Kimi Sales, Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 30, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 1212 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kim! Sales, Ltd. and Local 239, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 29-CA-4370 April 30, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On January 26, 1976 , Administrative Law Judge Morton D. Friedman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding . Thereafter , the Respondent filed ex- ceptions, a supporting brief, and a request for oral argument.' 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three -member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings , findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent , Kimi Sales , Ltd., Wood- side , New York , its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order. ' The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied , since the record , including the Respondent 's brief , adequately presents the issues and position of the parties. 2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board 's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950 ), enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MORTON D. FRIEDMAN , Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Brooklyn , New York, on December 4, 1975, based on charges filed on May 22, 1975, and a com- plaint issued on September 30, 1975 , alleging that Respon- dent, Kimi Sales , Ltd., violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Respondent 's duly served answer , while admitting certain allegations of the complaint , denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. At the end of the hearing , the parties made oral argu- ment but have not filed briefs . Upon the entire record in the case , including my observation of the witnesses, and upon consideration of the arguments and contentions made by the parties in their oral presentations at the hear- ing, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Kimi Sales , Ltd., herein called the Respondent , is a New York corporation with its principal office and place of business in the County of Queens , City and State of New York, where it is engaged in the retail sales and servicing of new and used automobiles , automobile parts, and related products . During the year immediately preceding the is- suance of the complaint herein , a representative period, the Respondent derived gross revenues from its retail and ser- vice operations in excess of $500 ,000. During the same pe- riod of time the Respondent purchased and caused to be transported to its sales and service departments automobile parts and other materials of a value of $50,000 , which were transported to the said facilities directly from points out- side the State of New York. It was conceded at the hearing herein , and I find, that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce with- in the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted , and I find, that Local 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts James Thomas was first hired as the service advisor-writ- er by the Respondent in its service department in June 1974. His duties in that capacity are the usual duties of the individual who writes up customers ' service requests, and who acts as the liaison between the automobile dealer and the customer in the service department. In January 1974, Thomas resigned his position with the Respondent to begin a business of his own . However, evidently the business did not prosper and he reapplied for employment with Re- spondent to James Kiely, Respondent 's president and head of the service department . At that time Thomas was in- formed by James Kiely that the position Thomas had occu- pied formerly had been filled by another individual, but that Thomas could be hired as a Class A mechanic. Thom- as accepted this offer and began working for the Respon- dent at that time . According to Thomas ' uncontroverted testimony, a Class A mechanic is one who is able to per- 223 NLRB No. 192 KIMI SALES, LTD. form complete automotive work including motor, mainte- nance and repair, transmissions , electrical work, and any other automobile mechanical work. At the time of Thomas' rehire in March 1975, there were roughly 10 or 11 mechan- ics in the Respondent's service department, aside from the body shop, 2 of whom were Class A mechanics in addition to Thomas. Of the 10 or I I mechanics, 5 or 6 were classi- fied as grades B or C. These B and C individuals were mechanics who could not perform all of the work that could be performed by Class A mechanics, as they did not have the necessary skills for the "A" classification. James Thomas was the last person hired between the time he was rehired in March 1975 and his layoff on May 21 of that year, detailed below. On May 12, several of the other employees in the service department approached James Thomas in the shop at the morning coffeebreak, and informed him that the men had decided they wanted to be represented by a union. Thomas expressed his willingness to go along with them. During the week that followed, further discussions took place in the shop and the employees reiterated their reasons for desir- ing union representation. On Monday, May 19, the men again discussed unioniza- tion. However, the two employees who were originally des- ignated to make contact with a representative of the Union were laid off on May 16, the previous Friday. Thereupon, Thomas, either by assent of the other employees or on his own volition, proceeded across the street to the service de- partment of an automobile dealer other than the Respon- dent, searched out the shop steward in that service depart- ment, and received information from the steward which would enable Thomas to make contact with the representa- tive of the Union. Thomas was given the telephone number of Gerald Corallo, business representative of the Union. During the lunch hour on that day, therefore, Thomas called Corallo and made an appointment to see the latter that evening. When Thomas returned to the shop after speaking to Corallo on the telephone, he informed the other mechanics in the Respondent's service department that he was going to see Corallo that evening. That night, May 19, between 7 and 8 p.m., Thomas met with Corallo at the latter's office. At the meeting with Cor- allo, Thomas signed a union card and arranged for a meet- ing to be held at a later date with all of the mechanics of the Respondent's service department at the union hall. This meeting never took place because, on May 21, Thom- as spoke to the other mechanics in the Respondent's shop and was informed by these individuals that they were no longer interested in the Union.' About 9:30 a.m. on that day, May 21, Thomas Kiely, Respondent's general manager and an officer of the Re- spondent, came to a coffee truck located on the Respondent's premises at the time and asked James Thom- as, "Well, how long you been in this country?" Thomas Kiely then walked away without any reply from James Thomas. Approximately a half-hour later, James Thomas spoke to James Kiely, head of the service department, with 1 There was no testimony by Thomas or any other witness as to why the men became disenchanted with the union movement. Accordingly, no infer- ence is made with regard thereto. 1213 regard to the union activity of James Thomas and the other employees . Thomas told James Kiely that the men had been thinking of obtaining union representation , but had decided against it and were afraid of losing their working periods . Thomas then told Kiely that , if the latter had any- thing against him or any of the men, that he , James Thom- as, was the man whom the men had selected to obtain union representation for them and to make contact with the Union . Thomas then asked Kiely if the latter had "any- thing against me like laying me off , or [was ] mad or angry at me that I would like to know about it." James Kiely answered, "No, of course not, I 'm not." The gist of the conversation was that James Kiely told James Thomas that Kiely was not angry with Thomas and was not laying him off or anyone else. It should be noted that on the preceding Friday, May 16, 1975, two mechanics were -laid off by the Respondent. They were Hector Jiminez, a Class B mechanic , and Paul Sisto , a Class C mechanic. On the morning of May 21, James Thomas was finishing work left incomplete by these individuals when they were laid off . At approximately noon on that day Thomas had finished work on the car that had been left over . from the previous Friday, and spoke to John Kiely, an officer of the corporation and evidently the supervising chief mechanic of the service department directly under James Kiely.3 This conversation took place in the service office near the parts department of the Respondent's service shop . Thomas asked John Kiely if there was any more work for Thomas to perform that day, otherwise Thomas desired to leave for the day for personal reasons , the shipping of tropical fish which , evidently , Thomas bred and raised as a sideline. John Kiely answered that there was no more work for Thomas and that "My brother Jim is awful mad at you for your part in the union activities , in trying to bring a union in the shop . We don't want a union in the shop and never had. It has been tried in the past and we don't want it." John Kiely continued advising James Thomas that-James Kiely had decided to lay off Thomas and that James Kiely was in the Respondent 's main office in the other building and wanted Thomas to wait around . Thomas then went back into the shop to collect his tools .4 Sometime later John Kiely called James Thomas back into the service office . James Kiely was present and hand- ed a final check to John Kiely who then turned the check over to James Thomas. Thomas then asked James Kiely why he was being laid off and Kiely answered , "Well, I'm laying you off for economic conditions." James Thomas then asked for his "pink slip," which was given to him. He then took his tools and left the 2 James Kiely and Thomas Kiely, both of whom testified , denied any knowledge of any union activity on the part of the employees in the shop before the Respondent received notice from the Regional Director of the Board that a charge in the instant proceeding had been filed. James Kiely specifically denied any conversation with Thomas as set forth above. Upon my observation of the witnesses , and for reasons hereinafter stated, I do not credit James Kiely's denial that any conversation of this nature occurred. 3 All of the Kielys are brothers. a John Kiely was not called to testify on behalf of the Respondent. The conversation set forth above between James Thomas and John Kiely in which the latter told Thomas that James Kiely was angry at him for his union activity remains undenied on the record. In view of this, I credit James Thomas in all respects with regard to that conversation. 1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ! ABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent's premises. Since that day he has not had any further conversations with any of the Respondent's man- agement personnel , nor has he been offered reinstatement to his job. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Thomas was in any respect anything less then a competent employ- ee. In fact, during the first week in May 1975, James Thomas was selected by James Kiely to attend a special Fiat school to learn maintenance and repair of new mecha- nisms which were being installed in the new models of the Fiat automobiles, for which the Respondent is a sales agent. Thomas was sent by Kiely so that the shop would have someone who could handle the new models. No one else was selected to take this course. In essence, the foregoing constitutes the facts upon which counsel for the General Counsel bases his case. He contends that they establish both knowledge and unlawful motivation , and constitute the basis for a finding of dis- criminatory discharge of James Thomas. B. The Respondent's Defense The defense consists , basically, of testimony and docu- mentary evidence to the effect that the layoff of James Thomas was part of an economic retrenchment necessitat- ed by heavy losses in the service department, which losses were so severe as to imperil the Respondent 's entire busi- ness despite some profits made in the new and used car sales and auto parts departments. To substantiate its defense , the Respondent presented the testimony of its certified public accountant, John L. Shea, who testified , in substance, that he had been the Respondent's accountant for some years and that, after examining the Respondent 's books for the first 4 months of 1975, had a discussion on May 12, 1975, with Respondent's general manager, Thomas Kiely, in which Shea explained to Thomas Kiely that there were unusually heavy losses for that period of time in the service department . He further informed Thomas Kiely that , if these losses continued, they could eventually force the Respondent out of business. Ad- ditionally, Shea advised Thomas Kiely on that date to cur- tail the service department operations because the service department was spending too much time on warranty work, which should be spaced out to help reduce losses. Upon leading questions from Respondent 's counsel, Shea further testified that he suggested to Thomas Kiely that the service department work force should be reduced . Accord- ing to Shea, Kiely answered that he would review the ser- vice operations and make the necessary changes. Analyses of the figures recited by Shea and stated in a letter to Respondent from Shea show that every other de- partment of the Respondent's business made a profit for the 4-month period from January 1 to April 30, 1975. The total profit in these departments came to approximately $24,000. However, the loss in the service department for the same period of time came to almost $29,000 and, after deductions for nonoperating costs of approximately $1,300, the Respondent suffered a net loss for the 4-month period on its overall business of $5,489. The documentary evidence received during the hearing, including monthly reports made to the car manufacturers, whose automobiles the Respondent sold, supported this testimony given by Shea. Additionally, Shea's testimony was supported by the testimony of Thomas Kiely. Accord- ingly, because I accept as valid all of the foregoing testimo- ny, with the possible exception of some doubt as to wheth- er Shea actually told Thomas Kiely to reduce the work force in the service department, I find and conclude that the Respondent did suffer a severe loss during the first 4 months of 1975, and that it became necessary for the Re- spondent to make changes in its service department opera- tions in order to reduce these losses and to make an overall profit in its operations. According to both Thomas Kiely and James Kiely, shortly after Shea left the Respondent's premises on May 12, the Kiely brothers met in the Respondent's sales office and discussed the situation and decided that they would not only space out the warranty work, which would relieve some of the employees from performing low reimburse- ment work, but also discussed possibly layoff of approxi- mately six service department employees. James Kiely, however, balked at the loss of this many employees in the service department and, after some further discussion, which went on for a few days, it was decided to lay off four individuals in the service department, all of whom were to be mechanics, one from each rank of mechanic A, B, and C, and the service writer, who was actually not an active mechanic, but was also considered a member of manage- ment. According to Thomas Kiely and James Kiely, neither of them had any knowledge of any union activity at that time, and it was left up to James Kiely, who was more familiar than Thomas Kiely with the personnel in the service de- partment, to decide which mechanic in each class was to be laid off. James Kiely testified that he thereupon began to evaluate each group of mechanics to make his selections. For the Class B and C mechanics, after considering the work, the skills, and other matters on May 16, James Kiely laid off Class B mechanic Hector Jiminez and Class C me- chanic Paul Sisto. James Kiely further testified that, when James Thomas applied for reemployment in March, James Thomas stated that he was undecided what he was going to do in the future, and therefore, Kiely decided that, insofar as the Class A mechanics were concerned, James Thomas being the most recent Class A mechanic hired, and also because of this relative uncertainty as to the length of time which James Thomas would be working for the Respondent, he would lay off James Thomas from the Class A mechanic group of which there were three at the time. There is no question that, insofar as hiring time is concerned, James Thomas was the junior of all three Class A mechanics. The Kielys further testified that the service writer who was laid off, and who was actually a part of management, was laid off I week later. The service writer laid off was Rudy Pabon, who was not only a highly skilled and valu- able employee, but was also a loyal and good friend of James Kiely. However, Kiely did admit that Pabon had indicated that he was going to leave anyway because he was going into business for himself, and that Kiely knew of this before he notified Pabon that he was to be laid off. In addition to all of the foregoing, by way of defense, KIMI SALES, LTD. 1215 Thomas Kiely and James Kiely both testified to the effect that no Class A mechanics were hired from the time that James Thomas was laid off, up to and including the date of the hearing herein , and that , indeed , no hirings were made at all in any classification which would increase the Respondent's service department payroll above that which was in effect after the four layoffs set forth above. Introduced into evidence was a summary of hirings and layoffs from May 16, 1975, when Jiminez and Sisto were laid off, through November 24, 1975. From this summary, it is evident that no Class A mechanics were hired from the time that James Thomas was laid off until the date of the hearing herein. In fact, on June 25, 1975, another Class A mechanic , Fermin Pacheco , quit the Respondent's employ and was not replaced. Thus, it is evident and I find that the Respondent's payroll did, indeed, decrease with the four layoffs and for the balance of the period of time above set forth. C. Discussion and Concluding Findings Although the General Counsel in his oral argument con- tended that the economic defense of the Respondent was an afterthought and a pretext to cover up the discriminato- ry discharge of James Thomas, I, nevertheless, do accept Respondent 's economic contention insofar as I find that the record establishes, on the basis of the credible evidence of Respondent 's accountant , Shea , that the Respondent was forced for economic reasons to cut back the cost of its service department operations in order to reduce the net loss suffered by the Respondent during the 4-month period from January 1 through April 30, 1975. I credit Shea's testi- mony not only on the basis of my observation of him, as he testified, but also by reason of the supportive documentary evidence submitted by the Respondent , consisting of its report to the Fiat Manufacturing Company of the Respondent 's operations during that period. Because of the foregoing , however, there remains the question of whether the selection of Thomas for layoff was discriminatory, and whether the failure of the Respondent to recall Thomas during the period since the layoff consti- tuted a continuation of such alleged discrimination. Cru- cial to the resolution of this question is the claim of the Respondent that it had no knowledge of the union activity of James Thomas until it was notified by the Regional Di- rector that a charge had been filed . In the light of the evi- dence produced by General Counsel, and especially in the light of the uncontroverted testimony of James Thomas with regard to his conversation with John Kiely on May 21, at approximately noon, I find and conclude that the Respondent, in fact, did have knowledge of James Thom- as' union activity before he was formally laid off. This con- clusion is bolstered not only by the testimony of James Thomas that John Kiely told him that James Kiely was angry with James Thomas for the latter's union activity, but also by reason of the established fact that the total number of employees in the Respondent's service depart- ment constituted no more than 10 or 12 individuals. The Board has long held that, absent direct evidence as to Respondent's knowledge of union activity, such knowledge may be deduced when statements and conduct constituting statutorily protected activity have taken place within a small facility such as the Respondent's.5 Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, I find and conclude not only that the Respondent had knowledge of James Thomas' union activity, but, further, I discredit James Kiely's denial that James Thomas informed him ear- ly in the morning of May 21 that it was Thomas who had engaged in union activity on behalf of the employees in the shop. Additionally, I find and conclude that the statement of John Kiely to Thomas Kiely at noon on May 21 consti- tutes sufficient evidence of union animus to establish dis- criminatory motivation for the selection of James Thomas for layoff. While it is true that James Thomas was the jun- ior of the Class A mechanics in the shop as of the date of the layoff, there is no evidence in the record to establish that the Respondent hired or discharged or laid off on the basis of seniority. A careful examination of the testimony of Thomas Kiely and James Kiely fails to establish that seniority was a shop policy within the Respondent's service department. In addition, it would seem that the Respondent had suf- ficient regard for the abilities of James Thomas as a Class A mechanic to send him, only a very short period of time before the layoff, to the special class operated by the Fiat Company for the purposes of having an employee in the service department who would have knowledge of the me- chanical devices installed in the newest models of the Fiat automobiles which the Respondent sold and serviced. I do not credit James Kiely's testimony in which he belittled this assignment as a means of merely picking up from Fiat some information for distribution to the other mechanics in the shop. Nor do I credit James Kiely's testimony, em- phatically denied on rebuttal by James Thomas, to the ef- fect that, when James Thomas was rehired by the Respon- dent in March 1975, he informed James Kiely that he did not know what he was going to do in the future, or that there was an intimation in the hiring that it was in any way temporary. Because I have discredited the testimony of James and Thomas Kiely with regard to their denials of knowledge of union activity, I have grave doubts and cannot conclude that the choice of James Thomas as one of the individuals to be laid off was made before the Respondent had any knowledge of James Thomas' union activity. Even were I to accept the Respondent's contention and testimony to the effect that there was a desire to balance the individuals to be retained on the work force in the service department so that a selection had to be made from each classification of mechanics, I do not conclude that James Thomas was selected by James Kiely as the Class A mechanic for rea- sons testified by the Kiely brothers. In coming to the foregoing conclusions, I have fully con- sidered and weighed the fact that there was economic ne- cessity for some retrenchment with regard to the personnel of the service department. I have also taken into consider- ation the evidence presented by the Respondent, that no additional Class A mechanics were hired from the date that James Thomas was laid off, up to and including the date of 5 See Wiese Plow Welding Co., Inc., 123 NLRB 616, 618 ( 1959); Ballard Motors, Inc., 179 NLRB 300, 307 (1969). 1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the hearing in this proceeding. However, James Thomas' wage rate was $5.63 an hour at the time of this layoff. On August 20, 1975, the Respondent hired a mechanic named Alfaro for $5 an hour, which was only 63 cents less per hour than Thomas was being paid at the time of his layoff. This, even though Alfaro was laid off on September 25, 1975, does indicate that the Respondent did take on a me- chanic almost as expensive to the Respondent's operation as was James Thomas, after James Thomas was laid off and the Respondent failed to recall James Thomas. Nei- ther have I failed to consider the upgrading of the front- end mechanic to perform some of the work formerly per- formed by James Thomas, which would indicate that Re- spondent sought to keep down its operating costs in the service department. Accordingly, although the matter is not without some doubt because the Respondent did have economic reasons for reducing its work force in the service department, I find and conclude that by reason of all of the foregoing, the preponderance of the creditable evidence heretofore set forth weighs in favor of a finding that the selection of James Thomas for layoff was discriminatory and in viola- tion of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Kimi Sales, Ltd., is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminatorily laying off and refusing to rein- state James Thomas because of his union activities, Re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tions 8(a)(3) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER6 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations de- scribed in section I, above, have a close , intimate , and sub- stantial relationship to trade , traffic , and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , it shall be recommended that Re- spondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir- mative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent unlawfully selected James Thomas for layoff and has failed to recall or rein- state him because he engaged in union activities , it shall be recommended that Respondent offer James Thomas im- mediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantial- ly equivalent position, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights or privileges he may have enjoyed. Respondent shall make James Thomas whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum equal to that which he would have received as earnings from the date of his layoff, May 21, 1975, until he is fully reinstated, less any net inter- im earnings . Backpay is to be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, (1950), with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum , to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record I make the following: Respondent, Kimi Sales, Ltd., Woodside, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Local 239, Internation- al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor oragnization, by selecting for layoff and refusing to reinstate or recall any employee for engaging in union or other protected concerted activity, or discriminating against employees in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of em- ployment or any term or condition of employment. (b) In any other manner , interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to join, form , or assist , or to be represented by Local 239, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted or protected activity for the purposes of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to James Thomas immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or privi- leges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimi- nation against him, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the 6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and Order , and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. KIMI SALES, LTD. Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, and all other reports necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under this recommended Order. (c) Post at its premises in Woodside, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respon- dent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director of Region 29, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 7 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX 1217 NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government We hereby notify our employees that WE WILL NOT select for layoff or discharge any of our employees because they engage in union or other protected concerted activities. WE WILL offer James Thomas immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equiva- lent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and WE WILL make him whole for any loss he may have suffered as a result of our dis- crimination against him in laying him off and failing to recall him for engaging in union activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your right to form, join, or assist, or be represented by Local 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor oragnization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or engage in other concerted or protected activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or any other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activity. All our employees are free to remain or refrain from becoming or remaining members of Local 239, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, or any other union, as the case may be, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. KIMI SALES, LTD.