Jerry Davidson Buick Sales & Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 26, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1755 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

JERRY DAVIDSON BUICK SALES & SERVICE , INC. 1755 Jerry Davidson Buick Sales & Service , Inc. and In- ternational Union, United Automobile , Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. Case 7-CA-6361 August 26, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On June 19, 1968, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that such allega- tions of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's ex- ceptions and brief, and the entire record in the 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 adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Jerry Davidson Buick Sales & Service, Inc., Flint, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT E . MULLIN, Trial Examiner : This case was heard in Flint , Michigan , on April 3, 1968, pur- 172 NLRB No. 203 suant to charges duly filed and served,' and a com- plaint issued on February 1, 1968. The complaint presents questions as to whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent conceded certain facts with respect to its business operations, but it denied all allegations that it had committed any unfair labor practices. All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, to argue orally at the close of the hearing, and to file briefs. After the presentation of all the testimony, counsel for the Respondent engaged in a brief sum- mation of its position. Oral argument was waived by the General Counsel. On May 15, 1968, the Respondent submitted a written brief. A motion to dismiss, made by the Respondent at the close of the case, was taken under advisement. It is disposed of as appears hereinafter in this Decision. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Michigan corporation, with an office and place of business located at Flint, as well as other places of business at Clio and Mount Morris in the State of Michigan, is engaged in the retail sale and servicing of automotive vehicles and related products. Only its garage in Flint is involved in the present proceeding. During the calendar year 1967, a representative period, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, had a gross revenue in excess of $500,000. During the same period the Respondent purchased au- tomobiles and related products valued in excess of $100,000, of which amount goods and materials valued in excess of $5,000 were delivered to its place of business in Flint, directly from points located outside the State of Michigan. Likewise, during the year 1967, the Respondent sold products valued in excess of $10,000 to out-of-state customers. Upon the foregoing facts the Respond- ent concedes, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Jerry Davidson Buick Sales & Service, Inc., is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent concedes, and the Trial Ex- aminer finds, that International Union, United Au- tomobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement ' The original charge was filed on October 23, 1967 An amended charge was filed on January 23, 1968 1756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Workers of America2 (herein called the Union or UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On October 16, both Redfield and Minch were discharged . On October 18, Leonard J. Bradley, another employee , was dismissed . The General Counsel alleges that all of these terminations were discriminatory. A. Introduction ; the Issues In September 1967, the Respondent moved its automotive sales and service facilities from Clio, Michigan , to new and substantially larger quarters in nearby Flint. At the old location in Clio, the Respondent had about 5,000 square feet of floor space and approximately 50 employees . On Sep- tember 15, 1967, the Company completed the move to its new location in Flint which had over 100,000 square feet of floor space . Within the first 30 days thereafter , the Respondent added approxi- mately 100 new employees to its payroll. At all times material herein the following are ad- mitted to be supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Jerry Davidson , president ; Kenneth Reno, per- sonnel manager ; Edward H. Hyman, general manager ; Raymond Brueck , service manager; Zene E. Austin, foreman ; and Richard Blakeslee, shop foreman. The principal issues litigated in this case are: (1) whether the Respondent discriminatorily ter- minated employees Frederic Redfield , Gary Minch, and Leonard Bradley , in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act ; and (2 ) whether Personnel Manager Reno and President Davidson coercively interrogated the employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. B. Background During the 5 years prior to Respondent 's move to its new premises in Flint , there had been one or two desultory attempts to organize its employees, none of which had been successful. Early in October 1967, General Manager Hyman called a meeting of the employees to tell them that henceforth the Respondent 's garage and shop would be open 6 days a week, including Saturday. No reference was made to the question of overtime pay as a result of the lengthened schedule . In con- nection with the question of overtime and other matters, some of the employees discussed the need for union representation . Among those involved in the discussion were Frederic A. Redfield and Gary Lee Minch , as well as several other employees. A short while later , Redfield contacted a representa- tive of the UAW and arranged to have an organiza- tional meeting of the employees on October 17. At the same time , Refdield commenced the solicitation of his coworkers to join that Union. ' When the complaint issued the name of the Charging Party included the initials "AFL-CIO " By telegram , dated May 17, 1968, to the Execu- tive Secretary of the Board , the general counsel of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), requested the deletion of the initials "AFL-CIO" from the UAW name in all matters which that Union had pending before the C. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1); Findings and Conclusions With Respect Thereto On the afternoon of October 16, Personnel Manager Reno held a meeting for all the hourly paid employees . Reno told the men that he wanted to hear any complaints they had. It was undenied that he also told those present that he had heard that a union meeting was scheduled for the follow- ing night and that he could see no need for a union because the employees already had good benefits and all the advantages of a union.3 During the noon hour on October 18, President Davidson called a meeting of all the shop person- nel. Davidson testified that his purpose was to ex- plain company policy to the new employees. Ac- cording to the credible testimony of employee Meloon , Davidson told those present that "He wanted to know if we had any complaints, why we wanted a union ... and he pointed out ... our benefits that we were already receiving without a union [ and] without having to pay for a union rep[resentative ]." There was no testimony from Meloon , nor from any other employee in at- tendance , as to any exchange between Davidson and any specific employee at this meeting. The foregoing testimony with reference to the two meetings which Reno and Davidson held with the employees on October 16 and 18, respectively, constitutes a summation of the record testimony as to what occurred on each occasion . In each in- stance , the company official disclosed a knowledge of the employees ' union activity , made it clear that the Respondent did not consider a union necessary, invited those present to voice any complaints they had as to working conditions , and emphasized that the benefits that they were then getting had been secured without having to pay a union to represent them. Whereas in none of the testimony as to these incidents was there any evidence that the expres- sions of Davidson and Reno contained a direct threat of reprisal or promise of benefit, the Board has held that this type of interrogation is unlawful insofar as it seeks " to discover the basis of em- ployee dissatisfaction in order to remedy the situa- tion and thereby undercut employee support for the union." Sanitary Laundry & Dry Cleaning Co. Inc., 171 NLRB No . 123. In accordance with this holding the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that by the interrogation of Reno and Davidson, Board The name of the Charging Union , as it appears in the record of the instant case , is hereby amended in conformity with that request ' The foregoing findings are based on the credible testimony of Leonard J Bradley and Harold C Meloon Reno conceded that at this time he had learned that there was some union activity among the men , and that during his speech to the employees he mentioned the Union JERRY DAVIDSON BUICK SALES & SERVICE , INC. 1757 described above, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. D. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(3); Findings and Conclusions With Respect Thereto 1. Frederic A. Redfield Redfield was hired about September 24 ,4 as a mechanic . He was terminated on October 16. Early in October, he and several of his fellow employees participated in a discussion of the need for a union in the Respondent's shop. On the afternoon of October 12, Redfield requested permission from Foreman Blakeslee that he be excused from work the next morning in order to visit a dentist. The supervisor gave this permis- sion and , as a result , shortly after reporting for work on October 13, Redfield left the shop and proceeded to the office of a dentist. Upon arrival at the dentist's office, where he had no appointment, Redfield found that the dentist would be unavaila- ble. He thereupon proceeded to the garage of East Side Buick, an automobile dealership in Flint where the employees were represented by the UAW. There, Redfield discussed with officials of the union local employed at that shop the prospects of or- ganizing the Respondent's employees. According to Redfield, during the course of this discussion, ar- rangements were made to hold an organizational meeting for the Davidson employees on October 17, the following Tuesday. Redfield further testified that some of the East Side Buick employees sug- gested that Redfield enlist Gary Minch, a coworker, as an assistant in contacting the Davidson em- ployees. According to Redfield, he returned to the Respondent's shop, about 1 p.m., punched in, and remained there for the balance of the shift.' While at work during the balance of that afternoon, as well as on the following day, Redfield discussed with a number of his fellow employees, including Gary Minch, the subject of the UAW and the or- ganizational meeting that was scheduled for the fol- lowing week. Walter L. Jackson, another mechanic in the shop during this period, testified that on the morning of October 16, both he and Redfield were wearing union buttons when Foreman Blakeslee approached and engaged them in conversation. According to Jackson, during their discussion he endeavored to pin a union button on Blakeslee's jacket, but the latter declined to permit this gesture. Jackson testified that Redfield then asked the foreman if he would care to join the Union and, during the ensu- ing conversation, commented on the help which the Union could give the employees in getting a better rate on some of their work and in securing a guaranteed wage. According to Jackson, Blakeslee refused to be drawn into the discussion and turned away.6 Later, that same morning, Blakeslee sent Redfield to the office of Service Manager Raymond Brueck where the latter discharged Redfield, al- legedly for faulty workmanship. Blakeslee testified that on the morning of Redfield's termination , a customer brought back to the garage an Opel automobile on which Redfield had performed some labor the preceding week. Ac- cording to the foreman, the original job was in- complete because a retaining bolt was missing from the rear end, or differential, of the customer's car. Redfield testified that during the preceding week he had worked on the car in question, that by Thursday, October 12, he had completed the job except for the replacement of one bolt on the hous- ing of the differential, and that he had asked the stockroom to order the missing part. As found above, on the morning of October 13, Redfield was not at the shop. According to the employee, when he did return to work that afternoon, a fellow mechanic, one O. V. Koppelman, told him that he had (Koppelman) completed the repair work on the Opel and that during Redfield's absence it had been released to the customer. Redfield testified that Koppelman then asked that the work ticket on the job be changed to reflect the amount of labor on the Opel for which he expected credit. Accord- ing to Redfield, he then gave Koppelman the work order and the latter noted thereon the labor charge to which he was entitled on this particular repair job. Redfield testified that later that same after- noon, Foreman Blakeslee told him that the customer had telephoned to complain that something was wrong with the job and that the car would be returned to the shop on the following Monday morning. On Monday, the customer returned with the Opel. Blakeslee called Redfield, who examined the car and found that the bolt had never been put in the housing of the differential. Accord- ing to Redfield, by that time the stockroom had secured the bolt in question so that he was then able to install the new bolt. Redfield testified that after this had been done the customer appeared satisfied and drove away.? Blakeslee described Redfield as a "very sloppy mechanic" and ascribed to him the full responsibili- ty for release of the Opel before the repair work had been completed. Nothwithstanding testimony wherein he credited Redfield with the negligence connected with this incident, Blakeslee was unable 4 All dates hereafter are for the year 1967 , unless otherwise noted 3 Redfield 's testimony as to his return to work on October 13 was con- tradicted , in part , by Foreman Blakeslee However, Blakeslee 's testimony on this issue was confused and contradictory At first the foreman testified that he did not recall , or did not know, whether Redfield returned to work on the afternoon of October 13 Later, he testified that Redfield did not return Redfield's timecard was never proffered It is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that, with reference to this issue, Redfield 's testimony was the more credible 6 Jackson 's testimony with respect to the foregoing incident was credible and undemed ' Blakeslee also testified that the differential was short of oil and that a lubricant had to be added before the job was completed Blakeslee's testimony in this connection, however, was not conclusive, for he conceded that he was not present when any oil was added to the Opel Redfield, on the other hand, credibly testified that it was unnecessary to add any oil 1758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to explain as to how, or why, the Opel had been released by the shop on Friday when Redfield was not on duty. Blakeslee gave no testimony as to what, if anything, had been done to learn whether Koppelman had been responsible in whole, or in part, for the negligence about which the customer complained. Nor was any effort made to produce the shop records, such as the work ticket about which Redfield had testified and, on which, accord- ing to Redfield, Koppelman was credited with per- forming the final work on the Opel before it left the shop. Redfield credibly testified that, while he was away from the shop on Friday morning, Koppelman had worked on the Opel and that the car had been released to the owner before he (Redfield) returned to work that day. When the car was brought back by the dissatisfied customer the fol- lowing Monday, however, Blakeslee saddled Redfield with the sole responsibility for the im- complete repair work and, insofar as the record dis- closes, made no effort to ascertain whether the negligence involved was the fault of Koppelman. That same Monday morning, as appears from the credited testimony of employee Jackson, Redfield and Jackson were wearing union buttons and Redfield volunteered the opinion, while talking with Foreman Blakeslee, that a union would be a benefit to the men in the shop Later that day, as found above, Personnel Manager Reno violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act when he called the em- ployees together and solicited from them their com- plaints regarding working conditions and their reasons for seeking union representation. Two days later, President Davidson engaged in a similar viola- tion of the Act, when he called another meeting of the employees and questioned them in like fashion for the same unlawful purpose. At the hearing, while being cross-examined, Foreman Blakeslee was asked whether Redfield was discharged for any reason in addition to the alleged failure to install a bolt in the Opel's differential. After great hesitation and with considerable reluctance, Blakeslee stated "I don't want to say- well, I don't think that was all." Service Manager Brueck, who actually dismissed Redfield, was never called to the stand, although he was in the cour- troom throughout the hearing. In the light of the foregoing findings, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the reason given Redfield for his ter- mination was a pretext and that the real motivation for his summary dismissal in the middle of his shift was Redfield's identification with the incipient union moveent. By his discharge under these cir- cumstances the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1). The Trial Examiner so finds. 2. Gary Lee Minch Minch was hired as a car jockey in the service department on September 20. He was then 18 years old. About noon on October 16, Minch was sum- moned to the office of Service Manager Brueck where the latter told him that he was being ter- minated immediately. According to Minch, Brueck told him at the time that he was being released because the Company planned to replace the young men who were working as car jockeys with girls.' The following day Minch went to Personnel Director Reno who gave him a termination notice which listed unsatisfactory work as the reason for Minch's release. According to Minch, at the time of his termination, Terry Gurney, whom he described as his leader, characterized Minch as one of his "best men."" At the hearing, President Davidson testified that Minch was discharged for having refused to work on the unloading of a trailer of new Buicks. Minch was not recalled to the stand to testify with respect to the incident that Davidson attributed to him. Earlier in the hearing, however, Minch denied that he had refused to perform outside work when Ed- ward Hyman, the general manager, suggested it. Minch was one of the early advocates of a union and it was undenied that to some extent he had discussed the question with his coworkers. He was also one of those whom Redfield contacted im- mediately after the latter began his efforts to en- courage employees to attend the union meeting on October 17. The General Counsel contends that Minch's ter- mination was discriminatory, an allegation that is denied by the Respondent. Whereas Redfield's union affiliation, as found above, was well known, there is no evidence in the record that Minch's activities in this regard had ever come to the attention of management Nor is there any basis on which such knowledge on the part of the supervisory hierarchy could be inferred. The various reasons given for Minch's discharge by Brueck at the time of the employee's dismissal, by the personnel manager a day later, and by the com- pany president at the hearing raise some question as to what, in fact, was the real reason. On the other hand, Minch was a very new and very young employee who was hired at a time when the Respondent was undergoing a rapid expansion. As found earlier, approximately 100 employees were hired during the first month after September 15, when the Company moved to its new location in Flint. Under these circumstances , it is the conclu- sion of the Trial Examiner that, whereas the issue is not entirely free from doubt, the General Counsel " At the time one girl was employed as driver of the customer courtesy car ' Although the General Counsel imputed supervisory authority to Gur- ney, the record does not support such a conclusion The only testimony on the matter is that of Minch According to the latter , Gurney suggested jobs for him to do and assigned him cars to drive Minch also testified , however, that Gurnery received his orders from one Robinson, whom he described as the senior service advisor On this record, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that whereas Gurney may have been a leadman among the car jockeys, he did not possess the necessary attributes of a supervisor within the meaning of the Act JERRY DAVIDSON BUICK SALES & SERVICE, INC. has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Minch was discriminatorily ter- minated . Accordingly , it will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Minch 's discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 3. Leonard J. Bradley Bradley was hired on September 20. At the time he was 17 years of age. He was terminated on Oc- tober 18. While an employee of the Respondent, Bradley worked in what was known as the new-car prep department and under the supervision of Foreman Zene Austin. Redfield testified that on Saturday, October 14, he talked with Bradley and asked that the latter get the names of those employees in his department who were interested in the Union. Bradley testified that thereafter he spoke to several of his coworkers about the need for a union among the employees. One of Bradley's duties involved putting gasoline in the new cars that were being readied for delivery. On the afternoon or evening of October 16, and shortly before the garage closed for the night, Bradley put gasoline in such a car and then went into Austin's office to deposit the key to the gasoline pump. Under normal circumstances the key was kept in a drawer of Austin's desk, but on this occasion Bradley found that the desk was locked and that neither Austin nor any other super- visor was present. Bradley thereupon placed the key on the desk top and departed. On the morning of October 18, Bradley hap- pened to be in Austin's office when Edward H. Hyman, the general manager, arrived. The em- ployee was asked to leave while the two supervisors conferred. Later, and after Hyman departed, Austin told Bradley that he would have to discharge him unless Bradley could find the key which had been left on Austin's desk on the evening of October 16. When Bradley conceded that there was no way in which he could locate the key in question, Austin told him that he would have to discharge him. Later that day Bradley was given a termination slip which read "As of 7:45 this A.M. the Employment of Len Bradley Lot boy is terminated. Lost keys."10 At the hearing, Austin characterized Bradley as an employee who was "a little on the slip-shod side" and testified that he had voiced this criticism to Bradley. He also testified that at various times he had admonished Bradley about the manner in which he checked in automobiles and about gas slips that were missing. Austin testified that he recommended to Hyman that Bradley be discharged and that, thereafter, at Hyman's instruc- tions, he personally discharged this employee. The General Counsel alleges that Bradley was discriminatorily terminated. This is denied by the Respondent. 10 Bradley was initially given a discharge slip which described the reason for termination as "Lost keys to gas pump and work unsatisfactory " After Bradley complained to Austin about the term "work unsatisfactory" 1759 Bradley had engaged in some discussion of the Union with his fellow employees and, according to his own testimony, he had endeavored to arouse in- terest in the organizational meeting which was held on October 17. However, the record is barren of any direct evidence that his activities in this con- nection had come to the attention of management, and there is no adequate basis on which an in- ference could be drawn that the Respondent had knowledge of Bradley's union activities. As the result of his negligence on the evening of October 16, the keys to the gas pump were missing. Whether this was a good reason or a poor reason for his subsequent discharge, it did constitute grounds for his termination. Moreover, in the absence of any adequate proof that the Respondent was aware of Bradley's union activities at the time of his dismissal, it cannot now be held that the discharge was in violation of the Act. Accordingly, as in the case of Minch, discussed earlier herein, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the General Counsel has not proved by a preponde- rance of the evidence that the termination of Bradley was unlawfully motivated. It will, therefore, be recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Bradley's discharge vio- lated Section 8(a)(3). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the Union is a labor organization, all within the meaning of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of Frederic A. Redfield, thereby discourag- ing membership in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices withing the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the act. 5. The discharges of Gary Lee Minch and Leonard J. Bradley were not violations of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as alleged by the General Coun- sel. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir- mative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. another termination slip was prepared in which the latter phrase did not ap- pear 1760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Having found that the Respondent discrimina- torily discharged Frederic A. Redfield , the Trial Ex- aminer will recommend that the Respondent be or- dered to offer Redfield immediate and full rein- statement , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of earnings that he may have suffered from the time of his discharge to the date of the Respond- ent's offer of reinstatement . The backpay for the foregoing employee shall be computed in ac- cordance with the formula approved in F. W. Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest com- puted in the manner and amount prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716, 717-721. It will also be recommended that the said Respond- ent be required to preserve and make available to the Board or its agents , upon request , payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of backpay due. As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are of a character striking at the root of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, it will be recommended that the said Respondent be or- dered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act . N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4). Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act , the Trial Examiner hereby issues the fol- lowing: RECOMMENDED ORDER Jerry Davidson Buick Sales & Service , Inc., its officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee because of membership in, or activity on behalf of, International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace , and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America , or any other labor or- ganization. (b) Unlawfully interrogating employees as to their reasons for engaging in union activity. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exer- cise of their right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist any labor organization , to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choos- ing, or to engage in concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Frederic A. Redfield immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (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, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) 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 under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post at its place of business in Flint, Michigan , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix ."" Copies of said notice , on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent 's authorized representative , shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places , including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges any unfair labor prac- tice, other than as herein specifically found. " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words " a Decision and Order " " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read " Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX Pursuant to the Recommended - Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in In- ternational Union , United Automobile, Aerospace , and Agricultural Implement Wor- kers of America, or any other union, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against our employees because of their union or con- certed activities. WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate em- ployees as to their reasons for union activity. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce employees in the exer- cise of their right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist the above -named Union, or any JERRY DAVIDSON BUICK SALES & SERVICE, INC. other labor organization , to bargain collective- ly through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer Frederic A. Redfield im- mediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of discrimination against him. JERRY DAVIDSON BUICK SALES & SERVICE, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) 1761 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, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , 500 Book Building , 1249 Washington Bou- levard , Detroit, Michigan 48226 , Telephone 226-3244.