment, and dissension among them. I All dates are 1964 unless specifically stated otherwise 2 Fredrickson was supposed to take telephone calls along with his other duties, and under usual practices the person who takes an order from customers over the telephone had to also fill the order 3 Schlagel took his own 1964 vacation from June 22 to 27, and from July 5 to 11. Schlagel returned to Aberdeen on the evening of July 12, and that evening had a tele- phone conversation with the Respondent's owner, Paul Green. HUB CITY IRON STORE 1349 Fredrickson testified that the store employees became interested in the Union right after the renewal contract was signed between the parties in May covering the service department employees, as aforestated. Fredrickson stated that he talked about this with other employees and in so doing expressed a favorable opinion toward the Union, and that on June 20, 1964, he and three other employees went to the union hall in Aberdeen where they inquired about joining the Union. Fredrickson and several other employees signed cards for the Union on or about July 8, 1964, which were turned over to Lyle Beisenstern. Employee Edward Opitz testified that after July 8, their conversations for the Union became more open, and that they "didn't hide it." Employee Gerald Stroup testified that a week prior to the discharge in question, Fredrickson and another employee were having a discussion about the Union and better wages when Supervisor Duane DeWalt walked by them, and that DeWalt stopped momentarily and listened to these remarks. DeWalt denied hearing any union conversation One reason assigned for the discharge was that Fredrickson did not do enough work. It is difficult for me to give any weight to this reason as Fredrickson worked for the Company for over 6 years, and held the important job as pricing and inven- tory clerk for about 21/2 years. It appears to me that Fredrickson would not have been retained in his employment for so many years if he had not accomplished suffi- cient work to be classified or judged as a satisfactory employee. It is noted that Fredrickson was assigned the job of pricing and inventory clerk for the reason that the job was "too much" for Lyle Beisenstein to handle, and that Beisenstein was then given other duties in the store. In the case at hand Fredrickson received an outright discharge with no warning, and no offer whatsoever of any other type of job with the Company. This fact shows disparity of treatment and further tends to show that this reason is a pretext. Furthermore, in 1962, after Schlagel informed Fredrickson that he was not doing enough work, he was then given a raise in pay, and whether this increase in wages was given to encourage additional efforts or not-it certainly shows that the Company had overall confidence and satisfaction in Fredrickson's ability and work performances. It is also pointed out that Fredrickson never refused to do any work assigned to him, and no evidence that he was required to work more hours per week than the Company believed to be necessary. There also appears to be a complaint by Schlagel that Fredrickson finished pricing work each day at 5:30 while it could have been finished earlier on light days if he had applied himself to that job. However, Fredrickson had other duties to do including the answering of telephone calls and thereby taking and filling orders which consumed considerable time on some occasions. There is no evidence that Schlagel ever told Fredrickson to change his operations so as to put his other duties aside until he completed pricing or invoicing. There is also testimony in this record that at a meeting of all employ- ees in May 1964, Schlagel commented that he thought Fredrickson was doing a good job, and could not understand how Fredrickson was able to do all of his work and finish by 5:30 each afternoon .4 In addition, there are other circumstances which tend to show that Schlagel complimented Fredrickson at the May meeting. This record shows that Schlagel was desirous of having the pricing clerk complete his work by 5:30 each day, and was happy when he did so on a rush or heavy day. Moreover, when Gerald Stroup took over Fredrickson's job on July 13, Schlagel informed Stroup to "lay off" the telephone as he would not be able to take orders and also do the pricing and inventory work. Certainly this instruction to Stroup further tends to show that Fredrickson was handling a more than adequate workload, and it is reasonable that Schlagel would pay a compliment to an employee who was able to do this. A considerable amount of testimony was produced at the hearing in efforts to substantiate the Respondent's position that Fredrickson could not get along with customers, and Schlagel and other witnesses for the Company testified that they s General Counsel witnesses Stroup, Beisenstein, Morris, Opitz, and Fredrickson all gave credited testimony that Schlagel made such a statement on the occasion in question. The witnesses for the Company denied such a statement or stated they could not remem- ber that it was made. In order to accept the Respondent's version that no such remark was made, I would have to find that the five employees who testified for the General Counsel were so suddenly gifted with such imaginative thoughts that at this meeting they merely concluded or were told what Schiagel had said, but actually they really did not hear anything in this respect because absolutely nothing was said. The Respondent's position that Schiagel did not favorably comment on Fredrickson at this meeting is un- tenable, and cannot be supported by the evidence as noted herein. 1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD received complaints to this effect. Arvid Anderson, an outside salesman for the- Company, testified that he received complaints on several occasions from customers on Fredrickson's attitude, and that he was "smartaleckish" to them over the telephone. Anderson stated that he reported six or seven of these complaints to Schlagel and requested that something be done to correct it. Outside salesman Donald Cotton testified that his telephone contacts with Fredrickson were "irritating," and that sev- eral customers had also registered complaints with him about Fredrickson. Salesman Stutenroth gave testimony to the effect that Fredrickson "got smart" with him a few times, and that he talked too much on subjects other than business during long- distance calls that the salesmen were paying for. In evaluation of this testimony it is first noted that no customer who supposedly had a complaint against Fredrickson testified at the hearing, nor did any of the customers register complaints directly with Schlagel. Next, it is noted that even if there were complaints, and if they were- reported to Schlagel by the salesmen, he did absolutely nothing to correct this situa- tion. According to Schlagel he started to receive complaints about Fredrickson from customers through his salesmen in June and July 1962. If there were any real basis for such complaints it seems quite obvious to me that Schlagel would have specifically discussed this matter with Fredrickson at their conference in September 1962, wherein at least some faults of Fredrickson were mentioned to him, as aforestated It seems likely to me that Schlagel probably never received any serious complaints from his salesmen as to customer relationships with Fredrickson In this respect it is pointed out that one salesman could name only one customer who had complained, and he could not recall even generally the subject matter of the complaint. Of the other two. salesmen, one thought Fredrickson was too curt or short while the other, Stutenroth, thought he talked too much about basketball. By contrast, several employees testified that customers sometimes asked for Fredrickson when they called. From the over- all aspects of this record it seems to me that Fredrickson enjoyed reasonably satis- factory customer relationships, and in any event it is clear that such relationships were never a matter of serious concern to the Company until after his discharge as nothing was ever said to Fredrickson about this matter prior thereto. Certainly the lack of any attempt on the part of Schlagel to specifically ascertain the customer complaints, and his failure to even ask Fredrickson about them, destroys the Respondent' s contention that a bad customer relationship was a basis for the discharge 5 The Company also maintains that Fredrickson was discharged because of his inability to get along with fellow employees. However, all the employees who testi- fied for the General Counsel stated that they got along all right with Fredrickson, and not one of them testified that they had any trouble with him. Although Schlagel stated that he received complaints from DeWalt, Carrier, and Weisz-he gave no specific dates or occasions, nor did he give any testimony as to the frequency or the individual nature of such complaints. It is also noted that when DeWalt himself testified he did not make any reference whatsoever to differences between he and Fredrickson. The Respondent denies knowledge of the union campaign and of Fredrickson's activities at the time of his discharge. I find otherwise. There is testimony that Fredrickson and other employees discussed the Union in the store, and Schlagel admitted that from his office he could hear many of the conversations along the counter area in the store. And, as aforestated, Duane DeWalt overheard Fredrick- son make a favorable remark about the Union a week prior to his discharge.6 DeWalt's knowledge, therefore, may be imputed to the Respondent. There is also testimony in this record that an official of the local, Boyd Obermeyer, called the Respondent's general manager, Fay Glover, between 8:30 and 9 a.m. on July 13, to request the negotiation of a contract for the store employees. Glover stated that this call by Obermeyer was not received until shortly before noon 7 However, Glover 5 Schlagel admitted in his own testimony that no customer complained to him directly about Fredrickson . On cross-examination Schlagel could name only two salesmen that had complained to him about Fredrickson and neither of them were the three salesmen that testified at the hearing and who supposedly made complaints directly to Schlagel, as aforestated. 6 DeWalt has been found to be a supervisor in a proceeding under Section 9 of the Act, Case No. 18-RC-6069. See General Counsel's Exhibits Nos 2 and 3. In addition, there is independent evidence in this record that DeWalt transferred employees to dif- ferent jobs in the store, and that his recommendations on hiring and firing carried a "lot of weight" 4 Fredrickson was discharged on the morning of July 13 between 8 30 and 9 o'clock HUB CITY IRON STORE 1351 admitted that Obermeyer could have called him more than once on July 13, and this is in accord with Obermeyer's testimony that he later called Glover the second time on the morning of July 13, and on this occasion inquired about the discharge of Fredrickson. In view of the fact that Fredrickson openly discussed the Union in the store, that Schlagel could hear many of the conversations coming from the counter area, that Fredrickson's statement for the Union was overheard by Supervisor DeWalt, that Schlagel asked DeWalt to watch Fredrickson while he was on his vacation, that Fay Glover was notified by the Union of its request for recognition prior to the dis- charge on the morning of July 13, and that in view of the smallness of the store and close relationships among employees and supervisors, it is found that the Respondent had prior knowledge of Fredrickson's union activities In addition to the above, Schlagel called into his office, immediately after Fredrickson was discharged, all employees who had signed cards foi the Union, and did not call into his office those who had not signed cards. Schlagel then proceeded to have interviews with each of the employees who had signed cards and gave them compliments and pay raises. Such conduct on the part of the Company also establishes the fact that the Respondent was fully aware of those employees who had and who had not signed cards for the Union. By any reasonable interpretation of the testimony in this record, one must conclude that Fredrickson's activities for the Union were carried on in such a manner and at such times, that in the normal course of events the Company would have noticed them.8 There appears to be no specific contention or testimony in this proceeding that Fredrickson was the sole or only leader in working for the Union And while the authorization cards were signed and left at Lyle Beisenstem's home on July 8, there is ample reason to find, however, that the Company suspected Fredrickson of being the main instigator for the Union Schlagel admitted in his background testimony that Fredrickson caused "activity" among fellow employees, and that he continued his constant "aggravation" which created "dissatisfaction." It can readily be seen from this testimony that Schlagel himself duly recognized Fredrickson's contacts and apparent influence on other employees, and therefore, would naturally turn on Fredrickson as the one employee who would most likely lead and direct the thinking of other employees in their efforts to organize the store What I have stated here, and in view of the evidence that Schlagel instructed DeWalt to watch Fredrickson while he was on vacation, makes this fact abundantly clear. In the final analysis Fredrickson had 6 years of satisfactory employment with the Company But after engaging in activities for the Union was then fired without any warning from one of the most important jobs in the store without any trained replacement for him, and without being given another chance or a different job .9 I have herein rejected the Respondent's reasons for the discharge as merely pretext for its conduct. However, even assuming here, arguendo, that the Company had some possible remote cause or causes for their action, such, nevertheless, would become discriminatory when other circumstances reasonably indicate that the union activity weighed more heavily in the discharge than did the dissatisfaction with his work performance It is accordingly found that the Respondent termi- nated the employment of Dale Fredrickson on July 13, 1964, in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. B. 8(a)(1) interference The complaint alleges as follows: Since on or about July 13, 1964, and continuing to date, Respondent has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in that on or about July 13, 1964, Respondent granted three of its employees increased wages in order to induce its employees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union or giving any assistance or support to it. The undenied and admitted testimony shows that on July 13, after Fredrickson was discharged, Schlagel informed employees Opitz, Stroup, and Morris of a 5-cent pay raise. The Company maintains that these increases had been planned in advance, and Schlagel testified that he believed it was about June 29 when he advised the payroll clerk to make the raises. Schlagel also stated that new employees are reviewed on a quarterly basis, and if they have proven to be reasonably 8 See Wiese Plow Welding Co., Inc, 123 NLRB 616. 8 The fact that Schlagel had no one trained to replace Fredrickson adds considerable weight to a discriminatory discharge since Schlagel testified that he had definitely decided in April to fire Fredrickson. 1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD satisfactory raises are then given and without telling employees The Respondent's payroll clerk, Earl Marks, testified that Schlagel advised him to put these pay raises into effect on June 23, 24, or 25, but that he forgot to do so and as a result Schlagel called him about this matter on July 13. It appears clear to me that there is sufficient credited evidence in this record to find that the granting of the wage increases was part of the Respondent's scheme to stop the union campaign. First of all it is noted that Schlagel was absent on his vacation from June 22 to 27, and therefore it is highly unlikely that he advised the payroll clerk of the raises during this period Furthermore, even accepting the Respondent's position that periodic raises were given at certain intervals, the wage increases involved here were not made known to the employees until July 13, well after the campaign for the Union became apparent to the Company, as aforestated Schlagel testified that the usual procedure was to give periodic increases without telling the employee. However, in this situation each of the three employees who had signed cards for the Union were individually called into Schlagel's office and specifically informed of their increases. This variation from the normal is additional evidence that the increases were efforts to halt the union campaign, and especially so when considering that it all happened on the same morning shortly after Fredrickson had been discharged.1° Moreover, the test for interference in this type of conduct is not the Company's motive behind the increase, but rather the effect of the increase on the employees. There can be no question but that the Respondent's conduct in granting the wage increases were calculated to influence the employees to refrain from their union activities, and I find that the Company thereby violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondent Company's activities set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the Company's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices in vio- lation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that the Respondent Company offer employee Dale Fredrickson immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of the dis- crimination against him to the date of offer of reinstatement less interim earnings, and in a manner consistent with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, to which shall be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board, payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of the backpay due. It will be further recommended, in view of the nature of the unfair labor practices the Respondent has engaged in, that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Dale Fred- rickson, thereby discouraging membership in the above Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 10 Schlagel first Informed these employees that since Fredrickson was discharged the store would be short handed, and then complimented Opitz and Morris before advising them of their Increases. HUB CITY IRON STORE 1353 4. By engaging in interference, restraint, and coercion, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that the Respondent, 'Hub City Iron Store, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or in any other labor organization, by discharging, refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Promising, offering, or granting economic benefits to the employees if they refrain from union activities. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Dale Fredrickson full reinstatement to his former or substantially equiva- lent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or privileges, and make him whole in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and the right to reinstatement under the terms of the Recom- mended Order. (c) Post at its store in Aberdeen, South Dakota, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 18, shall, after being signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.12 n In the event that this Recommended 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 Is 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". "In the event that this Recommended Order be 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." 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 Rela- tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local Lodge # 862, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , by dis- charging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or in any manner dis- criminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT promise , offer , or grant economic benefits to employees for refraining from union activities. 1354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion, and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL offer to Dale Fredrickson immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization. HUB CITY IRON STORE, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if 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 of 1948, 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Federal Building , 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Telephone No. 334-2611, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. East Coast Trawling & Dock Company, Inc. and National Mari- time Union of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC- 6189. July 7,1965 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Alexander T. Graham, Jr. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, including the briefs filed by the parties, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all crewmembers employed aboard clamming vessels owned by the Employer, excluding, 153 NLRB No. 106.